# Human Made Feral Hives



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

I would think it would be complete legal to find or make a hollowed out log with holes as desired and put some LGO in it. 

This way there is a good chance you would also catch feral ones.

If you put packaged bees in there they might get mites or disease and die.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Is it legal, to create a similar hive, that is not human kept(therefore not managed) and leave it in the wild as a possible refuge for swarms and colonies.


Professor Tom Seeley has a feral hive project going right now, with something like forty hives set in the woods and not managed. However, they are in normal ten frame hives. In NYS it is illegal to have hives with unmovable combs. Secondly, while he doesn't manage them, he is able to inspect them to determine if they died from AFB or whatever. There is simply no particular downside to using an ordinary single story hive with frames as a bait hive, and the upside is that the combs are legal and moveable. I have inspected hundreds of abandoned hives, & it's really a nightmare where they have built cross combs, whereas if the combs are in frames you can get one or two out and have a look at the brood. (Looking is not managing)


----------



## Paul McCarty (Mar 30, 2011)

I believe hives similar to this have been done before as "Seed" hives.


----------



## JMoore (May 30, 2013)

nlk3233 said:


> Obviously, we know already that we cannot keep hives that do not have removable frames here in the states, due to disease concerns, AFB and others.


Is this true? I wasn't aware. I have neighbors that have upright logs capped with boards on top and bottom with a natural entrance. Interesting...


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

I would not call that "keeping" bees but I'm not a lawyer. For all anybody knows it was a ferrell hive he brought home in order to move them to a standard hive when the time was right so that he can then keep bees otherwise everyone who is in need of a cutout would be breaking the law


----------



## JMoore (May 30, 2013)

Harley Craig said:


> I would not call that "keeping" bees but I'm not a lawyer. For all anybody knows it was a ferrell hive he brought home in order to move them to a standard hive when the time was right so that he can then keep bees otherwise everyone who is in need of a cutout would be breaking the law


That's what I assumed they had done.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

nlk, what you want to do is called swarming. That's where most of the feral colonies in trees and buildings everywhere come from. They are cast off from managed colonies. It is not illegal to let your colonies produce and cast swarms.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

Ha ha can everyone say Golden mean hive Lol


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> Professor Tom Seeley has a feral hive project going right now, with something like forty hives set in the woods and not managed.


Where can I find out more about this? Read may studies and books by Tom Seeley. He also has a Utube video that some one posted.


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

so how many generations would it take to turn domestic bees into feral bees and what good would it do? according to the experts any good traits that a line of feral bees would be develope would be lost within a few generations because of the reproductive randomness of bees. sounds like a recipe for self extinction.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

How would this help the bees except in the case of doctor Seeley doing research.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Where can I find out more about this?


Tom told me that it's a three year study and the results are to be published. So far, I think they are two years into it.



> so how many generations would it take to turn domestic bees into feral bees and what good would it do?


Normally, feral means escaped from captivity and reverted to wild behavior. Since honey bees are not in captivity and are not domesticated, the term is inappropriate. Bees are essentially wild animals who are tricked into using our hives so we can take advantage of them. 

Many species such as Apis dorsata and Apis florea cannot be kept in hives, they simply will not stay. Honey bees in Africa will occupy log hives but will abscond (migrate) when the flow ends.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Studies in Victoria (Oldroyd et al. 1997a) found that the feral honey bee population was self-sustaining and did not rely on immigration from the commercial population. The genetic distance of the commercial bees (Better Bees WA and others) with the feral Western Australian population was thus also investigated to determine whether the populations are genetically distinct. This allowed testing of the hypothesis that the feral population is maintained by escapees from commercial colonies in Western Australia.
> 
> We investigated the genetic distance of the closed population breeding program to that of beekeepers outside of the program, and the feral Western Australian honey bee population. The feral population is genetically distinct from the closed population, but not from the genetic stock maintained by beekeepers outside of the program.
> 
> The representation of both subspecies in the mitotypes of the feral population indicates gene flow from the commercial A. m. ligustica colonies via swarming. This was not necessarily a recent event and does not imply that the feral population is currently being supplemented by swarms from commercial colonies.


Comment:
Here we see three populations: 1) closed breeding system; 2) open breeding system; 3) feral populations. The closed breeding system has succeeded in creating a distinct population whereas the feral population has not. According to the authors, the feral population may not be regularly infused with swarms, but has simply not diverged due to the lack of selective pressure. 

In the US and Europe it is hypothesized that the feral population could diverge due to the selective pressure of varroa mites. So far, there is little hard evidence to support that, aside from a few isolated survivor populations (plus, the Africanized bees). What is needed is evidence that the survival is due to genetic differences that can be replicated in other locales, thus ruling out environmental factors.

PLB

SOURCE:
Chapman, N. C., Lim, J., & Oldroyd, B. P. (2008). Population genetics of commercial and feral honey bees in Western Australia. Journal of economic entomology, 101(2), 272-277.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Where can I find out more about this?


 Have you seen this one?
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/89/22/36/PDF/hal-00892236.pdf


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Everybody cites the Arnot Forest study but they fail to note this part



> The logical next step in the study of the honey bees of the Arnot Forest is to test rigorously the hypothesis that the basis for this stable host-parasite relationship is the evolution of avirulence in the mites.


To my knowledge, this work has never been done. Therefore, there is no proof that avirulence is a factor. In fact, in Tom's subsequent work he is focusing on colony isolation as a driver of long term colony survival.


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

Thanks for everyone's responses! I will definitely look into Tom Seeley's work. Sounds very interesting. 




Acebird said:


> How would this help the bees except in the case of doctor Seeley doing research.


Well, as far as i see it, with more feral bee hives, the better chance that 1 or 2 or more hives will successfully overwinter, and thus increasing our population of bees. I'm just seeing it as a win win. We could catch more feral swarms, that would be a big plus.




> Is this true? I wasn't aware. I have neighbors that have upright logs capped with boards on top and bottom with a natural entrance. Interesting...


I may have used the incorrect terminology, but I am fairly sure you could not keep hives that could not be "inspected" as Peter has pointed out.
Thank you for that correction.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Legally or really responsibly.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I am fairly sure you could not keep hives that could not be "inspected" as Peter has pointed out.


I am not saying you couldn't do it, just that it is illegal in most states. For the most part, these laws are never enforced. I saw hives in Marin County, CA. that were in traditional skeps. I offered to show how to "inspect" them but when they realized I was going to cut a piece of brood comb out, they declined.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

nlk3233 said:


> Well, as far as i see it, with more feral bee hives, the better chance that 1 or 2 or more hives will successfully overwinter, and thus increasing our population of bees. I'm just seeing it as a win win. We could catch more feral swarms, that would be a big plus.


You feel just by providing more housing for the bees there would be more of them. I can't buy that concept.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> Everybody cites the Arnot Forest study but they fail to note this part.


This wasn't my point. I was replying to a poster who asked where a study of Seeley's, depicting the feral swarm traps could be found. In the study I linked there are photos and descriptions. That is, generally speaking, what this thread is about. 
Who said anything about avirulence....other than you?


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

Acebird said:


> You feel just by providing more housing for the bees there would be more of them. I can't buy that concept.


Maybe I'm missing where your logic flows, but if you can explain it, i would appreciate it.

We know for a fact that by providing more housing for native bees(artificial or naturally sourced) the populations climb. 
Is it so absurd to think this logic doesn't apply to honey bees? Looking for constructive criticism here.


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

beemandan said:


> This wasn't my point. I was replying to a poster who asked where a study of Seeley's, depicting the feral swarm traps could be found. In the study I linked there are photos and descriptions. That is, generally speaking, what this thread is about.
> Who said anything about avirulence....other than you?


Thank you for posting it, the photos should be a big help! 

I do think Peter makes some great points, although not necessarily what I was asking about, related none the less. I appreciate all the input here.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

nlk3233 said:


> We know for a fact that by providing more housing for native bees(artificial or naturally sourced) the populations climb. Is it so absurd to think this logic doesn't apply to honey bees? Looking for constructive criticism here.


Yes, to use your words it is absurd and that populations of native pollinators climb by providing more housing is not a fact that I am aware of. Native pollinators as well as honeybees find their own housing whether you provide it for them or not.

If you want to raise the feral honeybee colony numbers, keep bees and let them swarm. And let them find their own housing themselves.


----------



## cryptobrian (Jan 22, 2012)

sqkcrk said:


> It is not illegal to let your colonies produce and cast swarms.


This is, of course, locally significant and not a universal truth. Pointing out as folks generally should be aware of their own local laws regarding the keeping of bees as some do address principals of management, includes those that lead to swarming.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> It is not illegal to let your colonies produce and cast swarms.
> 
> This is, of course, locally significant and not a universal truth.


OK, then. Where on earth is it illegal to let your bees swarm? Now, there are some places where it's illegal to keep bees at all, but I have never heard of any jurisdiction that allows beekeeping provided they do not swarm. There is no surefire way to prevent swarming, so how could such a law be passed?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> There is no surefire way to prevent swarming, so how could such a law be passed?


All sorts of Laws are written and passed by people who don't know what they are doing.


----------



## cryptobrian (Jan 22, 2012)

peterloringborst said:


> OK, then. Where on earth is it illegal to let your bees swarm?


King County, WA.

The code contains a few interesting provisions, including:

* Adequate space shall be provided in each hive to prevent overcrowding and swarming;
* Colonies shall be requeened following any swarming or aggressive behavior;
* Abandoned colonies, diseased bees, or bees living in trees, buildings, or any other space except in movable-frame hives shall constitute a public nuisance, and shall be abated as set forth in K.C.C. 21A.50.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Colonies requeen themselves after swarming, don't they?
Who is going to do this abating and how?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

The City of Issaquah (located in King County WA) has even more ridiculous regulations in its municipal code.



> D. Nuisance: Bees shall be considered a nuisance when any of the following occurs:
> 
> 1. Colonies of bees are defensive or exhibit objectionable behavior, or interfere with the normal use of property, or the enjoyment of persons, animals or property adjacent to an apiary(s); or
> 2. [HIGHLIGHT]Colonies of bees swarm[/HIGHLIGHT]; or
> ...


 If a hive swarms, it automatically qualifies as a "_nuisance_" hive.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Nuisance: Bees shall be considered a nuisance when any of the following occurs:
4. The hive(s) becomes deceased

Yep, those deceased hives sure are a nuisance! Might attract one of those nuisance swarms, and give them somewhere to live ...


----------



## Agis Apiaries (Jul 22, 2014)

Harley Craig said:


> I would not call that "keeping" bees but I'm not a lawyer. For all anybody knows it was a ferrell hive he brought home in order to move them to a standard hive when the time was right so that he can then keep bees otherwise everyone who is in need of a cutout would be breaking the law


In Colorado, you are a "beekeeper" if you are "producing or causing to be produced bees or bee products." Our law goes on to say that "all beehives shall have removable combs." So, one might want to be careful about intentionally creating a hive without removable combs, whether you intend for it to become feral or not. Check the laws in your state.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> The City of Issaquah (located in King County WA) has even more ridiculous regulations in its municipal code.
> 
> 
> 
> If a hive swarms, it automatically qualifies as a "_nuisance_" hive.


I don't see it as ridiculous. It speaks of colonies (plural). That sounds to me like the law is targeting people who encourage swarming and not one that is unintentional. But hey I am not a lawyer.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

So, Ace, do you also have an _alternative_ interpretation for "deceased"? :lpf:


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

BlackForestBees said:


> In Colorado, you are a "beekeeper" if you are "producing or causing to be produced bees or bee products." Our law goes on to say that "all beehives shall have removable combs." So, one might want to be careful about intentionally creating a hive without removable combs, whether you intend for it to become feral or not. Check the laws in your state.


I thought there were some stipulations in certain states. I'll have to look into PA.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> So, Ace, do you also have an _alternative_ interpretation for "deceased"? :lpf:


Foolish question, no? Maybe that is why you are banging on the floor?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Trying to fit things into boxes of "feral" or "wild" and "domestic" is an ongoing and confusing issue. In a nearby town to me there is a fight with people who are catching feral cats and neutering them and releasing them. The authorities say once they caught and nurtured them, they own them and are now responsible to confine them. The people having them neutered argue that they are already wild and they are just trying to keep the population under control and if they aren't allowed to neuter them there will be more wild cats running around with no one to take care of them...

I think this is similar. If you set a box out with the intent of giving a home to a wild owl or a wild bat, no one seems to question it, but there are a very limited (and very controlled) number of people keeping any of those as pets or livestock. If you set a home out with the intent of wild bees moving in and they do, the authorities may view them as domestic now that they are in a box. And if they are domestic, you are responsible for having movable comb... depending on how they want to interpret it. Most states where I have read their laws, the bee inspector can call any hive a nuisance and have it destroyed even if it's a feral hive in a tree... then it becomes a judgment call on the part of the inspector.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Trying to fit things into boxes of "feral" or "wild" and "domestic" is an ongoing and confusing issue.


You are further confusing it by talking about cats, owls and bats. The difference between feral and domestic cats is very distinct. Bees, on the other hand, are not domesticated. They are wild animals whether in a hive or a tree.



> Most states where I have read their laws, the bee inspector can call any hive a nuisance and have it destroyed


I worked as a NYS bee inspector, and not only is this not in the law, no inspector would do it. We only condemned hives with AFB and had all diagnoses verified by Beltsville. 

African bees are illegal in NYS, but it is impossible to get testing done in a timely manner. Even so, the inspectors do not destroy suspected hives, although personally I would recommend it


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> The difference between feral and domestic cats is very distinct.


If a domestic cat that is in heat is left in your woods, it doesn't take long for a feral cat to impregnate it and you wind up with 7 or 8 cats that are feral. I told my wife to think of them as wood chucks and give them the deep dunk but noooooo. We have to care for them and with great difficulty get them to a vet to have them neutered. There goes a grand out the window. Now because they are feral you can't give them away so you have to let them go. The difference between feral and domestic cats is not so clear to me. I think cats turn feral about as fast as bee do except it happens much more often with cats.


----------



## spreerider (Jun 23, 2013)

peterloringborst said:


> You are further confusing it by talking about cats, owls and bats. The difference between feral and domestic cats is very distinct. Bees, on the other hand, are not domesticated. They are wild animals whether in a hive or a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are bees wild, they have been part of active breeding programs trying to breed certain qualities into them, honey production, calmness and disease resistance, sounds like they are domesticated to me.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>You are further confusing it by talking about cats, owls and bats. The difference between feral and domestic cats is very distinct. Bees, on the other hand, are not domesticated. They are wild animals whether in a hive or a tree.

The issue of how people view it is the same. If there are bees in a box in my backyard the inspector probably doesn't care if they moved in by themselves or not. It is the same issue as the feral cats because it's the view of when they are "your" bees or "wild" bees. When are they "your" cats or "feral" cats. If I leave some food out for them are they now my cats? If I put a box out for the bees are they now "my" bees?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> The difference between feral and domestic cats is not so clear to me.


Having worked at the SPCA, I think I understand the difference. Cats raised by people are usually very friendly and appreciative. Cats raised in wild are generally vicious. I was told that wild raised cats cannot be tamed, so they are neutered and released. The same unit insisted that any tame cats be must be kept indoors and not allowed to breed outside, which could increase the population of feral cats.



> Are bees wild, they have been part of active breeding programs trying to breed certain qualities into them, honey production, calmness and disease resistance, sounds like they are domesticated to me.


There is a difference between breeding and selection. Breeding causes material changes like turning ancestral dogs into the dog breeds we have now. Selection means finding and using existing animals, like gentle Carniolans or mite resistant Russian bees. Nobody has taken the wildness out of bees. 

For example, nobody has ever bred a bee that doesn't swarm. We manage swarming by adding supers, but if you crowd bees, they will generally swarm and head for the woods. Dogs, on the other, if you put them out the door, will bark until you let them back in.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Acebird said:


> If a domestic cat that is in heat is left in your woods, it doesn't take long for a feral cat to impregnate it and you wind up with 7 or 8 cats that are feral.


There is no such thing as a domestic honey bee.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> >If I leave some food out for them are they now my cats?


This I can answer. If no body wants them then surely they are your cats and most likely nobody wants them otherwise they would be feeding them. Now bees, if I could only feed them and they would stay with me I would have it made.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry said:


> There is no such thing as a domestic honey bee.


In your mind Barry. A domestic honey bee is a member of a colony that some beekeeper is watching over, manipulating if you will. The instant that the beekeeper stops manipulating their domicile they become feral. Walk away from your hives Barry and they will be feral and you might not like it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> In your mind Barry. A domestic honey bee is a member of a colony that some beekeeper is watching over, manipulating if you will. The instant that the beekeeper stops manipulating their domicile they become feral. Walk away from your hives Barry and they will be feral and you might not like it.


You know, we have definitions for things so we can discuss them. Domestication is a specific thing. The domesticated plant or animal bears little resemblance to the original wild type. With animals, this has to do with behavior (not whether somebody has put it in a box). With plants it is mostly to do with making them taste better, look better, etc. There are very few wild undomesticated plants that would appeal to the average person. Try eating acorns, if you doubt this.

European bees are not domesticated like a cow or pig. They happen to tolerate our activities (up to a point). Their behavior is unchanged from the wild type, that's why they do about as well in a tree or a hive. We can watch them, feed them, but their behavior is unchanged. Now, African bees have a different behavior, just like wolves and foxes have different behaviors. They are kept in hives in Africa and America, yet their behavior is unchanged by that fact. They are not tamed by beekeepers, far from it.

You are free to make up your own definitions, you can call a cat a dog. But we can't really have an active conversation unless we agree upon essential definitions. By the way, this is not a "matter of semantics." This is about reality, just like water freezes at 0 C and boils at 100 C (at least at sea level).


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> In your mind Barry. A domestic honey bee is a member of a colony that some beekeeper is watching over, manipulating if you will. The instant that the beekeeper stops manipulating their domicile they become feral. Walk away from your hives Barry and they will be feral and you might not like it.


So, if I understand you correctly, Brian, the bees in your boxes are domesticated bees only while you have the hive open and are manipulating the frames and such. Then, once you close up the hive and walk away they are suddenly feral again and remain so until you return and do something w/ them. Is that what you maintain?

Brian, what do you think you would find if you sequenced the DNA of what you consider a domesticated honeybee and then also a feral honeybee? What differences would you expect to see? Any? None?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peterloringborst said:


> You know, we have definitions for things so we can discuss them.


I don't know, Peter. Seems to me that in this so called modern age people feel entitled not only to their own opinions, but their own facts and that it is up to the other person to understand what they mean and if they don't they are the one that's in the wrong.


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

In the Convention on Biological Diversity, a domesticated species is defined as a "species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs."[3] Therefore, a defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by humans. Humans have brought these populations under their control and care for a wide range of reasons: to produce food or valuable commodities (such as wool, cotton, or silk) and for types of work (such as transportation, protection, warfare), scientific research, or simply to enjoy as companions or ornaments From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. as far as the thought that domesticated animals are defined as not being able to return to a wild state most if not all domesticated by defiition animals can live in the wild no problem.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Want to make more feral honeybee colonies? Let them swarm. As soon as they become establish in a hive not managed by a human they are feral, as feral is used by beekeepers when talking about honeybees. Feral anything else is someone else's problem.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> most if not all domesticated by defiition animals can live in the wild no problem.


That's simply not true. Most domestic animals wouldn't last a week in the wild. Most people wouldn't last very long, either, being completely domesticated. By the way, Wikipedia is a convenient source of misinformation. Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper.



> Individual wild animals vary in traits affecting their desirability to humans. Chickens were selected to be larger, wild cattle (aurochs) to be smaller, and sheep to lose their bristly outer hairs (the kemp) and not to shed their soft inner hairs (the wool). Most domestic animals, including even recently domesticated trout, have smaller brains and less acute sense organs than do their wild ancestors. Good brains and keen eyes are essential to survival in the wild, but represent a quantitatively important waste of energy in the barnyard, as far as humans are concerned.
> 
> Among wild mammal species that were never domesticated, the six main obstacles proved to be a diet not easily supplied by humans (hence no domestic anteaters), slow growth rate and long birth spacing (for example, elephants and gorillas), nasty disposition (grizzly bears and rhinoceroses), reluctance to breed in captivity (pandas and cheetahs), lack of follow-the-leader dominance hierarchies (bighorn sheep and antelope), and tendency to panic in enclosures or when faced with predators (gazelles and deer, except reindeer). Many species passed five of these six tests but were still not domesticated, because they failed a sixth test.
> 
> ...


This last reminds me of the reaction of bees to being enclosed. The are practically useless for greenhouse pollination because they keep trying to get out. And if you screen a large colony of bees in a hive, they are liable to suffocate, since they crowd the entrance trying to get out and block the air flow. They require a natural diet to thrive, their disposition makes them unsuitable for ordinary gardeners (most people are not beekeepers). The breeding is the real sticking point. You can't put a queen and a drone together to mate. They have this habit of flying off and getting pregnant by the neighborhood riff raff.





> Domestication is generally considered to be the end-point
> of a continuum that starts with exploitation of wild plants,
> continues through cultivation of plants selected from the
> wild but not yet genetically different from wild plants,
> ...


Domestication of Plants in the Americas: Insights from Mendelian and Molecular Genetics
BARBARA PICKERSGILL, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Reading, Reading, UK
Annals of Botany 100: 925–940, 2007


----------



## Scpossum (May 4, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Yes, to use your words it is absurd and that populations of native pollinators climb by providing more housing is not a fact that I am aware of. Native pollinators as well as honeybees find their own housing whether you provide it for them or not.
> 
> If you want to raise the feral honeybee colony numbers, keep bees and let them swarm. And let them find their own housing themselves.



Ever heard of hurricane Hugo? Wintering hives in SC you might be familiar with it. I guarantee you the increase in habitat will increase colony numbers. Just the colonies that build on open limbs would have a better chance of success if they get into a suitable structure. Sounds like a grant I should apply for.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

And how does one go about providing more housing and what would you expect the impact to be? What year was Hugo? I forget.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Most domestic animals wouldn't last a week in the wild. 

Off the top of my head I've seen lots of feral (domestic gone wild) chickens, cows, horses, donkeys, pigs, cats, dogs, ducks, geese, goats, pigeons and guineas all living in the wild with no assistance from people. Domestic turkeys might not last a week...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> >Most domestic animals wouldn't last a week in the wild.
> 
> Off the top of my head I've seen lots of feral (domestic gone wild) chickens, cows, horses, donkeys, pigs, cats, dogs, ducks, geese, goats,


That proves what? That you've seen them. My statement was that most wouldn't, not that none would. But surviving for a spell is not the same as reestablishing a population. Feral cats are not the same as domestic cats, they revert to a wild state. 

I find the idea that domesticated ducks would survive in the wild comical. Not if there are coyotes around. Heck, I lost a domestic duck right out of my yard (I suspected poaching, but more likely it was a coyote).

I don't think most people would be able to survive in the wild. We are a domesticated species, dependent on each other and agriculture for our continued survival. The example of one hermit living in a cabin proves little, by the way. There a millions of people who die each year due to the rigors of nature (starvation is quite natural when there is no food)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I suggest anyone interested in the difference between domesticated and wild animals read a little more. Like this article from the journal "Nature" 



> Much of this review is devoted to domestication itself: its
> origins, the biological changes involved, its surprising
> restriction to so few species, the restriction of its geographic
> origins to so few homelands, and its subsequent geographic
> ...


NATURE | VOL 418 | 8 AUGUST 2002 | www.nature.com/nature


----------



## Scpossum (May 4, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> And how does one go about providing more housing and what would you expect the impact to be? What year was Hugo? I forget.



1989. What they said in the beginning. They were wanting to drill holes in hollow trees and scent with LGO
I think the bees know what they want more than we would, but you can try to increase habitat. Hugo took down a lot of our older trees with hollows. I was basing my theory on habitat with the general consensus that if you create better habitat, then target species thrive. Examples would be quail, turkeys, deer, etc. each have a mgt plan available to increase the species. We do the same thing when we plant huge crops of cotton, beans, corn etc. We create an artificial supply for insects that we consider pests. It might be artificial creation of habitat, but once it is developed it can be replicated. I imagine you could do that with bees as well if you had the knowlege and mgt plan in place. Tom Seely's study would be a good one to watch. 

Not sure I want a bunch of holes drilled in every hollow tree on our farm, but it is an interesting concept to think about. Hugo took out one of the biggest pines on our farm that had a wild colony in it. That tree had to go about 175-200 years old. I have trees that are from the early 1900's and this one was double their size. 

Hey Mr. Bush...you forgot the Emu. Been quite a few in the past running wild. It's a shock when you are turkey hunting to see that thing walk up.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Hey Mr. Bush...you forgot the Emu. Been quite a few in the past running wild. It's a shock when you are turkey hunting to see that thing walk up. 

I didn't forget... I've never seen a feral one... only domestic. There are other domestic animals that do well as ferals, that I haven't seen, like camels and llamas... I did see a feral Parrot living in a nest at the top of a light pole on a transformer in Chicago... looked like it had been there a long time and locals say it has been there for years...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> And how does one go about providing more housing and what would you expect the impact to be?


I would expect the impact to be more untended colonies, which is not a good thing. We already have thousands of colonies owned by _know nothings,_ essentially wild hives which get the honey ripped off once in a while. 

Seriously folks, the best place for honey bees is in hives. You can maintain them _as if wild_ if you want to. (Do nothing. Repeat as needed.)

But please, _please_, at least twice a year, check them for _foulbrood_! (If you don't know how to inspect your hives for disease, you shouldn't have bees, it is completely irresponsible and no help to anyone or anything.)


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> >Most domestic animals wouldn't last a week in the wild.
> 
> Off the top of my head I've seen lots of feral (domestic gone wild) chickens, cows, horses, donkeys, pigs, cats, dogs, ducks, geese, goats, pigeons and guineas all living in the wild with no assistance from people. Domestic turkeys might not last a week...


and hogs. turkeys depends on the variety heritage breeds would have a good chance even wild turkeys have a high mortality rate especialy if there are high populations of predators around. and what does weather a human can survive got to do with what is the definition of domesticated sorry mike i missed that you said pigs


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>>>most if not all domesticated by defiition animals can live in the wild no problem. 
>>>That's simply not true. Most domestic animals wouldn't last a week in the wild. 
>>Off the top of my head I've seen lots of feral...
>and what does weather a human can survive got to do with what is the definition of domesticated 

I thought the point being made was that most domestic animals cannot survive in the wild, while the reality is that most not only survive as well as the wild animals, but often better. If the definition of "domesticated" is that they have been genetically bred to be cared for, to the point that they cannot survive in the wild, then it has EVERYTHING to do with the definition of domesticated...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

j.kuder said:


> as far as the thought that domesticated animals are defined as not being able to return to a wild state most if not all domesticated by defiition animals *can* live in the wild no problem.


Can? All bees live in "the wild." How is it any different when my bees leave their hive to bees from a "feral" hive? They all live in the wild.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I thought the point being made was that most domestic animals cannot survive in the wild, while the reality is that most not only survive as well as the wild animals, but often better.


Where I live, the only domestic animals that survive in the wild are feral cats. Our area has abundant wild life, such as wild turkeys, deer, possums, foxes, coyotes, hawks, vultures, bears. No escaped domestic animals whatsoever. I doubt any of them would survive. We have a six month long winter. What is a domesticated animal going to do during that period, having been bred to depend on humans? I sometimes wonder how the deer make it, but then -- they don't mind eating wild rose bushes, etc. I guess I would, too, if I were starving.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The idea that a purebred horse, for example, would survive better in the wild than in a barn is silly. 

But now you are changing the definition from "survive" to "survive better". Very different things.

I've never lived anywhere nor been anywhere outside of cities that there weren't packs of feral dogs, feral chickens, lots of feral cats, feral white ducks that are so prolific that they have to catch them and dispose of them to keep them from taking over the lakes. Only in the US have I ever seen cities without feral chickens everywhere. I've never seen a city without feral cats and dogs and pigeons. In Wyoming, I've seen feral horses and feral donkeys. In the Virgin Islands, I've seen feral cattle and feral donkeys (along with the usual). Only on Anegada were there no feral cats (no cats at all as they are illegal). In Texas I've seen feral horses, donkeys and pigs.

With all of these animals in all of these places they were so successful that people had to make an effort to control the populations...

If you point is that an individual would be better off domesticated, that may be true or it may not. The feral ones don't seem to think so.


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

peterloringborst said:


> I would expect the impact to be more untended colonies, which is not a good thing. We already have thousands of colonies owned by _know nothings,_ essentially wild hives which get the honey ripped off once in a while.
> 
> Seriously folks, the best place for honey bees is in hives. You can maintain them _as if wild_ if you want to. (Do nothing. Repeat as needed.)
> 
> But please, _please_, at least twice a year, check them for _foulbrood_! (If you don't know how to inspect your hives for disease, you shouldn't have bees, it is completely irresponsible and no help to anyone or anything.)


I'm glad you brought this up, as the whole point of my topic is the exact opposite of your point in this post. 
This is purely opinion, and not slated.
I feel that most hives would manage better without human interference. Most people see bees as commodities instead of living beings. Thus their level of care is influenced as such. Take as much honey as they can and replacing with HFCS is not a viable alternative, nor is it sustainable. (this may be similar to what you're referring to in your post.)
I would definitely agree that in a perfect world they should be checked. To bad it isn't perfect :s


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> You: the reality is that most not only survive as well as the wild animals, but often better.
> 
> Me: The idea that a purebred horse, for example, would survive better in the wild than in a barn is silly.
> 
> You: But now you are changing the definition from "survive" to "survive better". Very different things.


You were the one who said they would survive better, not me.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I feel that most hives would manage better without human interference


I believe in honey bee conservation, but the fact is they would not exist in the US if Europeans hadn't brought them here. They are a non-native species and in some settings, an invasive one. 

I would reiterate that conservation of honey bees can be reasonably done by keeping bees in frame hives, just like conservation of birds can be done with bird houses. The advantage to a frame hive is that it can be inspected. This is required by law in some jurisdictions. The reason is obvious: untended hives harbor foulbrood disease. The disadvantage to the bees from living in a frame hive: none. Bees in a hive are just as wild as bees in a tree or cave. 



> Take as much honey as they can and replacing with HFCS is not a viable alternative, nor is it sustainable. (this may be similar to what you're referring to in your post.)


I have never used HFCS, I don't condone it. Only cost cutting commercial beekeepers go that route. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. In terms of viability and sustainability, that's a separate issue. However, plenty of beekeepers have been doing this for many decades, so if that isn't viable and sustainable, I don't know what is.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>You were the one who said they would survive better, not me. 

My point was the species is thriving in the wild. Your point is the individual would be better cared for. I think we are making entirely different points.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

peterloringborst said:


> Our area has abundant wild life, such as wild turkeys, deer, possums, foxes, coyotes, hawks, vultures, bears. No escaped domestic animals whatsoever.


It was my understanding that all the wild turkeys were gone in NYS when I was growing up. They had to take a domestic bird and re introduce it to the wild. Maybe it was pheasant that I am thinking of.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> My point was the species is thriving in the wild. Your point is the individual would be better cared for.


I think the sticking point here is "in the wild." Living in or adjacent to human habitat is not wild. Think wilderness, and then tell me how many domestic animals are thriving there. Some actual numbers might be nice, instead of "I've seen."

Why on earth would people spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars preparing animals to be re-introduced, if all you had to do was let zoo animals go and they would be fine? If wild animals raised in captivity are difficult to reintroduce, then what logic suggests that domesticated animals with no experience fending for themselves, would be able to make it?


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> I don't quite make out the difference between thriving and thriving. Whatever. I think the sticking point here is "in the wild." Living in or adjacent to human habitat is not wild. Think wilderness, and then tell me how many domestic animals are thriving there. Some actual numbers might be nice, instead of "I've seen."
> 
> Why on earth would people spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars preparing animals to be re-introduced, if all you had to do was let zoo animals go and they would be fine? If wild animals raised in captivity are difficult to reintroduce, then what logic suggests that domesticated animals with no experience fending for themselves, would be able to make it?


zoo animals are wild animals


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> Some actual numbers might be nice, instead of "I've seen."
> 
> U.S. Wild Horses: Too Many Survivors on Too Little Land?
> 
> ...


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

here is another one for you peter.
Long a nuisance to landowners in the South, an estimated four million feral hogs have spread to 37 states in the last few years, according to the federal Department of Agriculture. Omnivorous, destructive and dangerous, they cause an estimated $800 million in property damage every year, or $200 a hog. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/sports/othersports/21hogs.html?hp&_r=0


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

OK, I think we're getting far off topic here. All this comparing bees to other animals is a bit far fetched. Bees aren't zoo animals. Bring it back to bees.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> OK, I think we're getting far off topic here. Bring it back to bees.


Fair enough. 

Conservation of bees is a legitimate concern. But it implies that honey bees are in danger, which I think they are actually not. I have been researching the topic and my findings may surprise you. The number of colonies in the US is around 2.6 million, about the same as 100 years ago. There was a surge during WWII due to demand for beeswax, but the numbers fell off after the war.

The FAO estimates there 81 million honey bee colonies in beekeeper's hives worldwide. As with any census this number is probably wrong, it's probably way too low. However, the number of kept hives is small compared to the number of wild hives. Estimates indicate that there are probably 500 million colonies in Africa and at least 300 million in the Americas. 

On the other hand, it is native bees in the Americas that we need to be concerned about, not so much honey bees. These are in decline in some areas, mostly due to loss of habitat. Native bees need brush piles, loose soil, dead wood, etc. to nest in. Ironically, suburban areas are very suitable for natives since there tend to be nesting sites and also a variety of flowering plants.

There is a lot of good stuff out there on how to encourage native bees to live near our homes. I would check that out. It's not just about honey bees, you know.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

j.kuder said:


> and what does weather a human can survive got to do with what is the definition of domesticated


Whether a human can survive is often dependent on the weather, whatever that has to do w/ the Thread topic. I don't know why you brought it up.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

nlk3233 said:


> I feel that most hives would manage better without human interference. Most people see bees as commodities instead of living beings. Thus their level of care is influenced as such. Take as much honey as they can and replacing with HFCS is not a viable alternative, nor is it sustainable.


I have tried that and you are wrong. Most hives/colonies under my management have, in my experience, when left untreated died.

I see every bee I see as a living being. Please don't assume otherwise. I know that as a beekeeper, making a living from my bees not simply being someone who has bees, my job is to do my best to keep my colonies alive all the while taking enough honey to sustain me and mine while leaving enough to sustain the bees along w/ supplemental feeding.

"nor is it sustainable"? You make that claim while commercially managed colonies are being sustained as well as beekeepers too. So far what is is sustaining. So I don't know how you can say what is isn't sustainable.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

nlk3233 said:


> We also know that our feral bee populations are in decline,


We do? Do we? By whose count?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The wild hogs are descended from, surprise: wild hogs



> They descended from the unholy union of swine introduced to Florida by conquistadors, domestic pigs escaped from farms and Eurasian wild boars released by hunters.


same for the horses:



> The Pryor horses, descendents of Spanish horses brought to the New World by the conquistadors in the 16th century, are among the most intensely studied in the world.


None of these animals are the result of modern domesticated livestock escaping into the wild. Did you read those articles? They go on to say:



> With a high birth rate and few natural predators (hunting has thinned the ranks of mountain lions and bears) their numbers can climb fast.


In other words, it's really a consequence of the loss of natural predators, which is a consequence of human activity. SO these animals are thriving -- not in the wild -- but in a human dominated environment. Essentially, they are still under our protection since we have wiped out their natural predators. In a truly wild environment you would have a strong population of large predators which would quickly eliminate any escaped livestock. You could make a pretty good case that the human race has domesticated most of the world. There are wild species remaining and wilderness areas, but we have turned a large part of the planet into places where people predominate. The remaining planet feels our influence in myriad ways. See Bill Mckibben's 1989 book, "The End of Nature."


----------



## j.kuder (Dec 5, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> The wild hogs are descended from, surprise: wild hogs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh ok what ever you say


----------



## spreerider (Jun 23, 2013)

i shot 2 feral pigs last summer and where i live there are no pigs descended from wild hogs, i have seen turkeys running around in the woods as well and no native turkeys here.

Have we modified bees through breeding to make them different than wild bees? we have bred lines of bees, italians buckfast etc. those are not wild bees they have been bred and their behaviour altered, they make more honey than they used to and they are calmer to being opened up and manipulated.

as for mating with random drones you can controll that by having many hives so the odds are in your favor that they are not going to meet a significant amount of outside drones, same for breeding any wild animal you cant be certain a wild animal is not going to mate your domestic (wolf dog hybrids) but you can limit the potential for it to happen,

bees can also be artificially inseminated so you can force the breeding you want. 




peterloringborst said:


> The wild hogs are descended from, surprise: wild hogs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I find the topic of domestication to be very interesting but it's not really what this thread is about. Sorry for veering so far off course


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> I have tried that and you are wrong. Most hives/colonies under my management have, in my experience, when left untreated died.
> 
> I see every bee I see as a living being. Please don't assume otherwise. I know that as a beekeeper, making a living from my bees not simply being someone who has bees, my job is to do my best to keep my colonies alive all the while taking enough honey to sustain me and mine while leaving enough to sustain the bees along w/ supplemental feeding.
> 
> "nor is it sustainable"? You make that claim while commercially managed colonies are being sustained as well as beekeepers too. So far what is is sustaining. So I don't know how you can say what is isn't sustainable.


I'm sorry if I worded that post towards you or anyone else, it was more a generalization, not directed at anyone in particular. 
The comment about sustainability should not be confused with survivability. Just because your hives, or anyone's hives survive does not mean it is sustainable. If you compare HFCS and honey; the minerals, vitamins, and antioxidant counts between the two, it gives me enough evidence I need to draw the line on what is healthy and sustainable for my bees, and what simply gets them by.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

nlk, you are ahead of the curve.  Usually it takes someone 2 years before a newbee is an expert. lol

But let me treat you as an equal and someone who may know what they are talking about. If survivability doesn't constitute sustainability what does? Letting colonies die until you get some that don't?

Would you say that my tag line illustrates sustainability? "That which works persists."? Is persistence sustainability or survivability?

Agricultural methods and techniques change as change is needed. When a better way is needed and reveals itself. Beekeeping is not just keeping bees.

My bees are not just getting by. No more than I am. You didn't point your post at me, but I can only really respond w/ what is going on in my hives. I also doubt that any of my friends who run more colonies than I would characterize their colonies as getting by.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

nlk3233 said:


> The comment about sustainability should not be confused with survivability. Just because your hives, or anyone's hives survive does not mean it is sustainable. If you compare HFCS and honey; the minerals, vitamins, and antioxidant counts between the two, it gives me enough evidence I need to draw the line on what is healthy and sustainable for my bees, and what simply gets them by.


You know what your colonies mineral, vitamin, and antioxidant counts are? Darn, I am behind the times.

Having been at this game for over 30 years, I have adapted different methods and techniques over the years. Does that exhibit sustainability? Or survival?

What exactly is your plan for a sustainable apiary?


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> nlk, you are ahead of the curve.  Usually it takes someone 2 years before a newbee is an expert. lol
> 
> But let me treat you as an equal and someone who may know what they are talking about. If survivability doesn't constitute sustainability what does? Letting colonies die until you get some that don't?
> 
> ...


I like your Signature. Its true. It is closely related to our topic at hand, I think were in the same Church, wrong Pew. 
Maybe this would work best if it had criteria to meet. 
From Sir Google:
*Sustainability* is the ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely. 
*Survivability* is the ability to remain alive or continue to exist. 
Now personally, i would define sustainability as keeping bees without the need for outside inputs, just a few examples; supplemental feeding, parasite treatments, and others.
We COULD define survivability as staying alive with the help of outside inputs. 
I don't personally see our current model of beekeeping as sustainable, by this definition(Of course I don't, I made it up!) 

If we want to tie it into agricultural practices, our current model of industrial agriculture is so petroleum dependent that many of us could not eat if the supply was cut. That is not a sustainable practice. If you would like a sustainable model to look at, check out Joel Salatin at PolyFace Farms. 
Man, I wish he was a beekeeper! 
I know we have gone well of course here, but I like the discussion.


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> You know what your colonies mineral, vitamin, and antioxidant counts are? Darn, I am behind the times.
> Having been at this game for over 30 years, I have adapted different methods and techniques over the years. Does that exhibit sustainability? Or survival?
> What exactly is your plan for a sustainable apiary?


I do not know those levels in my hives, but I can compare them to the nutritional value to HFCS and draw a fair conclusion 
I am by no means saying I'm correct and that's the end of the story. Just putting my ideas out there.

As far as a sustainable apiary, I wish I could remember the beekeepers name, who is keeping over 1000 hives, treatment free and breeding the surviving colonies. He's been at it for sometime now. Ill go home and check my book. As far as I can see, that is sustainability in its earliest form. 


> But let me treat you as an equal and someone who may know what they are talking about. If survivability doesn't constitute sustainability what does? Letting colonies die until you get some that don't?


This is exactly what hes doing. I'm not saying its the only method to the desired outcome, but what he sees as right.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If that is the definition of sustainable then nothing is sustainable. Every practice changes.

One thousand colonies treatment free? That's the largest I have heard of so far. Who is that?


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

His name is Kirk Webster.

http://kirkwebster.com/

Sorry, had to check my reference book.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kirk has no where near 1,000 colonies.


----------



## nlk3233 (May 19, 2014)

According to my source he does, Or possibly did not long ago.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If he ever had that many, it was a long while ago, I believe. It would be a nice idea if he could maintain 1,000 treatment free colonies, but I don't think he has managed to do so. Seems like his doing so would be more public knowledge than it appears to be.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm sure it varies by the time of year, but according to Kirk in May of 2006: "I'm keeping 300 colonies of bees now for honey production and try to have 100-300 nucleus colonies available for sale each spring..."

http://kirkwebster.com/index.php/the-natural-form-of-a-northern-apiary

see page 419, 3rd column second paragraph.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>One thousand colonies treatment free? That's the largest I have heard of so far. 

Dee and Ed Lusby had over 1,000. Dee by herself can't quite keep up with that and is down to more like 600 now. Treatment free or not, I think that's about what one person by themselves can keep up with.


----------

