Honeybees aren't native to the US, but there are lots of native bee species. I see no reason to assume that every beekeeper is only in it for the honey.
Excluding commercial beekeeping operations, the profit motives that small operations and amateur beekeepers keep bees include:
- for the honey (to sell it at a profit)
- for the hives (to sell them at a profit)
- for side-lines like queen rearing (to sell them at a profit)
- for property tax breaks
There are also reasons that have no profit motives. Some beekeepers do it to "save the bees", but the bees don't need saving. Others do it because it's fun (yes, it is fun!). Some might even do it because the hum of the bees is so relaxing, and some even believe that bee venom stings are therapeutic (I've heard this from some friends).
(You can of course buy mason bee nests or whatever, but nobody calls you a beekeeper for doing that).
I think you know my position on this already though: fuck bees. Imagine getting on a high horse about exactly how people keep a bunch of non-native bugs. That's what this is a thread about!
(everybody else: if you live in a locale where honey bees are native, I'm not talking about your bees.)
We're all invasive. And we've brought a ton of non-native species to all parts of the world over the millennia we've been doing this. I'm not sure what you propose we do now about that. You can't unbreak that egg. I could stop beekeeping, and it wouldn't make a difference. We could stop all commercial beekeeping and that would likely be an agricultural disaster for many crops.
Given all of that, why should one not look into how best to "keep a bunch of non-native bugs"?
> We're all invasive.
Humans are absolutely not an invasive species in the americas. We may have been when we first arrived – and many native species went extinct as a result – but humans have been a part of the local ecosystems for tens of thousands of years and – where I'm from in canada – have been here since the ice sheets receded and the local ecosystem began to evolve. We are far past the point of being an invasive species and have (had?) long been integrated into the ecosystems in question.
For sure.
> but the urban beekeepers
Are they really a problem? How many hives are they keeping? I've no idea. I know it's hard to come up with numbers in that regard because most such hives are -presumably- completely not registered.
Urban and suburban beekeeping can only be considered a hobby. And a risky one at that. Bees don't like lawn mowers running near them, and neighbors don't like getting stung. I think urban beekeeping must be a non-problem.
> Humans are absolutely not an invasive species in the americas. [...]
Fair.
There's still lots of practical reasons to want and recommend treatment-free beekeeping practices:
- it's easier on the beekeeper
- less labor
- not working with dangerous chemicals
- it's cheaper (no need to buy said
dangerous chemicals)
- less time doing things to the bees
that the bees don't appreciate ==
fewer stings
- it's easier on the bees (no pesticides)
- it breeds stronger bees and weaker mites
Plus if the loss rates w/ and w/o treatment are similar, why bother treating?
Similarly there are moral and practical reasons to switch from Langstroth to top-bar hives:
- moral: kill fewer bees
- practical: get stung less,
no need for gloves
nor full suits, only veils
I like a mason bee. Docile and fuzzy, those guys.
We're switching to top-bar hives, and after that it will be comb honey only, because I don't want to bother extracting honey if it's not in Langstroth frames, and I don't want any more Langstroth. I'm thinking I'll still have some Langstroth supers because, well, I don't kill bees when inspecting supers or harvesting, it's when I get into the deeps that killing bees becomes almost impossible to avoid, and if that works out I think that will yield better-looking comb honey. I'm done with plastic foundation, too, and therefore also with centrifugal extractors.
On the other hand, I think that hobbyists are doing some of the driving towards better mite treatment practices. It's new eyes on the problem. It's also driven some investment in research. Texas A&M's honeybee (and other bee) research budgets have gone up in recent years, and I suspect part of that is that interest in beekeeping is way up, and part of that has to do with Texas allowing beekeeping as a type of ag activity that can earn one an ag exemption on property taxes but also with the rise of beekeeping as a hobby.
> I like a mason bee. Docile and fuzzy, those guys.
Even Apis mellifera is fairly docile if, you know, you don't kill any of them. The bees in my nucs never ever sting -- they don't have that much to protect, but also I never kill any at that stage when I inspect those. The real problem with beekeeping is the bleeping Langstroth hive -- it might as well have been designed to kill lots of bees. Even with lots of practice and patience, and having put a lot of effort into finding ways to avoid killing bees, I still manage to kill one or two when I get into a Langstroth hive -- it's infuriating, to me and my bees.
Thanks for reminding me, I've been meaning to put up a mason bee hotel. I hope not too late.
Most other native bees are ground nesting. Leaving bare earth or brush piles can help.
I found page on making wild bee sanctuary: https://davidsuzuki.org/living-green/how-to-grow-a-wild-bee-.... And one on mason bees: https://davidsuzuki.org/living-green/how-to-support-mason-be....
Are there any proposals to ban beekeeping?
It's possible that in Texas the property tax break incentive for beekeeping will be removed, because it's fairly new and because it's getting abused. But I seriously doubt that a ban on beekeeping will pass anywhere.
There are non-native plants (like almond trees) in the North Americas that are mainly pollinated by non-native bees. We couldn't realistically outlaw even just commercial beekeeping, though politically it may be possible to outlaw amateur beekeeping (would that make a dent?).