I doubt that poor Tom wants this discussion to have his name on it, but he
has suffered far worse with good humor.
I think it important to note that Tom studies animal BEHAVIOR, his work is
in the field of "Neurobiology and Behavior", and bees are simply more
interesting subjects to him than ants might be. Of course he looks at bees
"in the wild setting", as he works to understand bee behavior with as little
human inference as possible. But his hives have about as much application
to practical beekeeping as an air rifle has to the running of a US Carrier
Strike Group. No matter how good a marksman he is, this is not in any way a
qualification to become a rear admiral in command of a CSG.
> Have they become better off, as a result?
> Can you name one thing as to how they
> benefited from treatment in long term?
Questions presupposing "knowing what is best for the bees" do not address
beekeeping at all.
The aim of beekeeping is to optimize human benefit through the management of
bees.
Beekeeping is a human activity, as it has been since humans first started
gathering honey.
It quickly became "animal husbandry" as is the case with all animals man
manages for his benefit.
To discuss the "welfare of bees" as if a swarm in a tree was the gold
standard for bee welfare is a ridiculous argument.
The life of a swarm in a tree is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
(per Hobbes' "Leviathan" - 1651).
If we are to "keep bees", we must have goals that are higher than that of
someone who goes back to the days of "bee gums", neglected and useless
except for the occasional tiny harvest.
Why should we concern ourselves with any advice that tells us that we must
invest time and money in keeping bees that are non-productive, little more
than a nuc? There was a "Mini Urban Beehive" marketed for a few years, with
tiny little frames and miniature boxes akin to mating nucs, as it was
discovered that many novices were simply afraid of a robust full-size hive,
and would enjoy dealing with "fewer bees", even if the hives seemed destined
to be swarm factories. And no, they certainly were not "urban" in any way,
that was just more marketing.
I like horses too, but I would have been charged criminally, and have the
horses seized by the authorities if I did not maintain fences, provide clean
water, shelter them, care for their hooves, and have the vet over when any
of them showed any sign of the multitude of ailments that afflict horses.
No one ever suggested that I turn my horses loose to fend for themselves in
the wilderness, or claim that it would be a better life than the one they
enjoyed in 30 acres of pasture with a barn, a river to wade into, and
unlimited good hay and apples. I had 17 horses, all but 2 too elderly to
even ride, as I was a soft touch for a sob story, and the barn and pasture
would have otherwise gone unused.
In contrast, my wife and I watch birds, and go far out of our way to watch
the antics of penguins. Penguins are absolutely inedible, ("shoe leather
soaked in turpentine" said Shackleton), have no useful purpose for
domestication, and both Emperor and Adelies live in places where humans
cannot survive for long without extensive support infrastructure.
We watch birds, we keep bees.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|