Dave wrote:


>    Would some of our "purist" colleagues refuse antibiotics or other
> lifesaving drugs to their own children when they are ill?  -Or let
> them die, rather than be weakend by "dopes?"

Actually, there are some that do and they often end up in court when the
children die. Look no further than the current hysteria over
vaccinations for children.

Dave points out real essence of the argument which is "What do we owe
our bees?"

I was a dog owner. There is no way that I would treat her less than
myself, so she had all sorts of unnatural treatments, such as monthly
heart worm pills, flea collars, rabies shots, and the food she was fed
came from a bag, not the great outdoors. To do otherwise would make me a
poor steward of the life in my care.

Research labs developed all the treatments for my dog. I did not let
nature take its course.

Research labs developed treatments for my bees.

If we are going to embark on trying new concepts, there is nothing wrong
in researching the idea and trial it in our own yards. Many humans
volunteer for experimental surgery or drugs when there is no other
course of treatment and there is the possibility of success based on
prior research. That is an ethical decision. If we do our homework and
limit the number of colonies we are not sacrificing all our bees, an
ethical decision.

We are stewards of our bees. What makes a good steward?

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::