At 10:40 AM 2/18/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi Mike:
>
>I appreciate your reply to my comment questioning whether or not you
>are (still) a beekeeper.  I understood from your post that you have
>no bees due to self-admitted neglect.
>
>Don't get me wrong.  I am very sorry for your loss, and share your
>wish for mite-proof bees.
>
>I think the question of who can honestly think of himself and call
>himself a beekeeper these days does need examination and that's why
>I commented on the list.  I think the rules have changed without many
>of us noticing.
>
>It might help to realise that your 100% loss is a direct result of
>thinking that you still qualify as a beekeeper.  Events have proved
>you wrong.
>
>The implication seemed to be that it is somehow the bees' fault (not
>being mite resistant) that they are all dead.  Not so.  Bees
>properly kept will still survive - even today.  We have the tools.
>
>At this very moment my son (24, BA in Philosophy) is on his way (700
>miles each way) to an intensive Bee Masters course.  He has kept his
>own bees (24 hives - he usually beats my average) and worked in a
>large commercial outfit since he was ten, but still is not really
>(100%) a beekeeper.  You might think this is a harsh judgement, but
>it is the truth and he knows it. That's why he's investing the time
>and effort to learn - and to write the exam.
>
>I'm personally signed up for the 3 day disease and mite clinic
>presented in Edmonton by our province as well as another course much
>farther away.  I have also budgetted $10,000 for mite detection and
>control this year.
>
>If you have been allowing your hives to collapse with varroa, I pity
>your neighbours who are (hopefully) doing everything right.
>
>Why not get with the program?  It's not *that* tough.
>
>The ante for calling yourself a beekeeper has been raised.  Mites are
>here.  There are no mite-proof honeybees.  Even *mite-resistant* bees
>need an insightful and competant beekeeper who is prepared to use
>controls as indictated.  There is no magic bullet.  You have to think
>and observe and manage - and raise your sights.
>
>If you don't - no matter what you wish - you are not a beekeeper
>anymore because you simply can't keep bees alive - and that is the
>*minimum* standard.
>
>-------------------------------
>
>P.S.
>
>I hope you - and others - find this useful.  I spent two and a half
>hours trying to say it nicely.  How did I do?
>
>I know it still could be construed as being a little abrupt, and I
>apologise in advance.
>
>
 
Your two and a half hours were wasted.  You still cannot hide your pompous and
arrogant attitude, Mr. Dick.  As usual your posting amounted to nothing more
than your
self-agrandization.
 
Who's rules concerning beekeepers have changed, yours?  Who cares?
 
Pete