On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:28 AM, James Fischer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> It appears that you believe that all feral 
>> stock in Los Angeles is "AHB"
> 
> I merely cited the evidence-based findings of the responsible authorities,
> and several recent media reports from the LA area.
> They make some pretty firm statements, for example:
> 
> http://acwm.lacounty.gov/scripts/ahb.htm
> "We declared Los Angeles [county and city] completely colonized in April
> 1999"
I cannot speak for 1999. I only know that working full time at bee removals, this is not what

working bees in a tee shirt
> 
> is a good test for a hives' temperament as "acceptable stock"

I don't agree. There are feral bees in tree and walls -that sting - all over LA County, and managing them with moveable frames seems to me exactly responsible.  

Keeping bees in my town means you provide fresh water for them; not doing so could be a factor in stresses enough to cause hive failure. 

> But I still get questions all the time about "AHB".  When the newly-elected
> mayor of a city of over 9 million people walks away from a group of
> deep-pockets donors to ask me "How are your bees doing, jim?", I have to
> hold my breath and pray 

I see this is a very emotional issue for you and I apologize if I have upset you. 

> It's not a good idea to think that Dr. Eric Mussen is anything but very,
> very, very well-informed about every nuance of beekeeping you can imagine
> and many you can't.  His newsletter is among the best sources of practical
> information a beekeeper can use to improve his or her skills, and he has
> been a go-to-guy for decades.  

I recognize Eric Mussen's broad authority and his contributions in so many areas of this field. But I maintain, the area of feral beekeeping in Southern California is not something he knows about in a meaningful way. Articles from the Los Angeles Times decrying the Killer Bees are there to sell newspapers and not to truly investigate the state of things here. I am in it and I am telling you, there are a lot of strong and workable bees here. 

It is not my intention to provoke anyone here or to raise anyone's hackles. I simply wanted to set the record straight about why the Backwards Beekeepers founders bowed out of the enterprise. But as it appears that there is some interest, it is worthy of note that the so-called Mongrels of this area are in fact largely very workable (but not in a tee shirt) and express a hybrid vigor that should in my opinion attract the attention of someone in the scientific community who is looking for genes to include in a healthy pool. 
> 
> But how does one afford full bee suits for all one's neighbors, and convince
> them that your hobby is worth them wearing such a get-up when they want to
> barbeque on a day when you want to work your bees? 

If it were that bad I wouldn't be able to do it, would I? I'm telling you, you are misinformed. Or is that Mussen-formed. 

> But the claim seems to be that the scutella genetics are
> "superior
What is superior is the hybrid, not the purebred. As is often the case in animal breeding. Purebreds often have problems that disappear in the hybrids. But I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new here. 
             ***********************************************
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