1) I only started reading this list a couple of weeks ago. It's very interesting, informative and lively. I wish I had started looking at it sooner. 2) I'm not a beekeeper, and never have been one... yet. I would like to start one of these days. 3) I've already learned a lot, and hope to learn much more. There's an attitude of mutual support which is nice to see. 4) If this is a moderated list, it seems like time for someone to suggest moderation; if not, maybe it's time to stop responding to Andy Nachbaur and get on to more rational things. The arguments here are NOT about militarism and authoritarianism. This is a SCIENCE question. The personal and hearsay arguing just makes a lot of angry, frustrated readers. Stick to science - facts, reasoning. It's already established that the plant is highly invasive and disturbs habitat, bees won't be left without forage if some purple loostrife is eliminated, and that eradication is not even an expected outcome. (Please excuse the editorialism, but Andy's arguments for his bees seem uni-faceted and petulant in the face of a complex problem.) The question is about the efficacy of using the insects being suggested, the risk of unanticipated effects, and how radically the die-off will affect the immediate environment. Can we address those considerations? I was curious to know more about the insects being considered? ARE they the same ones used in the Canadian control effort? Have they been used anywhere else? What do the previously mentioned studies have to say? Etc. Jackie O'Keefe Austin, Tx.