Hopefully Aaron will not censor my email... :) >>Think about medicine, for example. Before antibiotics and vaccinations people died from minor infections. A lot of historians and doctors argue lethal infections subsided after sanitation and nutrition improved in overcrowded cities 20-30 years before mandatory vaccinations. >>Sure, modern medicine makes people less resistant to disease... ...and cancer. The immune system is also responsible for detecting and containing cancer cells. >>Yeah, well, I disagree on this. I think the idea that the "bees in the woods" are somehow better adapted, is nonsense. They are just escaped swarms anyway so they are no different than any old neglected bees. One would have to offer evidence to support either argument. Tom Seeley has seen bees survive on their own in the woods in upstate NY. Have you collected any marked queens in the woods? I've been collecting swarms and feral colonies for several years. I get the queen 4 out of 5 times. I have yet to see a marked queen. I know supercedure, beekeepers not marking queens etc. but it's an indicator. Most of my collections come from areas without known beekeepers. >>If somebody wants more vigorous stock, they can simply let the weak ones perish. Right. Nature does it on its own as well. >>A further disincentive to using wild hives is that these are a source of African genes. Perhaps in the southern states but not up north. There is a growing drive to raise northern queens for northern beekeepers. Not just to keep Africanized genes out but also to have more productive, mite resistant stock. None of the local beekeepers who have used stock from the south or California have been very happy with the inconsistent performance. >>no good will ever come from going back to the days when beekeeping was basically just catching swarms and robbing them, with no idea what was going on inside of the hive. I agree. One needs to do selective breeding on their own. Waldemar -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---