Beeforest
House Bee
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Sussex
- Hive Type
- National
- Number of Hives
- 3 nationals 2 warres and a few nucs
Having ready David Heaf's Bee-Friendly Beekeeper recently one of the more interesting ideas he explains is four possible moral stances to nature and that of beekeeping.
He does not say that one is more defensibly ethical than any other and that we as beekeepers have a free choice to place ourselves anywhere on the spectrum between Dominator to Participant.
I feel that this attitude could go a long way to explaining the stances people have taken on this site and with other beeks I know when criticising others' methodology.
I will briefly summarise the four views:
Dominator
Holds that nature is for supporting the human race.
Maximum profit, utility is sought.
Genetics of bees modified by any technique profitable.
Greatest control sought over bees, queen clipping, synthetic acaricides.
Take as much honey as possible.
Pursue pollination contracts - move bees many miles.
Steward
Sees himself as entrusted with the use of nature, endorses a duty of care.
Breeding sought to increase production.
Recognises that human interests have to yield to avoid putting nature out of joint.
Conventional beekeeping techniques, frames, swarm control, inspection for disease, non synthetic acaricides etc
Movement of bees short distances timed with nectar flow.
Partner
Regards animals as potential allies.
Nature is an interplay of different life forms - each with value.
Exploitation can occur as long as animal is not unnaturally forced. Exploitation may even have benefit.
Willing to accept lower profits for bee friendlier conditions
Queen building in mini nuclei but no lab genetic modification
May or may not use frames, QE
Inspection to a minimum
Allows healthy drone populations
Bees wintered on a fair amount of their own honey
Formic acid organic varroa control used
Works with natural swarming process intervening to make splits when time is ripe.
Participant
Mankind is integrated within nature so sets limits to man's intervention in nature.
Use natural processes as much as possible.
Bee keeping is centred on the bees and to their contribution to the local area.
Works with locally adapted bees.
Likes to harvest honey but will forego this if it means taking it and feeding sugar.
Natural comb only, no QE, nadiring supers,
Natural swarming - bait hives used.
No chemicals Varroa policy of co adaptation and co-evolution
Please note that I have mentioned 4 distinct views, in truth though this is a spectrum and many people would lie between two views.
David Heaf cites that Manley would probably be in the gap between Dominator and Steward.
So maybe if you have time have a think about where you may sit on this spectrum.
Maybe for all of us it's good to understand where others may be and that this will reflect their particular stance.
Sorry for the lengthy post
He does not say that one is more defensibly ethical than any other and that we as beekeepers have a free choice to place ourselves anywhere on the spectrum between Dominator to Participant.
I feel that this attitude could go a long way to explaining the stances people have taken on this site and with other beeks I know when criticising others' methodology.
I will briefly summarise the four views:
Dominator
Holds that nature is for supporting the human race.
Maximum profit, utility is sought.
Genetics of bees modified by any technique profitable.
Greatest control sought over bees, queen clipping, synthetic acaricides.
Take as much honey as possible.
Pursue pollination contracts - move bees many miles.
Steward
Sees himself as entrusted with the use of nature, endorses a duty of care.
Breeding sought to increase production.
Recognises that human interests have to yield to avoid putting nature out of joint.
Conventional beekeeping techniques, frames, swarm control, inspection for disease, non synthetic acaricides etc
Movement of bees short distances timed with nectar flow.
Partner
Regards animals as potential allies.
Nature is an interplay of different life forms - each with value.
Exploitation can occur as long as animal is not unnaturally forced. Exploitation may even have benefit.
Willing to accept lower profits for bee friendlier conditions
Queen building in mini nuclei but no lab genetic modification
May or may not use frames, QE
Inspection to a minimum
Allows healthy drone populations
Bees wintered on a fair amount of their own honey
Formic acid organic varroa control used
Works with natural swarming process intervening to make splits when time is ripe.
Participant
Mankind is integrated within nature so sets limits to man's intervention in nature.
Use natural processes as much as possible.
Bee keeping is centred on the bees and to their contribution to the local area.
Works with locally adapted bees.
Likes to harvest honey but will forego this if it means taking it and feeding sugar.
Natural comb only, no QE, nadiring supers,
Natural swarming - bait hives used.
No chemicals Varroa policy of co adaptation and co-evolution
Please note that I have mentioned 4 distinct views, in truth though this is a spectrum and many people would lie between two views.
David Heaf cites that Manley would probably be in the gap between Dominator and Steward.
So maybe if you have time have a think about where you may sit on this spectrum.
Maybe for all of us it's good to understand where others may be and that this will reflect their particular stance.
Sorry for the lengthy post