At 10:40 AM 2/18/96 -0600, you wrote: >Hi Mike: > >I appreciate your reply to my comment questioning whether or not you >are (still) a beekeeper. I understood from your post that you have >no bees due to self-admitted neglect. > >Don't get me wrong. I am very sorry for your loss, and share your >wish for mite-proof bees. > >I think the question of who can honestly think of himself and call >himself a beekeeper these days does need examination and that's why >I commented on the list. I think the rules have changed without many >of us noticing. > >It might help to realise that your 100% loss is a direct result of >thinking that you still qualify as a beekeeper. Events have proved >you wrong. > >The implication seemed to be that it is somehow the bees' fault (not >being mite resistant) that they are all dead. Not so. Bees >properly kept will still survive - even today. We have the tools. > >At this very moment my son (24, BA in Philosophy) is on his way (700 >miles each way) to an intensive Bee Masters course. He has kept his >own bees (24 hives - he usually beats my average) and worked in a >large commercial outfit since he was ten, but still is not really >(100%) a beekeeper. You might think this is a harsh judgement, but >it is the truth and he knows it. That's why he's investing the time >and effort to learn - and to write the exam. > >I'm personally signed up for the 3 day disease and mite clinic >presented in Edmonton by our province as well as another course much >farther away. I have also budgetted $10,000 for mite detection and >control this year. > >If you have been allowing your hives to collapse with varroa, I pity >your neighbours who are (hopefully) doing everything right. > >Why not get with the program? It's not *that* tough. > >The ante for calling yourself a beekeeper has been raised. Mites are >here. There are no mite-proof honeybees. Even *mite-resistant* bees >need an insightful and competant beekeeper who is prepared to use >controls as indictated. There is no magic bullet. You have to think >and observe and manage - and raise your sights. > >If you don't - no matter what you wish - you are not a beekeeper >anymore because you simply can't keep bees alive - and that is the >*minimum* standard. > >------------------------------- > >P.S. > >I hope you - and others - find this useful. I spent two and a half >hours trying to say it nicely. How did I do? > >I know it still could be construed as being a little abrupt, and I >apologise in advance. > > Your two and a half hours were wasted. You still cannot hide your pompous and arrogant attitude, Mr. Dick. As usual your posting amounted to nothing more than your self-agrandization. Who's rules concerning beekeepers have changed, yours? Who cares? Pete