>> To me, knowledge is always better than ignorance...
>
>But, does it make ignorance necessarily *bad*? How much do we need to know?

Allen, isn't this the "Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and
Bee Biology"? Aren't we all proceeding under the assumption that it is
better to be informed than not? And that most certainly does not mean
just *more* information, but *better* information. What I seek and
what I try to pass on  is information of the highest quality.

> I was trying to say that if the local bees are so persistent that they need to be hunted down and eradicated, that there must be some redeeming quality there

I would liken the situation to feral dogs and cats. I can't think of
any redeeming qualities there. They are just a source of rabies and
babies.

> And, I can't believe all those skep keepers were as ignorant as suggested.  Some were, and some beekeepers remain ignorant today, but there were very smart and observant people as long as we had recorded history, and before, I would assume.

And they thought the big bee was the King.


-- 
pb

( Aristotle was the first to seriously study and record the behavior
of bees, although many of his theories seem laughable today. He
concluded that bee larvae came from olive blossoms; he believed the
honey was gathered directly from the flowers; and he strongly asserted
that bee colonies had to be presided over by a male, not a female. He
couldn't accept that a female creature would be armed with a stinger.
)

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---