>If you choose to use my ideas as a springboard to a different subject and
>go on a tangent, then fine and good, but please do not argue with things I
>did not say or imply and attribute them to me.  Please go back and read
>what I wrote and what you werote and think about it.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.  Is there something you 
believe that you don't want to come out and say?  What did I attribute to 
you that you object to?  Whether you meant to or not, whether it was 
implied or not, your message suggested things that--apart from 
clarification--I object to, and so I said what I said.  Specifically, I 
object to 500+ hives, almond pollination, and a full-time living as a 
universal (or even generalized) standard of success.

I, for one, don't aspire to any of those things, and I don't think that 
makes me any less successful or any less a model of success (although 
plenty of other things do).  And why should it?

Moreover--and this is critical--I think those standards *tend* to run 
contrary to organic management principles--as one example of where the 
above definition of success runs awry.  (Even if we want to define organic 
as a set of rules, there's at least some foundation in principle to those 
rules.)  This list discussed the study comparing organic and conventional 
rapeseed not too long ago.  Several people pointed out that the difference 
in the number of foragers could very well be due to systemic differences 
(i.e. big picture stuff) and not to any difference in plants from gene-
altered seed.  In any case, there are systemic differences, and in that 
study the organic system (as a whole) was favorable.  My point is that 
beekeeping success is more consistent with some kinds of agricultural 
systems (including distribution and marketing systems) than others.  

Is organic beekeeping success consistent with large-scale operation; 
extensive, capital-intensive management and the correlated mass-marketing; 
large monocultures and the corresponding absence of agricultural 
diversity?  Of course, the answer is that it depends on the specific 
circumstances, but in general, strong arguments can be made that these 
things aren't complementary.  To define success by these things, then, 
*could* mean defining success as engaging in and supporting those things 
which undermine beekeeping success.  That's a lousy definition of 
success.  That's like growing two hundred bushel/acre corn and 
disregarding the loss of two thousand bushels/acre of topsoil to erosion.  
Growing corn that way is foolish, short-sighted, irresponsible "success," 
which is no real success at all.  

Does that compare to beekeeping?  I'm not making the case that it does, 
but I am objecting to any definition of success that rules that 
possibility out and implicitly makes the counter-argument.  A good 
definition of success won't be self-defeating.

Eric

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