How long for feral?

[notaclue]

I'm posting this in a few places.

How long do hives need to be left to their own devises before they are considered feral? I've not seen anything in our state apiary laws concerning this so I figured I'ld get some opinions.

[NW IN Beekeeper]

If you define feral as unmanaged, as soon as you decided not to manage them anymore, they are feral. :o

But then again, if an inspector finds the colony to be on frames, that demonstrates a degree of management.:rolleyes:

What's the point of this question?

-Jeff

[Brent Bean]

First there are no such thing as domestic honeybees, only managed. We only have a symbiotic relationship with them. We provide them with a home and try to protect them from disease and attacks form predators and parasites. In return they pollinate our crops and let us steal their surplus honey.

[BjornBee]

A "hive" is defined as "A home for bees provided by man". This definition has been around as per "ABC-XYZ" for at least hundred years.

The definition of "feral" has not been around that long. But it has been widely taken to mean "A wild non-managed nest of honey bees, as in a tree". (found in various books.)

As you can see, the term "hive" is not used in the defintion of "feral". They use the term "nest", making the distinction and seperation very clear.

So when you ask how long for a "hive" to be left alone for it to be considered "feral", the answer would be never.

By providing a home, introducing foundation/comb, changing anything from the enviroment at all....you have forever changed the makeup and dynamics of the colony. No amount of non-management will change this fact.

I guess if a swarm takes up residence in a tree, by technical definition, they are feral. Understanding that outside the definition, most beekeepers in discussing "feral bees" assume they have lived a certain amount of time on their own and have demonstrated some kind of survivability traits, once leaving the "hive" and the management of the beekeeper.

Any colony of bees placed into something chosen by a beekeeper would keep them from being called "feral".

[Troy]

While it is true that everyone has their own opinion on this, I thought I would share mine.

For me the definition of the word feral (unmanaged) has a connotation that this formerly domesticated animal has escaped to the wild and survived on it's own. For me the definition of feral means it is a survivor.

I have read that most all bees that are going to succumb to varroa do so by the end of the second year. So for me THAT is the minimum standard. 2 years. 3 is better.

It is just my opinion. Please don't attack my position, just share your own if you disagree with mine.

[shawnwri]

While it is true that everyone has their own opinion on this, I thought I would share mine.

For me the definition of the word feral (unmanaged) has a connotation that this formerly domesticated animal has escaped to the wild and survived on it's own. For me the definition of feral means it is a survivor.

I have read that most all bees that are going to succumb to varroa do so by the end of the second year. So for me THAT is the minimum standard. 2 years. 3 is better.

It is just my opinion. Please don't attack my position, just share your own if you disagree with mine.

nor attacking your position, but the honeybee is not domesticated

[MapMan]

Good write-up, Bjorn.

Yes - what BjornBee said. I second the concept of the survivability function of feral colonies. Darwinian semantics aside, traits developed "in the wild" form the foundation for the different races of bees as well, and their particular usefulness to the beekeeper through the ages.

MM

MM

[Mike Gillmore]

It seems the definition of the word "Feral" can vary as widely as beekeepers opinions do. I'll toss another scenario into the mix that I have been considering.

I just removed a colony of bees from a tree that the property owner was preparing to cut down. The owner believes that it has been continuously inhabited for at least 5-6 years. I have been keeping a very close watch on this colony myself for the past 3 years and I am certain it has not died out while I have been observing it. I know it has produced swarms in the past two years and the current queen and colony is very prolific.

Now I have this same "feral" queen and colony of bees in a "man-made" box. Are they no longer considered feral? The only thing that has changed is the "cavity" that these bees are currently inhabiting.

Is the definition of "feral" based solely on man's intervention or lack thereof, or the characteristics and survivability of the bees?

[Apuuli]

When domesticated animals escape or are released from captivity and establish self-sustaining breeding populations in the wild they're considered feral. One normal (perhaps even required by some definitions) result of this process is a re-adaptation of the population to wild conditions and thus a differentiation from the original domestic stock and a reversion to being more similar to the ancestoral wild species.

An important aspect of feral/domestic changes is that they operate on the level of populations and take generations of selection to occur. You can take a wild boar piglet and tame it but you cannot technically domesticate an individual animal, as that requires genetic differentiation from the original wild species. Thus if you trap a feral hog piglet and raise it in a sty with domestic pigs, it is still a feral hog and will be until the day it dies.

Thus, taking a feral colony of bees (the colony being an extension of a single individual, the queen) and sticking them in a hive makes them no less feral than they were in the tree. However, that's assuming they were feral to begin with. As Shawnwri pointed out, bees aren't really domesticated. Control of bee breeding is a pretty recent development and impacts of human management on honey bees are not as obvious or extensive as they are on truly domesticated animals.

Technical definitions aside, there are honey bees living in the wild (exotics though they may be) and honey bees living under husbandry, and they are obviously under different selective pressures. Thus the question becomes if those two types of populations are genetically and phenotypically distinct.

There's a general rule of thumb in population genetics that it only takes the exchange of one individual per generation between two populations to keep them essentially genetically homogenous. So, given swarming, open mating, and drone movement between colonies it seems unlikely that there would be much genetic differentiation between feral bees and managed bees in the same area and they could be considered to be in the same population. (Of course, if all your queens are imported, they are not going to be the same as your local feral population.)

That said, the colonies surviving without management are a specific subset of the overall population (those that CAN survive without management) and those that are under management are those that beekeepers choose to keep (or tolerate). So you probably won't find anything unique genetically or phenotypically in either group but they have been tested by different forces and may be generally genetically different but not distinct.

As an analogy, professional basketball players are not a different population from basketball fans, they are not genetically distinct as a group, but you cannot become a professional basketball player without certain qualities, qualities that are floating around the general population but are concentrated (height) or diluted (brittle bone disease) in the basketball subset. This is similar to the way feral bees may not be genetically distinct from domestic bees but those that successfully establish feral nests must have qualities that deal with diseases and pests.

Course, I study feral hogs, not bees... ;)

[Sarge]

House cats can and do breed,live, and survive in the wild. These are also refered to as ferals. This matches the definition that feral refers to an animal, or other, that is not native to the area or to the wild, yet has learned, or adapted, to live in the wild without man's help. Cats living in a barn, not fed by the farmer and hunting most of their own food, could be feral. Cats living in an abandoned building a mile or two from the farm ARE feral.
Honeybees living in North America outside a MANAGED hive would be ferals, as they are surviving on their own, building comb as they see fit and frames be damned.
The same bees found in Europe would not be feral as they are native to the area.

[Mike Gillmore]

Honeybees living in North America outside a MANAGED hive would be ferals, as they are surviving on their own, building comb as they see fit and frames be damned.


You make a good point here, but let's look at a hypothetical situation.

There is a colony that has been residing continuously in a tree for many years, bees with excellent survivability traits...one that I believe most would agree to consider truly "Feral". This colony throws a swarm and it decides to take up residence in an abandoned hive body with empty frames(just another hollow cavity as far as the bees are concerned). The swarm has no human intervention, but while settling in it decides to build comb out following the direction of the frames. This swarm colony thrives 3-4 years in the hive body and displays the same survivability characteristics as the bee tree colony.

Would this colony be considered "feral"?

If not, why is it disqualified from this classification?

If yes, then let's go one step further... and this is where I'm getting hung up on the "feral" classification.
After 4 years a beekeeper starts to "manage" this same colony of bees in the hive body. Same queen line, same hardy bees. Are these bees no longer feral simply because their comb is being examined and a human is working the hive? Other than possibly some added stress, nothing has changed.

All things being equal, this line of bees would probably survive and thrive, both in the wild or in an apiary. I'm leaning toward this evaluation being key in determining if a colony is "feral". Human intervention seems to me to play a minor role. The bees are what they, whether humans interfere or not. Yes, our management methods can add tremendous pressure and stress to the bees, but that does not change what is inherent in their line.

Other lines of bees may have defects or gaps in their survivability traits and without a beekeepers intervention would not survive in the wild. They are physically unable to sustain themselves in the wild and could not reach a place where they would be considered feral.

This is my personal outlook on ferals, right or wrong. I feel it's mostly in the "potential" of the bees and not so much if they are under the care of a beekeeper or not.

[naturebee]

House cats can and do breed,live, and survive in the wild. These are also refered to as ferals.

Hello Sarge,

Surviving and breeding =‘s feral to myself.
Bees, Cats, Dogs in the wild and not yet established in the wild as a breeding population are simply ’strays’ in my book.

[naturebee]

All things being equal, this line of bees would probably survive and thrive, both in the wild or in an apiary. I'm leaning toward this evaluation being key in determining if a colony is "feral".

Hello Mike!

Agree!

And I am finding that there are ‘degrees of feral’ in each colony I catch. I do not use treatments on any colony that I assess OR keep. Some possessing strength in every aspect and seemingly unaffected by disease and mites, while others may be minimally affected by disease and mites, but still showing survivability. And still others tending to be of larger size which I believe are directly from domestic sources tend to not thrive what so ever.

After getting so used to collecting and keeping ferals building smaller cell sizes and have queens smaller in size. I was called to remove a nest of bees last week:

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n41/pcolar/1f86.jpg

Although the homeowner was so excited to help “save the bees” by getting a beekeeper to collect the nest, I had not the heart to let on that my first impressions were that the colony did not look like it would be of any benefit to me.

The bees and cell sizes were extremely large, and after keeping smaller celled ferals for so long and accustomed to seeing feral queens of a particular size, I was rather astounded by just how large the queen was in this colony! But these larger bees also had some signs of mite pressure which ruled them out from the start. The colony was also located near a populated area which in my experience, these areas tend to have ferals that perform poorly and not far removed from domestic beekeeping linage. I removed the colony ‘intact’ exterminated the queen and shook them out in front of my hives.


Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA
‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries'
FeralBeeProject.com

[Troy]

Yep, Joe that is exactly what I would have done too. Let the people think they helped out the bees. They don't need to know how little it helped.

[notaclue]

Great stuff and thanks loads. Made me think of another scenario that has been posted numerous times.

What if the hive are managed bees and the beekeeper for what ever reason, health, death, moved, ect... are left in their boxes, survive and not disturbed again for however many years until someone else either comes upon them or is called by new owners/family to take them or work them if you like. I've not had this, but it's something that I was thinking about tonight. Are these considered feral? How long would it take to become feral?

Some great insights.

[sqkcrk]

Great stuff and thanks loads. Made me think of another scenario that has been posted numerous times.

What if the hive are managed bees and the beekeeper for what ever reason, health, death, moved, ect... are left in their boxes, survive and not disturbed again for however many years until someone else either comes upon them or is called by new owners/family to take them or work them if you like. I've not had this, but it's something that I was thinking about tonight. Are these considered feral? How long would it take to become feral?

Some great insights.

Honeybees are honeybees. They "become" feral when we humans change our perspective. The way that I was educated to understand the use of the term feral, in the case of honeybees, is unmanaged colonies. Unmanaged colonies live where ever you find them, trees, walls of buildings, etc. If you find them in conventional, or unconventional, human made hives they may be managed or abandoned.

So your question may be just as pertinent if you had asked, "How long does it take for a colony of honeybees in manmade equipment to be considered "abandoned"?" This question has it's own variables.

[BjornBee]

I disagree Mark.

The bees placed into that hive you speak of (abandoned) was originally made with foundation which effected comb structure, was placed in a location that man selected, not the bees, and the effects of management decisions of the beekeeper could be long lasting in both positive and negative ramifications (equipment options to help, and something as chemical residue to harm)

I disagree that a managed colony that has been placed on foundation/comb, managed for period of time, and given advantages of something even as small as a larger then normal cavity to brood within, becomes feral just because someone can claim it is abandoned or neglected for a period of time.

Seems I seen many of neglected and somewhat "abandoned" hive that beekeepers ignored while inspecting. The last thing I want is for some definition to allow these hives to be considered "feral".

[BjornBee]

I really think that this discussion has two points.

What is feral, and what is considered a hive.

I gave the definition to both earlier in the thread.

The problem is that some are trying to place "value" into feral bees. Feral bees are neither good or bad, better or worse, or anything else. Feral bees are exactly what the definition states..."a wild, non-managed nest of honey bees, as in a tree"

The definition would automatically eliminate a colony that is living in a hive as in any way being considered feral. Hive defined as "A home furnished by man".

The problem exists when we are trying to "value" or in some way quantify beyond the definition.

A swarm that left a managed hive and takes up residence in a tree....is feral.

A colony in a hive regardless of how long its "not touched"....is not feral.

What some are doing is assigning "value" to what feral is, by implying that a swarm leaving and setting up residence in a tree, must live a certain period of time to be considered feral. When it first leaves and sets up a new site in the tree, it is feral. May not be any good, in looking at survivability traits, etc., but its feral just the same. What some are doing is saying that bees must have or pass some level of survivabilty or time requiredment to be considered feral. That may be needed to consider them "good" ferals, but its not needed to call them feral from the start.

[sqkcrk]

I hope this doesn't confuse you Bjorn, but I agree w/ you.

With no criticism intended, the original question seems somewhat nieve. I'm not sure what was really being asked and why it was being asked. But that's just me I'm sure.

[Troy]

OK, I see the problem here.

We need a new word.

Feral is not descriptive enough. Yes we are trying to add meaning to the word Feral, and that is trying to change the definition of the word and that is why everyone has a different opinion on what it means.

We need a word that describes the "value" (or attribute) of survivability AND all of the definitions of the word Feral at the same time.

I've heard the term Feral survivor, but that is not quite right either as it does not take into account the abandoned hive case.

Does anyone have a suggestion for this new word?

[BjornBee]

I agree Troy.

I see people "hijack" the word feral for little more than a marketing ploy or advantage.

Funny thing is that if one uses the term feral in indicating their line of bees they have, what does it mean? Does it mean they are the same line as when mother nature selected all the traits herself? To include swarming frequency(often), queen longevity(less than a year on average), etc. In light of much research, bees swarm on a regular basis, and replace queens as often.

Seems if a breeder suggests that swarming or longevity, among other items, is not worth selecting for (by suggesting wrongly that bees are feral somehow), many are ready to suggest that these traits are paramount and the breeder is not doing his job.

So which is it?....feral lines with what mother nature provides, or the same line that now is changed by beekeeper intervention. Intervention by everything from drone saturation, to individual trait selection.

So I see this use of the term "feral" as a marketing ploy, that almost suggests that it means a breeder who selects for nothing, or a breeder who is selecting, but just does not understand what he's really saying. In both cases, he's just really fooling himself.

Even "feral survivor" brings about many meanings. Whats that mean? To me, its a breeder who started with stock that he caught from wild colonies. For many, this just means swarms from other beekeeper's hives. Its what the breeder does with the bees after he's caught them that matters. Culling the bad, selecting for desirable traits, quality breeding criteria, and the like.

Two things need to happen. Breeders need to market and learn to educate their customers as to what they do, etc. The other is for buyers to actually do more than get caught up in some marketing term such as "feral". It suggests nothing, means everything, is overused, and is wrongly applied across the board.

I have "Bjorn's Bees". Thats means nothing more than "Bjorn Feral bees". Without asking questions, hearing of others who have bought before, and knowing what I am doing, it means nothing. Any beekeeper can use terms like "survivor stock"....they are not breeding from the dead ones! And any beekeeper can say "feral stock". Anyone can collect a feral colony.

We should put much more wieght into someone like "Tarheit's bees", who people know as a good breeder, rather than a person who uses slick terms and catch phrases. Of course I say that without looking at his website.... ;)

I don't think finding a new term for "feral" accomplishes much. What does one want it to mean? A breeder who started with ferals, but now has something so drastically different than the wild colony they started as? Something different enough we need additional terms?

I don't think so. Feral means little by itself. The next term will be misused and hijacked in the same manner. And without standards, or some checks and balance....anyone can use it anyways.

Tarhiets bees....are what they are, because of what tim does with them as breeder. Not becuase of where they came from.

Thats my opinion.