Hi,

> True, but I'm not sure how rare.  There are islands in Europe  
> purposely being used this way.

Rare in this case would be only a few. This is interesting, could you  
tell me more? How many Islands, for how long have they been used this  
way, and how are they being looked at or monitored?

> In my mind, it appeared far cheaper to simply let the mites do the  
> work of depopulating the island, and starting fresh.

That may be true assuming that all colonies, managed and Feral, would  
die. If they all die then that would say that the 10% that is said  
would survive because they are mite tolerant is untrue. If some do  
survive then the Island would repopulate with mite tolerant bees from  
the Feral. I still think it would be best for experimental reasons,  
is to eradicate the beekeeper and then observe what happens to the  
bee from that point for about six or more years.

 > It's kind of nice to have a totally mite-free state.

There are still the other Islands. Also it would be nice to have bees  
that could tolerate mites and have a place where bees could go wild  
and show researchers how they would handle mites on their own.  
Another thing is what would be so good having a mite free state? I  
tried for years to get package bees from Hawaii and found out it to  
be very difficult for one reason or another. Beekeepers there are a  
unique lot but aren't all beekeeper unique. We could make Alaska a  
mite free state but beekeepers here are a unique lot for sure.

 > Perhaps the island could be restocked with virus- and nosema-free  
bees.

Where would those bees be found.

What makes this a "Mission Impossible? Mission Improbable?" is  
beekeeper influence.

Keith Malone

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************