>I have to come back although I fear that I am wasting my breath - virtually
>speaking.
Not at all. I am highly entertained, and I thank you.
>So conservation is fine as long as it benefits humans or makes sense to you?
Interesting that you say that. I did not.
I just said that is when I find myself conserving. I make no judgement
as the 'fineness' or reasonableness of my actions in that regard. I was
just brought up that way. I can't help myself.
>>My issue was with the claim that an attempt to repurify current bee
>populations back to a supposed ideal historical strain and create
>exclusion zones is "conservation". To me, it is not.
>This misses the point completely.
I think not. What I think you are advocating is not what you seem to
think you are advocating. I don't have a problem with people doing
what they like. Some want to control others and force their prejudices
on them, though. Is that what I see here?
If so, I've seen the results of such actions and they are almost invariably
a diminishment of wealth, diversity, and opportunity.
>In very recent years huge amounts of damage have been done
>by selfish beekeepers who have imported exotic races of bees
>from all over the world into northern Europe. Their motive is
>simply to make a quick profit with no thought for the consequenses
>of their actions.
Nonsense! We all know that beekeepers do not seek profit, and
if they accidentally make a profit, they promply squander it on more
bees, equipment and/or ornate antique honey pots and obscure
old books which suggest the world was very different in the past.
And.. if they still have some left, they order exotic queens from
far away to impress their friends.
>This is not 'nature' at work - it is a disaster caused by human
>greed.
I hardly know what to say except that the entire history of the
world as far as we can ascertain has been an unbroken series of
disasters that has led us to our present state -- in the midst of
ongoing disasters, both sudden and gradual.
>Of course I can appreciate that the point may be lost on some from
>the other side of the pond where there are no discrete native races of bee,
>but to some of us over here it is important.
And to many it is not. In fact many have figured they could improve on
that 'race' and did so -- in the opinion of many.
>When humans do not intervene, we see nature as an evolutionary rather than
>revolutionary process. That, to me, suggests conservation of what is best
>adapted to the local environment. Let me give an example. I feed my
>locally adapted mainly dark northern European bees around 10lbs of sugar to
>get them through the winter. As I get closer to the native bee by
>selectively breeding out the unwanted exotic genes, I feed them less each
>year - and can see the day coming when feeding will not be required at all.
>Compare this with the situation when our National Bee Unit was situated just
>outside Stratford in the early 1990's. At one time they had dark bees, but
>then Vince Cook - erstwhile National Beekeeping Adviser to New Zealand -
>became its new director. He immediately re-queened all the colonies with NZ
>Italians - and I am reliably informed that the colonies then needed feeding
>60lbs of sugar to survive to winter. If left to nature which bees would
>survive - the Italians or mine? Which are more suited to the local
>environment? Which should we 'conserve'?
I know I sin by not trimming the above, and started to, but it is very interesting
and relevant. I agree with all your points.
My point is that you are telling the story from your perspective and with your bias.
Those of us with no dog in the fight imagine that there are two sides and
that the other side could be just as convincing or more so.
As a point of interest, I have mentioned that I had bees which needed no feeding,
and survived well, but unfortunately -- for me -- did not make me enough to live. I
my greed (I just found out) I replaced them with bees which did need feeding, but
produced far better.
Stock choice is based on personal criteria, and many beekeepers disagree on the
fine points, but the sucessful ones find what works for them..
If beekeeping is agriculture, then bees will be selected on the basis of their
suitability for the specific purpose at hand. There are differences. I can hardly
imagine a farmer raising Brown Swiss for meat or running Black Angus cattle
through a milk parlour.
If beekeeping is a hobby or crusade, then maybe one size fits all and there
is no need for varieties. If it is a business, then there is.
Ask Bob, though and he knows the bee he wants for
making honey in his region. I imagine it is the same everywhere.
It concerns me when some are called 'greedy' or 'having no thought' for
doing what they think best after some consideration and controls are proposed
or enforced to constrain accepted practices.
It also concerns me to hear Brother Adam condemned. Persoanlly, I am not as
impressed as many by the whole tale, as some, but I certainly respect him
as a beekeeper and observer of bees. Too bad he is not around to defend
himself. I think he would do so just fine.
As I said, I've seen the results or repressive regimes run out of the
best of motives. I've also seen those results contrasted with a liberal
and enlightened regime right next door.
The difference is night and day.
***********************************************
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
