3 ms·

There is a balancing act here: while beekeeping does in many ways help support the population of non-native species, you are right in noting that a lot of euras

There is a balancing act here: while beekeeping does in many ways help support the population of non-native species, you are right in noting that a lot of eurasian plant species that we rely on need domestic bees – and honey bees, in particular – to produce our food. At the same time, that modern monocrop agriculture is further exacerbating the problems faced with non-native species – especially in the case of those eurasian plant species. It seems to me that honey bees must be kept in agricultural settings – and in that case, I hope that they are kept responsibly – but the urban beekeepers discussed upthread should, perhaps, put a larger part of their effort towards keeping native species. > 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.

cryptonector 3y ago
> At the same time, that modern monocrop agriculture is further exacerbating the problems faced with non-native species 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.
- tptacek 3y ago
  It's not really my point that beekeepers should feel bad about what they're doing, only that they should stop moralizing so much about it. Unless they're in the UK. I guess honey bees are allowed there.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    I can get behind that. I don't like moralizing either. 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 It might be easier on the environment too (not so strong mites might not affect native pollinators much), or maybe not (stronger honeybees might really out-compete native pollinators). 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 If a beekeeper lacks empathy for the bees, they might still have empathy for themselves!

cryptonector 3y ago

> At the same time, that modern monocrop agriculture is further exacerbating the problems faced with non-native species 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.

tptacek 3y ago
It's not really my point that beekeepers should feel bad about what they're doing, only that they should stop moralizing so much about it. Unless they're in the UK. I guess honey bees are allowed there.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  I can get behind that. I don't like moralizing either. 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 It might be easier on the environment too (not so strong mites might not affect native pollinators much), or maybe not (stronger honeybees might really out-compete native pollinators). 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 If a beekeeper lacks empathy for the bees, they might still have empathy for themselves!