> is there really any proof of greater human mortality after AHB arrival? I don't have a clear and compelling smoking gun, as this would require state-by-state data that I have yet to find, but here's a summary of the best data I could find on the issue: http://bee-quick.com/reprints/stingdeath.pdf (from the 09/05 issue of Bee Culture) Which show a lower rate of sting deaths in Canada, which clearly has no AHB problem. (Theories that Canadians are faster runners, are smarter and would not spray colonies of bees with cans of Raid, and so on are equally possible explanations for the difference in per capita deaths.) To be honest, we simply don't have enough deaths to make any valid (statistically significant) conclusions about the fraction that is known to be due to AHB versus the fraction that MIGHT be AHB, but might just as easily be due to yellow jackets. Post-mortems rarely include the identification of the specific type of stinging insect that caused the death. And yeah, they made a typo in the article, which I have yet to tweak in my copy of the final pdf. The chart heading "more risk of death than from stings?" should read "How many times more risk of death than from stings?" On the other hand, this guy, one who would seem to be motivated to "hype" the problem as much as possible, as he hawks a line of cheap veils for first responders, can only claim 15 "confirmed deaths" in the USA from AHB defensive stinging incidents since day one: http://www.stingshield.com/chron.htm He does have some nice maps, though: http://www.stingshield.com/all-us.htm jim -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---