Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:41:13 -0500 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="windows-1252" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Why is it so difficult to simultaneously appreciate the great
accomplishments of skep beekeepers AND the innovation of Langstroth? They
are LIVING examples of how beekeepers can come up with very different,
creative and functional solutions to similar problems. Like Allen, I
lament that skep beekeeping is not more widely practiced as I think
diversity is important to innovation.
In light of this remarkable ingenuity, I find it surprising that Allen
would heap the blame of our narrowed perspective on the "stifling"
influence of state and provincial inspectors. This over estimates the
influence of the inspectors and give beekeepers too little credit for
their ability to think for themselves. Personally the inspectors I have
met have been knowledgeable, helpful and well-respected. They do not
warrant this blame.
It would be interesting to know if non-movable frame beekeeping was at all
prevalent at the time of the Bee Acts or if it had already gone into
decline.
Adony
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|