1) I only started reading this list a couple of weeks ago. It's very
interesting, informative and lively. I wish I had started looking at it
sooner.
 
2) I'm not a beekeeper, and never have been one... yet. I would like to
start one of these days.
 
3) I've already learned a lot, and hope to learn much more. There's an
attitude of mutual support which is nice to see.
 
4) If this is a moderated list, it seems like time for someone to suggest
moderation; if not, maybe it's time to stop responding to Andy Nachbaur and
get on to more rational things.
 
The arguments here are NOT about militarism and authoritarianism. This is a
SCIENCE question. The personal and hearsay arguing just makes a lot of
angry, frustrated readers. Stick to science - facts, reasoning. It's
already established that the plant is highly invasive and disturbs habitat,
bees won't be left without forage if some purple loostrife is eliminated,
and that eradication is not even an expected outcome. (Please excuse the
editorialism, but Andy's arguments for his bees seem uni-faceted and
petulant in the face of a complex problem.) The question is about the
efficacy of using the insects being suggested, the risk of unanticipated
effects, and how radically the die-off will affect the immediate
environment. Can we address those considerations? I was curious to know
more about the insects being considered? ARE they the same ones used in the
Canadian control effort? Have they been used anywhere else? What do the
previously mentioned studies have to say? Etc.
 
 
Jackie O'Keefe
Austin, Tx.