>    So you'd rather preserve the susceptible stocks?

How do you read that into what I wrote?  I give up.  I said the opposite. 
Or tried to, anyhow.

Seems this is a really hard topic for many people.  I oversimplified it for 
clarity, but still many think in terms of absolutes rather than tendencies 
and destruction rather than management.

I do appreciate Randy's comments, though.  As always, he has thought this 
through and sees the difficulties that still exist in this transitory time 
and the problems that can occur in crowded regions.

What is obvious, though is that many are able to operate in somewhat crowded 
areas and still have few AFB problems.

Although I do not consider the existence of AFB open to robbing to be a huge 
problem, since hygienic bees will deal with it (although they may have 
spotty brood during that challenge), I do consider the nearby presence of 
pools of susceptible genetics to be a hazard.  I'd be more worried about a 
neighbour with a thousand hives like the ones Robert is probably running 
than some supers of AFB-riddled equipment.

I especially have to think about this when I am advocating walk-away splits 
and not careful maintenance of tested and proven hygienic stock.  I confess 
I have this luxury because there is no one within ten miles of me and 
because when I beg queens, they come from the Saskatraz project or Kona, or 
Buckfast, or other quality stock.  (My friends have good taste in bee 
stock).

As always, it is easy to state generalities.  It is the specific cases that 
are always problematic.

Many are running without much or any AFB medication, relying on resistant 
stock, but the devil is always in the details.

Thanks all for the input.

             ***********************************************
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