> I finished reading Randy's interpretation ... Interesting opinion piece but lacks reality in my opinion 

This kind of dismissive attitude adds nothing. Randy spent hundreds of hours putting that piece together and it has been enthusiastically received by most. Randy has tirelessly sought out the best information from around the globe and published it without expectation of reward equal to the amount of effort expended. And you dismiss it as not based on reality. Really, the quality has mainly to do with the willingness of people to share information, so if it is inaccurate it certainly isn't Randy's fault. He did all the heavy lifting required to get the job done. 

> The reason I give little importance to the survey is as BEE Informed says the survey is based on 22.9% of beekeepers. LESS THAN ONE FOURTH.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of statistics knows that a large sample size is not needed to get adequate results. If anything, this type of survey overstates the losses, since sideliners reported more than large operators, and these had higher losses. Dennis and his colleagues are to be commended for their efforts to gather, analyse and publish this much needed information. Seat of the pants assessments are worth far less than the responses of thousands of beekeepers from all over the country. Why don't you offer something constructive instead of shooting down the hard work of others?

Pete from NY, with eyes on the locust flow.

             ***********************************************
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