>joe bossom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>the natural vs. "assisted": beekeeping discussion is interesting even 
if it changes no one's mind.  Can some scholar amongst you tell me what 
sort of bees are native to North America?

Hi Joe & Peter,

The definition of natural does not necessitate that something must 
be “native” in order for it to be natural.  

This defining the term natural continues,,,

Peter Borst also writes: 
>Natural in the USA would mean: no honeybees… 

In biology, natural is defined as:
“Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: 
natural immunity; a natural reflex.”  Nothing mentioned about native.

Peter Borst writes:
>I am a little tired of people getting up on the soapbox and claiming 
to be "more natural than thou". I know plenty of beekeepers who would just 
as soon stop applying chemicals…

Please be more specific, as Bill Truesdell mentioned earlier that using 
the term “chemicals” is far too confusing and vague, and could 
interpreted to mean nails, wood, glue, coors beer and humans.  

The attempt here to define who is “more natural” by the degree 
of “chemical” or level of contaminates does not fit the definition.

If beekeeper was claiming to be keeping bees in a more "natural" fashon.  
This would mean that the beekeeper is practicing beekeeping techniques 
that allow the honeybees own immune system to develop by the honeybees 
natural means.  A beekeeper using natural beekeeping practices would be 
using  methodry which promotes the healthy development of the honeybee 
colony and its natural way of living, together with the needs of the 
beekeeper,  that do not serve to prop up bad genetics.  Si IMO, natural 
beekeeping covers much more than the use of pesticides in the colonies.

Best Wishes,

Joe Waggle 
Ecologicalbeekeeping.com 
‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' 
Feral Bee Project:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---