LAUSR

Continued reports of bee declines have prompted repeated calls for a national monitoring programme in the United States. Here, we argue that such a large‐scale surveillance monitoring programme would consume inordinate resources without providing the sought‐after data in a meaningful time period. Surveillance monitoring cannot provide reliable and timely measures of absolute or relative population size, species richness or diversity, host plant and nest site preferences or typical foraging ranges. In addition, the multitude of specimens captured by the passive traps commonly used to surveil overwhelm our identification capacity and, in some cases, may even accelerate species decline. Conversely, surveillance monitoring should be pursued when data can be collected non‐lethally for readily identifiable species or species groups (e.g., bumble bees) or when widely distributed sentinel plants can be observed (e.g., sunflowers). Lethal collections should continue at appropriate temporal intervals but only at a limited number of representative areas with accurate historic records. We advocate that emphasis be placed on a targeted, natural‐history approach aimed at addressing specific hypotheses and exploring solutions to conservation management problems. We already know enough about the drivers of bee decline to formulate and test potential solutions. While additional information is of value in understanding bee diversity, distributions and evolution, we do not need it to begin to take action; we should be focusing on the best ways to help bee species endure rather than attempting to accumulate even more evidence that they are in trouble.