Dave Cushman wrote:
>
> You have to ensure that both nature and you are pulling in the same
> direction, by generating selection criteria that are known to be 
> achievable against the background population (which you must record, 
> investigate and measure), your selection criteria must take into 
> account what can be done rather than reaching for the moon. You have 
> to start with what you have already and can sensibly introduce. 
I had a wonderful survivor colony which I dubbed the "Colony that would 
not die". The only problem with it was it produced zero honey. I left it 
alone since it did provide a nice genetic base, but all it did was 
spread the low honey production, not survival.

As Dave notes, we often select for the bee we want and not the bee that 
will do well in our area. If we want a bee that does not mesh with the 
area (something we really have trouble knowing), we have to shift from 
what George Imire called BEEHAVERS (he loved caps) to beekeepers. In 
essence, we are managers of the bee we want and not necessarily the bee 
that would do best as a feral. The only way to have a colony that does 
mesh with the area is to leave it alone. Generally, they die.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************