Bee removal workshop Oct 9

Honey bee hive removal is an essential part of eliminating
bees from a structure.  

Honey bee removal from structures has proven to be a valuable niche market for many pest control companies. But this type of work involves more than putting on a bee suit and squirting a spray can.  Professional honey bee removal requires knowledge of bee behavior, knowing how to efficiently locate and open walls and floors, and how to remove and/or relocate nests. In addition there are important legal requirements that affect persons doing bee removal.

If you're interested in adding honey bee removal services to your business, you might be interested in a hands-on class being offered next month at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center in Dallas.  We are now accepting applicants for the class being held at the IPM Experience House on October 9.  Instructors include Charles Adams, of Adams Bee Removal in Sherman, TX, and Lauren Ward of the Honey Bee Lab at Texas A&M University.

Charles Adams serves as school IPM Coordinator for Sherman ISD.  He has extensive experience in pest control, wildlife control and bee removal, and will be conducting a live bee removal from the walls of our very own IPM Experience House.  If the removal goes as planned, bees will be removed alive and set up in a new hive box. Bee preservation and extermination options will be discussed.

Lauren Ward is a Texas A&M University student working under the supervision of Dr. Juliana Rangel of the Department of Entomology and the Honey Bee Lab at Bryan, Texas.  Lauren is a frequent teacher of bee-related topics, and will provide information on bee biology and behavior and legal and practical issues surrounding the protection of bees.

Participants in the class will watch a honey bee hive extraction indoors and are asked to bring a bee suit or an extra long-sleeved shirt and gloves (optional).  We will provide you with a head veil, if you do not have one.

Topics to be covered:

• Introduction to the Honey Bee – Lauren Ward 
• History and background of honey bees 
• Basic honey bee biology and behavior 
• Are honey bees endangered? 
• Licensing and legal issues honey bee removal and insecticide use  
• Lunch (box lunch provided)
• Suit up and honey bee removal from IPM Experience House -- Charles Adams
• Safety equipment for working around bees
• Locating the hidden hive
• Hive removal options
• Moving bees to a hive box
• Cleanup
• The importance of bee proofing

The class runs from 10 am to approximately 3 pm, Friday, October 9.  Cost for the class is $75 before Oct 8 and includes a box lunch. Late registration is $90 after October 7.  Register for the class online at https://agriliferegister.tamu.edu/index.cfm/productDetails/ProductID/1844/   Class size is limited, so don't delay.  

Pesticides not to blame for bee woes?

According to Science Daily, new research shows that imidacloprid, an insecticide often blamed for the decline of commercially managed honey bees, is not likely to harm honey bees at field realistic levels.  The three year study, conducted by Galen Dively and associates at the University of Maryland, supports the contention by many U.S. bee researchers that proper applications of this insecticide is not likely to be the sole, or major, explanation for colony collapse disorder (CCD).

New labeling for some plants
sold by The Home Depot alerts the
consumer to neonicotinoid-treated
plants.

Despite those who claim CCD is clearly the result of dangerous insecticides, the issues surrounding CCD are complex and technical. Much of the debate in the research community recently has centered on what constitutes "field realistic levels" of imidacloprid and its cousin insecticides, the neonicotinoids. Industry representatives have contended that recent critical studies, cited by environmentalists as justifying a ban neonicotinoids, were flawed because they were based on unrealistically high levels of the insecticides. Dively and colleagues tried to allay these concerns by feeding their bees imidacloprid in protein supplement patties at doses of 5, 20, and 100 micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion).  The lowest dose, 5 parts per billion, is generally recognized as field realistic based on several studies of pesticide concentrations in the nectar and pollen of treated crops. The insecticide-laced protein supplement was provided to the bees over a continuous 12 week period. Even so this was, the authors contend, a higher exposure scenario than would likely occur in agricultural settings, where the contaminated pollen and nectar is not likely to be present continuously.

As one of the first studies to look at honey bee colony health over multiple seasons, the results were more rigorous than previous research.  They did showed a significant negative effect on colony survivorship as dosage increased; however the lowest, field-realistic dose showed no significant impact on key bee health indicators, foraging or winter survivorship.  The major impact of higher imidacloprid exposure were increased broodless periods, caused by weak queens during late summer. Such effects could lead to lowered overwintering survival, a character of CCD.

Nevertheless, the authors conclude that while short term exposure to high imidacloprid levels (represented by 100 part per billion dosages in this study) in agricultural settings does occur, it is not likely to occur continuously throughout a crop cycle.  Also, data from the study showed that bees were efficient in metabolizing imidacloprid, so that short term spikes in insecticide levels in nectar were likely to be quickly diluted and eliminated by the bees. They concluded that while imidacloprid might be a contributing factor to some overwintering losses in bees, seed treated crops in particular were likely to have negligible effects on honey bee colony health.

In the ongoing debate over bee health, this is one piece of good news for pesticide manufacturers and users; but it will not be the final word. And it should not justify anything less than the utmost caution for pesticide applicators when they use neonicotinoid insecticides.

Expected benefit of treating crape myrtles for new scale

Two ‘Natchez’ crape myrtles demonstrate the potential impact of bark scale on the size and number of blooms in early summer. The tree on the left was treated seven weeks earlier with the insecticide dinotefuran, the one on the right was left untreated. Note the smaller blooms and mold-covered bark on the untreated tree. Click on the image for a closer view. Photo by Jim Robbins, U of Arkansas.

Earlier this year I posted some information about a new scale pest that is attacking crape myrtle trees in Texas and other parts of the south. It is called the crape myrtle bark scale, Eriococcus lagerstroemiae, and its range continues to expand. This year the scale has jumped from north Texas to College Station and, more recently, Sugarland in the Houston area.

We do not see this scale killing crape myrtle; but like many sap-feeding scale insects, these little scales can stress and reduce the appearance of the trees. They also produce large amounts of sticky "honeydew" that can coat the leaves and anything under the tree (including freshly washed cars). Thanks to Drs. John Hopkins and Jim Robbins of the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, we can now show you what we believe is likely to be another impact of these scales on trees--namely, smaller flower clusters and reduced blooming.

The above picture was taken of two trees at a church in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The tree on the left was treated with Zylam^® Systemic Insecticide on the 28th of  May, and the one on the right was left untreated.  Zylam^® (active ingredient dinotefuran) was applied as a drench in 5 gallons of water between the trunk and a circle three feet away from the trunk.  The picture was taken seven weeks after the treatment was made. Note that this picture is not the same as a scientific trial, which would involve more trees to ensure that the differences seen here were not accidental.  Nevertheless, according to Dr. Hopkins, scale numbers and honeydew were noticeably less on the treated tree.  And there was a difference in the average bloom size between the treated and untreated tree, with blooms being noticeably larger on the treated tree.

John estimated that the cost to treat the tree on the left with Zylam would be approximately $39--not cheap, especially with multiple trees to treat.  But at least you, and your customer, can see what the expected benefit from a tree treatment might look like.  For a consumer-oriented discussion of the scale, clip and use this link: http://citybugs.tamu.edu/2014/08/14/crape-myrtle-bark-scale-reduces-bloom/

What about the bees?
To date the most promising treatments for crape myrtle bark scale have been the neonicotinoid insecticides,  Readers of this blog should know about the growing concern about the impact of soil-applied neonicotinoid insecticides on honey bee and pollinator health.  So should we be using these products on a flowering tree like crape myrtle? Although date on pollination rates on crape myrtle seem to be lacking, these trees do not appear to be highly attractive to bees (entomophilic). Currently I don't believe that a properly applied soil insecticide (following label directions) will have any significant impact on foraging bees.  But if anything changes in that formula, I'll be sure to let you know. And be sure to read the labels on these neonicotinoid products carefully.  New, pollinator-friendly labels are coming to the market this year.  In the meantime, Extension will continue to look for less susceptible varieties of crape myrtle and possibly safer, less costly treatments for this scale.

Bee protests are cute, but...

A recent protest by organic activists outside a Chicago Home Depot highlighted something of the current debate over pesticides and bees.  It also reminded me that no one wants to go on record as being "against the bees".  Check out the video above.

The folks in the bee costumes in the above video are protesting the retail sale of "bee-killing" insecticides called neonicotinoids. They represent groups demanding that these insecticides not be sold, and that stores begin selling only nursery plants that have not been treated with these insecticides. I've blogged about this issue in the past, and reported on some recent urban incidents that could affect the pest control industry.

Over the past few days there has been some interesting discussion on this subject in a chat group that I belong to. I thought I would share some of the more interesting comments and new studies on the subject.

• Bee experts are mostly in agreement that Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in honey bees is not as simple as "bad" pesticides. In fact pesticides may have little to do with bee declines in some areas.  Australia may be instructive in this regard. Australia uses neonicotinoid insecticides like the rest of the world, but Australian honey bees are not in decline. A new Australian government report out this month confirms as much, and concludes that take as a whole, neonicotinoid use has led to an "overall reduction in the risks to the agricultural environment from the application of insecticides." 
• A recent collaborative paper in the journal mBio, by Chinese and U.S. scientists, found a virus that has been known for many years, tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), that is infecting honey bees.  This virus is the first known plant virus that has mutated and adapted into an animal-infesting virus.  It appears to be transmitted to bees via pollen, and also by varroa mite. And its presence in bee colonies appears to be associated with gradual declines in bee colony vitality.
• In fact, varroa mites in combination with viruses are currently under close scrutiny as a major explanation for CCD.  According to Dr. Richard Cowles, with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, "When combined with work on Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus and a demonstration that irradiation of hive equipment from CCD could prevent nukes from succumbing to CCD, the strongest evidence for the cause of CCD is the varroa/viral combination."  An interesting side observation is that Australia does not yet have varroa mite, which lends strength to the argument for a mite-vectored virus explanation for the disease.
• Most studies that have found neonicotinoids in pollen have been on herbaceous plants. In one study on red maple trees, a dissertation by Dr. Josephine Johnson at the University of Maryland, no imidacloprid was found in tree nectar and only extremely low levels in pollen (bees feeding on these trees had no evidence of insecticides, nor in hive collected nectar).  So if you do neonicotinoid root applications on trees per label instructions, there is no evidence right now that such applications pose any risk to pollinators.
• Two new Washington State University Extension publications are now available on CCD and neonicotinoids.  The first publication by Lawrence and Sheppard, provides an overview of the problem with an explanation of the various factors thought to contribute to CCD.  How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides is a thorough overview of practical ways to reduce the risk of bee poisoning due to pesticides, and includes a table of most commonly used pesticides with their potential risks to bees. 

None of this is to say that there are no legitimate concerns about the toxicity of neonicotinoids to pollinators. These products are certainly toxic to bees, and at levels lower than previously recognized. But research in this area is ongoing, and our understanding of the possible factors that might be hurting bee populations is much better than it was a few years ago. Despite what you might hear, both EPA and the pesticide industry is taking pollinator concerns seriously and is acting to make sure that you have safe tools to control pests effectively. After all, who wants to be "against the bees"?

Newest news on Colony Collapse Disorder

You may soon be hearing about the conclusions of the latest research on origins of colony collapse disorder in the news. Briefly, researchers with the University of Illinois are pointing the finger at viruses again, but this time with a twist. The suspected culprits are called "picorna-like" viruses. This viruses specifically attack ribosomal RNA, part of the cell's genetic machinery that produces proteins the bees need for protection against stress, disease and other assaults.

What's interesting about these new studies is that they rely on cutting-edge techniques and information that have never been available before. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, the team say they used "whole genome microarrays" to compare cells from bees' guts. According to lead scientist May Berenbaum from the University of Illinois, the research was possible only because of the prior publication of the bee genome (basically a complete roadmap to all the genes in honey bee DNA) in 2006.

The team's genetic analysis of the bees' guts failed to reveal elevated expression of pesticide response genes; however the new techniques did reveal an unusually high amount of ribosome fragments in the guts of CCD-affected bees. The data are consistent with damage caused by picorna-like viruses that, in effect, “hijack the ribosome” of bees to take over these protein factories. The deeds of these viruses are apparently difficult to trace with traditional techniques. Affected bees from CCD hives had “more than their fair share” of infection with these viruses, according to May Berenbaum, of the University of Illinois, who led the study.

The results, if confirmed, would seem to make sense of many previous studies' findings or lack of findings. Weakened bees could be more susceptible to stress, disease and other assaults.

I have to admit that this is technology that I didn't learn about in graduate school. Hence I must wait in the wings to see how the drama plays out among those researchers who thrill to talk of pico-viruses. In any case, it seems that these result continue to support the idea that pest control is unlikely to be the source of the honey bees' woes.

Sleuthing an unusual insect

One of the nice things about being an Extension entomologist is that I get to hear what's going on out there in your lives without all the hard work of following you around. Specifically, I get to hear stories about you from your customers. This week's story has to do with a not-too-common insect that puzzled several of you recently, and one that had me donning my Sherlock Holmes' cap.

The new homeowners were experiencing an invasion of little larvae in their living room, near a fireplace...no food or obvious source of the critters nearby. I had about a dozen specimens in hand, and the homeowner reported seeing that many every day for at least the past two weeks. At least three PMPs examined the insects; one determined that they were "maggots", another suggested old house borers (the people were finding a dozen or so each day on their hardwood floors), another hadn't a clue.

Since this wasn't a no-brainer for me either, bear with me as I share my thought process used to determine the identity of these insects (see picture). As you read, see if you can guess the final diagnosis.

Like a garage mechanic trying to diagnose an old car, entomologists commonly use the process of elimination and deductive reasoning to explain strange insect problems--of which this industry sees of lot. My sample was certainly an insect, because it had six-legs, but fly maggots (say from a carcass) were out of the question because fly larvae are legless. At first glance at these little guys reminded me of Indian meal moth, the most common, similar sized larva found in similar situations in homes. But my insects did not have prolegs (the fleshy claspers found on the abdomenal segments of moth and butterfly caterpillars. Because of their prominent legs, caterpillar-like shape, and lack of prolegs I knew they were some type of beetle.

I immediately knew they could not be old house borer or any kind of wood-boring beetles because insects that live in wood are usually white and their legs tend to be microscopic--very small, if present at all (legs aren't very useful for inching through dark, narrow galleries in the wood). Also, wood borers never leave their safe galleries during the larval life stage.

Insects emerging from stored products are always a prime suspect in cases like this. Although they slightly resembled hide beetles, they lacked the hairy bodies associated with dermestid larvae. I knew from experience that they did not look like the larva of any other common stored product pests.

So Watson, where does that leave us? Could it be a beetle that sneaked its way indoors around a crack in a window frame, or under a door? Probably not, because there were too many of them to be coincidence, and this is not common behavior for outdoor, plant feeding or carnivorous beetles. If they in fact originated in the house, that left me with two likely remaining sources. They could be some kind of decomposer insect that feeds on dead animals or decaying plant materials. Or they could be an insect that lives in the nests of other animals. With a fireplace nearby either choice seemed likely.

Any guesses? The only obvious, distinctive physical characteristic on these relatively plain beetle were two sets of hooked, horn-like structures on the last segment of the abdomen. At this point a little entomology experience saved a bunch of research time--that, and a quick call to the Texas A&M University entomology museum assistant curator, Ed Riley. Ed and I both had a suspicion, but needed a picture to confirm it. We Googled "hive beetle" and sure enough, at a University-based website (my first choice when faced with hundreds of hits from Google) we saw our culprit.

The small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, is a relatively new structural pest in this country. It's really not considered a structural pest, but a pest of bee hives where it feeds on bee larvae in their waxen nurseries. I have encountered the adult form of this beetle from samples taken in homes before, but never the larva. I suspect that our industry will see more and more of them as time goes on.

My conclusion? The new homeowners had not yet discovered that along with their new home they had also purchased a bee hive, hidden perhaps in a wall or ceiling area. The hive beetles were the only evidence they had seen of this hive, but as Sherlock Holmes could tell you, the evidence never lies.

These kind of challenges keep our profession interesting and even fun. Perhaps it's no coincidence that when Sherlock finally retired, he took up beekeeping as his choice of amusement.

For more information about hive beetles, along with images, check out http://www.bugwood.org/factsheets/small_hive_beetle.html and http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/small_hive_beetle.htm

Hummingbirds and honey bees

On another honey bee-related topic, in the past few weeks I've had a couple of calls about honey bees driving hummingbirds away from bird feeders. I know this isn't really an issue that ranks solidly in the field of professional pest control, but think what a hero you can be to your customer if you actually know the answer to this question!

Of course honey bees don't particularly care about hummingbirds one way or another, but they will come to the sugar water that gardeners typically put in hummingbird feeders, even though the sugar water dilution commonly used in hummingbird feeders is not ideal for bees. Not enough sugar, according to beekeeper Janet Roe, who says bee food in the spring should be one part sugar, one part water.

To keep bees away from feeders, Janet suggests moving the feeders every two days or so (confuses bees who use landmarks to come back to the same site), and treating the feeder with "mentholatum or Vicks vapor rub" every couple of days. "If you just touch your finger onto the mentholatum and then touch that finger in between the feeder feeding holes you will leave a very small amount of mentholatum. That seems to work pretty well at repelling bees, when combined with every other day feeder relocation," she says.

Bee resistant hummingbird feeders are also available at stores and online. Just Google "bee resistant hummingbird feeders" or check out one commercial version at http://www.birdfeeders.com/store/hummingbird-feeders/447-12

Bee DVD may not translate well to all areas

Recently PCT Online ran a page promoting a new DVD called "Swarm Plus" from an Ohio PMP and beekeeper named Dave Duncan. I was curious about the quality and content of the video, because of a bee control training I conducted several years ago and the healthy demand for bee control services in our area.

Anyone can visit the site and view the excerpts online. The videos appear to be well made and very professional looking. Some of the bee footage even verges on spectacular. However, I was a little uneasy about some of the content, at least for Texas honey bees; so I asked a couple of beekeepers experienced in bee removals what they thought.

Janet Roe and John Talbert of the Collin County (Texas) Beekeepers Association were both concerned that the fellow was a little too cavalier with his protective gear. "We agreed that neither of us would ever pick up a swarm without our hoods on, but [climbing] up a shaky ladder with a fish net? ...nutty," they said.

One thing that surprized all of us was a section where the beekeepers remove an indoor wall with a large nest on the other side. In the segment, two people are using a pry bar to peel the wall away from the hive while wearing no protective gear. You should never do something like that in our state according to my experts.

"We decided he had to be way far north of any "mean" bees," Janet said. After a few years of watching the Africanized honey bee make its way across the state, beekeepers in our part of the country do not assume bees will be gentle, especially when handling brood boxes or opening up their nest cavity. John said he never allows anyone in his beeyard without at least head gear. And the behaviour of the bees throughout the video was much different that the bees we typically encounter.

John and Janet had some other technical criticisms about super frames and brood box frames (I love it when they talk technical) that went over my head, but I was relieved to know that I wasn't the only one who thought the video bees were way too tame.

To be fair, I haven't purchased and viewed the SwarmPlus DVD. I'm sure it has a lot of potentially helpful information. I also believe that the pest control industry needs more quality training materials in bee and wasp control. Finding a professional who is experienced in removing and controlling bees is difficult in many areas. I single out Mr. Duncan's product not to criticize, but as an example that we should evaluate all training materials we read or view (especially on the Internet) with a critical eye.

In the case of this product, I would encourage PMPs who are thinking about getting a copy to find a local beekeeper or PMP with experience with bees that you trust and asking them to review the video with you. And if you decide to try some of the activities in this product, wear a full bee suit--especially on a ladder and even if you're not in the land of Africanized honey bees.

Pennsylvania researchers summarize progress on Colony Collapse Disorder in bees

Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, has certainly had its fifteen minutes of fame over the past two years. A serious problem for commercial beekeepers, this new threat to managed honey bees has puzzled researchers. For an up-to-date report from the leading U.S. research team, check out the new article in Scientific American magazine. According to researchers, pesticides, often singled out as a likely culprit in bee die-offs, have not been ruled out as a factor in colony deaths, but less likely as a prime cause. New molecular techniques seem to point to a recently discovered virus as the principal suspect.

Report from Reno

Five days and 27 pages of hand-scribbled notes later and I've returned from another Entomological Society of America annual conference. As usual, the meeting was an exhausting marathon of meetings and posters and mixers, sweetened by renewed personal contacts and much new and useful information about entomology and pest control.

Some of the sessions were probably topics only an entomologist would find fascinating, like measurements of insect diversity on Arizona mountaintops, how mosquitoes locate their hosts, or the history of DDT (which cost only $.18/ lb after WWII and even the famous Winston Churchill called "the miraculous powder"!). Nevertheless, there was much information that would be of great practical interest to a gathering of PMPs. Just a few valuable new insights and reports included:

• An update was given on colony collapse disorder (CCD) of honey bees by Diana Cox Fisher, a researcher from Pennsylvania State University, who believes that a combination of stresses and new, or re-emerging, diseases (not pesticides) is probably responsible for the current crisis in bee deaths--at least in the U.S. Currently the best correlation with CCD seems to be a disease known as Israeli Acute Paralytic Virus, although the jury is still out on this one. She noted at the end of her presentation that one out of every three bites of food that we eat is thanks to pollinators like the honey bee.
  
• Several interesting papers were presented on bed bugs. Mike Potter, of the University of KY, noted in his talk on the history of bed bugs, that within 5 years of the introduction of DDT, researcher John Osmun of Purdue University reported that it became nearly impossible for researchers to locate bed bug infestations to study. Tim McCoy, of Virginia Cooperative Extension, noted the importance and effectiveness of dusts as a tool in bed bug control. Tempo dust, Drione, and Tri-die dusts gave the fastest kill of all products (45 minutes to 6 hrs). Boric acid dust was the slowest, requiring over 18 days to kill. Dini Miller of Virginia Tech concluded that hydroprene was a useful additive to conventional sprays for bed bugs (especially resistant populations), though the effects of hydroprene are subtle and may not become evident until the second or third generation.
• One of the most interesting bed bug talks was given by Changlu Wang of Purdue University. He compared spray-based and dust-based IPM programs for bed bugs. The liquid spray tested was chlorfenapyr, and the dust-based program used diatomaceous earth and an innovative bed bug interceptor device placed under bed posts to trap the varmits when they try to climb up, or down from the bed. The clever traps are being sold by Susan McKnight Inc. under the trade name Climbup™ Insect Interceptor. Both spray and dust-based programs worked well in Wang's tests. The traps caught more bed bugs than were observed by the inspectors in all apartments. Another interesting observation was that 94% of the trapped bed bugs were in the outer bowl, indicating that they were off the bed. This shows the importance of treating off-bed locations when controlling bed bugs. These devices might be especially useful for clients with low budgets and a high motivation to help with the elimination program. Of course the effectiveness of the bowls depends on eliminating contact of the bed and bedding with the floor and walls.
• Tom Greene of the IPM Institute (organization running the Green Shield™ certification program for pest control businesses) reported results of a University of Florida study that showed that properly installed doorsweeps can reduce pest complaints in schools by up to 65%. He made an observation that I believe applies not just to school IPM programs, but to all professional IPM: "The question is not 'do you do IPM?', but 'how much IPM do you do?'" Most PMPs say they do IPM, but there is generally much room for improvement of the quality and depth of IPM done by professionals.

Should PMPs kill BEEs?

It's time to put an end to oft-repeated story that bees cannot legally be killed.

Every spring I get calls from the public looking for someone who can help them get bees out of a yard or home. This is a valuable service that I wish more pest control companies would engage in. Because pest management professionals are frequently unwilling, or lack the proper equipment and knowledge, to do bee removal, the job often goes to folks in the beekeeping business who may or may not be licensed to do pest control.

I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel for pest control salesman that's told a potential customer they couldn't remove bees, because bees are protected. This story certainly sounds credible because most people see bees as beneficial. In addition, the media this past year has talked non-stop about an imminent collapse of honey bee populations due to a condition known as "colony collapse disorder" (CCD). The truth is that bees are neither tottering on the brink of destruction, nor are they protected by law.

There is currently no state or federal law stating that pest management professionals cannot kill bees that pose a threat to health or property. One possible source of this legend may be the warning statements on some pesticide labels that prohibit the use of insecticides on certain crops or flowering plants where bees might be actively foraging. These warnings are designed to protect wild or domesticated bees from colonies that do not pose an economic threat. Indeed these warnings help protect commercial beekeepers from losing bees and honey due to pesticide contamination.

Nevertheless, when bees enter a home to build their nest, it poses a stinging threat to the family, pets and neighbors, and it can eventually create additional household pest and odor problems. Old bee nests attract mice, cockroaches, dermestid beetle larvae, ants and moths to the wall of the home where the old comb lies rotting. Furthermore, all social wasps and bees defend their nests. And nowhere in Texas is immune to the threat of aggressive Africanized bees. Even the supposedly docile European honey bee also has quite a temper when conditions are right.

Using the definition of a pest as any organism where it's not wanted, honey bees can certainly be pests. And PMPs can certainly kill or remove honey bee nests anywhere they are not wanted.

But what about the demise of honey bees? If we kill them won't that hasten their almost certain extinction? No. In fact, wild honey bee populations are, by all appearances, quite virile--at least in Texas. To my knowledge, no one is currently tracking wild honey bee populations in our state, but I can detect no decline in the number of phone and email complaints about feral bee swarms and colonies in the past few years. Although Texas has been listed as a state with CCD, at last report the bee keeping industry here has not seen the precipitous declines reported from other states.

It's still unclear what is causing these declines in honey bees in the U.S. and abroad. There are numerous viable theories including new viral diseases, parasitic mites, stress from their high-maintenance lifestyles, and agricultural pesticides. But our Texas honey bees appear to be in no immediate danger.

As far as the ethical question about whether PMPs should kill bees or not, in my opinion this is more of a personal preference, with no one answer being right for everyone. As with anything, the decision involves trade offs: the benefits of reducing risks from stings and possible serious injury (even death) versus the decision to kill what is usually considered a beneficial insect. The economic cost of having to remove bee nests from walls, floors and ceilings of homes, versus the decision to destroy a swarm of bees sitting in the tree outside the window.

But why even talk about killing bees when they can (often) be removed alive? Live bee removal can be, and is, done by some companies, but not everyone has the expertise or the extra time to devote to live bee recovery and restoration. Simply, you can take them alive, but it will usually cost you more. Again, this becomes a personal decision on the part of the homeowner and the business owner.

Ultimately, the relatively few bee colonies that are exterminated from the walls and backyards of homes are not going to have much impact on the big picture of bee survival in Texas. So go out there and remove bees, and make money doing it. But if your company doesn't do bee removal just say so. Don't tell consumers that it's illegal.