Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:37:19 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response |
Organization: |
Deep Thought |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> I run into people who point out colonies that have existed for many years
> in trees. If they did, they would be the holy grail that we search for,
> but they never are. After more detailed questioning, it usually turns out
> that there were years when there were no bees in the tree.
<etc.>
Seems our group is divided into two, some who think wish that feral bees are
the answer to everything--a mystique as one writer put it, and others who
insist there are no feral bees.
I personally fall between and suggest that each position might be correct or
incorrect for some specific region. Each person typically decides from his
or her own, necessarily limited experience and imagination, but that this is
a huge continent, and it is possible that both are right, in specific
instances.
Where it all goes wrong and debate lets us down is when categorical
statements are made, one way or the other. Some large regions are wilder
and friendlier to bees than others, and those living near such places may
see things that might not occur in a heavily farmed and treeless region.
Personally, to me it is obvious that all ferals must be escaped bees, but
that the extent, in terms of time and distance, and degree of their
independent existence is the real subject of interest--and of question. I
suspect there is not just one answer.
allen
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|