# Do you want an Apiary Inspection Service?



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I suppose mine already doesn't in some way. There are no full time inspectors and the one that comes out and inspects is a beekeeper who works for the dept. of Agriculture. So there is SOME kind of inspection. Without some kind of certificate there are places you can't sell your bees or queens and states you can't even transport them trough. So you need some kind of inspector to meet the requirements in OTHER states.

So, I guess, if you mean none at all, like AZ, I wouldn't like that because I couldn't sell queens. If you mean none, like where I pay to be inspected and get a certificate, like we have here, that works. Judging by the number on my certificate every year, I'm guessing I'm the only inspected apiary in Nebraska, either that or I'm always first in line.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I would say yes, for the reasons MB stated above. In addition I would add that it would be useful for begining beekeeps as well. But I don't feel that it should be manditory, or infringe on the rights of the indivual to manage their hives the way they want to. Tempered of course with education that would provide correct techinques for hive management.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

> rights of the indivual to manage their hives the way they want to.


I want to manage mine with extra AFB and Varroa a half mile down the road from you. In the middle of the summer, when they die off, I will take any honey in the supers and your bees can rob anything they want in the brood chamber. Next spring, I will put another package in. This way I don't have to feed over winter.

Obviously I am not being serious, but there should be a limit on your rights to manage your hives the way you want.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Tempered of course with education that would provide correct techinques for hive management."

Think you missed this part. LOL.

But you can join in if you want, the Amish do.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

The problem in many professions is that the people that need the education are the last to want it. Just because I am educated, doesn't mean that I will use it.

I don't have a solution, and we don't have inspections here. I wouldn't have a problem with inspections of my hives. I do see the problem with people with hundreds or thousands of hives and mandatory inspections.

Maybe allowing education out of that situation. Allowing people to (using continuing education) opt out of the program.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If you don't have an apiary inspection program in your state, how would you design it?

What would you design it to do?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Maybe I didn't set this up the right way?

Was there something that I was supposed to do, a question that I failed to answer, so that this thread was identified as a poll?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Maybe I didn't set this up the right way?

This thread is a poll. I didn't answer it, as I often don't answer polls, simply because none of the available answers was the one I wanted. Where was none of the above? Or some simple voluntary inspection done on request. I want some form of inspection available so I can get an inspection certificate. I don't want a madatory inspection or registration system. I did not see an answer that would reflect that.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think a question, maybe, of greater relevance is, "Do you want any laws governing beekeeping?" If we have any regulations (such as requiring treatment for cases of AFB), we MUST have inspection services. Otherwise, the laws/regulations are meaningless.

For example, if we posted speed limits, but had no enforcement (no highway patrol, no sheriffs, no police), will anyone actually obey the speed limits? I think the same principle applies to beekeeping.


----------



## John Gesner (Dec 17, 2005)

We have a program in Ohio that requires registration of each apiary. I don't know what would happen if you didn't register, since I've never considered not doing so. But I know that there are beekeepers who don't and I'm sure there would be some penalty if they were found out.

As part of our program, you can sign a "do not inspect" waiver and you'll never see the county rep. I've never considered this either, since I have a good working relationship with my county inspector and appreciate his input and advice. Whether I take it or not is up to me. Some people just don't want "strangers" wandering into their bee yard, regardless of who they are. Even if you do sign a waiver, it's my understanding that you can call and request an inspection if you have a problem or are selling hives/bees/equipment.

I've met inspectors from two other counties besides mine. All three were college educated and had/have commercial experience. All three were first rate individuals but are highly underpaid for their efforts. (they're not allowed to take tips either) 

I understand our program is in jeopardy due to budgetary constraints. So far, it's still in operation.

Good luck setting one up, if that's your desire. Not everyone likes it. I personally do.


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

We have to much government already. This is from a government employee. Want less taxes and being told what to do? Stop asking for someone else to regulate you. 
Take charge of your own life. AFB well treat it or burn it, burning is better. Got AHB replace queen, soap solution, Raid, or burn. Come on lets stop with this gota have someone looking over your shoulder and telling you what to do. We did not like it when England (King George) was doing that. What happended to us?
Dan


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>Take charge of your own life. AFB well treat it or burn it, burning is better. Got AHB replace queen, soap solution, Raid, or burn. 

The question, then, is, "Can I do this to YOUR colony if you have AFB, aren't doing anything about it, and I'm concerned my colonies could be infected?"


----------



## bjerm2 (Jun 9, 2004)

I do take care of my bees. And no you can not!

I believe that I know what is best for my bees since I have been in business for over 30 years. I have burned and replaced hives as needed. I raise my own queens and AI them. Remember back in the old days, if you had/have mites they would burn the entire apiaries??? Called it Depopulation. Forgot? I didn't. No not me keep out of my hives, I'll take care of them.

Dan


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

But, see, what about those who don't? What if I want to take care of MY bees by getting rid of [your] bees because [your] bees might spread something to my bees? (I'm not implying that you don't take care of your bees, or that your bees have problems; just reverse the names, if you'd like.)

IMHO, the problem lies in this:

>>I believe that I know what is best for my bees. . . .

Again, I'm not saying that you don't know what's best for your bees. Your idea of what's best for bees might be completely different than my idea of what's best for bees. And, again, what about the beekeepers who aren't as responsible? None of them might be reading this board, but some are certainly still out there.

Added: What if one of my hives has AFB and is less than a mile from one of your yards? What are you going to do about it?

[ January 17, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Colony depopulation because of mites. Was that in 1984 or 85? If it was, then that was done under direction of USDA. Not an excuse, just what I remember hearing about things that happened before I got here from Ohio.

Since 1986, no colonies have been depopulated in NY, as far as I know.

Since i don't know who you are, how can I stay out of your yard? If an Apiary Inspector finds your yard, they will register that yard. If no beekeeper can be determined then the colony or colonies are the responsibility of the land owner.

I have a question for you.

There is a person who may or may not be down the road from you, but he is down the road from someone, and he says that he has no bees. He said that to an Inspector who saw him unloading a semi with a skid steer loader while keeping a smoker going. Lying to a state official while executing his or her duties is illegal. So what should be done?

Further, since this person says that he doesn't have any bees, I was instructed to check all of his yards that are in the listing. Two yards had hives with bees. The rest were empty. So, does he have bees or are the colonies the landowners responsibility?

And who is responsible for the yard that had the colonies with crayon markings AFB? What would you have the state do, in this case?


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

It would be nice. Out here you have to phone to request an inspection wether for moving or selling bees and to request inspection on other peoples hives that have moved bees next to your yard (up to a mile away anyway). 

We used to have a nice apiculture program here where every spring everyones yards (all who were registerd) would be inspected. not every hive was inspected in the yard but a selected few. the bee act was enforced as well, at least more strictly. I think I would like those years back with a zero tolerance for afb infection, It's never happen yet to me but i'd cringe at the thought of someone who has a yard close to mine controling afb rather than preventing afb. I have in the pass had afb and my method of dealing with it has been waiting til evening then eradicating the bees, remove all equement of that hive, digging a pit and burn it and cover the pit after, and pouring cloronated water where the hive once sat. it sounds extreme perhaps but afb is highly contageous and i don't like it in my hives. 

but these days its up to the beekeeper to inspect his hives and what was scary was i had gone with another beekeeper of 8 years to apimondia 99' in vancouver and at one of the lectures there was a photo of afb and her reply was "so thats what it looks like eh?" i had a look of horror on my face for a breif moment before i regained my composure becuase the hives she was running were close to my yards.

bottom line is that there are a lot beeks running a lot of hive and quit a few being close to each others too. It would be nice to know whats going on outside your yard as well as inside.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

chillard, do you belong to a club? Do you get to meet any of those other beekeepers who set down near you?


----------



## JohnBeeMan (Feb 24, 2004)

Help me Uncle Sam! Protect me Uncle Sam! Control me Uncle Sam!

We are close enough to a Police State without asking for more!!!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

A bee inspector inspects a beekeeper once every two years on average, not counting commercial operations, that require some additional things for interstate travel, etc.

Lets see....

8,760 hours in a year.
Times 2 for two year inspection rotation is 17,520

Inspection of two hours..

2 hours divided by 17520 hours equals .0001131%.

Is it me, or can someone explain that having another individual looking at your hives for .0001141% of the time is somehow equated into a beekeeper losing control of one's hives. Sounds a little silly to me.

The beekeeper does anything else he wants for .9998859% of the time when a state inspector, who is there to help, is no longer around.

"Control me uncle sam". Do inspection programs really warrant such nonsense???


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JohnBeeMan, who is going to protect you from me? The State.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Right on, BjornBee.


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

we used to have a be club here that was affiliated with the british columbia honey producers association. It was running for about 30 years until it disolved in 91', I was there for the last 2 years of it. Then a freind of mine and i tried starting a bee club that we would probably registered with the BCHPA and we had a few meetings but it was short lived as well. the closest bee club now is held in langly, about 45 kilometers away and a lot of the beeks that go to that club i know and respect and I have recently decided to take out a membership to the bchpa through that division. 

it hasn't happened latly but some of the beeks that did place hives next to mine were from alberta, my yard of 40 competing with his yard of 300 and that would not even be a problem but that half his hives were infected with afb was. Beeks are suppose to have an inspection of there hives before moving from one district to another let alone out of province. His hives were inspected upon my request and half his hives,all that had afb, were burned, close to 150 hives made for a spectacular fire indeed, they did manage to save the supers and sterilize them with stack and fire method.

at the time that mites were starting to appear in the fraser valley we had one yard (our pride and joy yard) that was isolated and mite free until one day we had gone to our yard and siting on the other side of the fence litraly a stone throw away was 80 hives. we had gone to the supervisor of the ministry of apiculture to let them know what was happening. My dad was tyhe one doing most of the talking and he has a rather nasty temper and is quit short in these situations, so when the supervisor asked "well, what do you want me to do about it" I saw that caracteristic vein on my dads temple start to throb, the tendons his neck tensed, his face turned red and with blood shot eyes he told him what to do "I WANT YOU TO GET ON THE PHONE AND TELL HIM TO MOVE HIS BEES TONIGHT BECUASE IF HE DOESN'T HE'LL BE MOVING THEM WITH A RAKE AND SHOVEL THE NEXT DAY". We new it would only be a matter of time before that yard would of had the mites but they had them from that day on.

I could go on and on about this but the subject was would we like to have an apiary inspection service, my answer is most defenitly, i'd even pay annual fees to have that service back.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>Help me Uncle Sam! Protect me Uncle Sam! Control me Uncle Sam!

I always hear about "government by the people, of the people, and for the people." If that's true, aren't we helping ourselves, protecting ourselves, and controlling ourselves? If it's not true, shouldn't we be trying to change the system?

Terrible circumstances in your stories, Chillard Willard. I'm sorry to hear about such things. Your last statement, in particular, is well said in my opinion. Here in SD, I do have to pay annual fees to register my hives, and I do appreciate the benefits from such a system. Like you said, some of these problems come to each of us in time, but we might be able to slow that spread through regulations. For example, we expect SHB this next summer here in SD. I know it's just a matter of time before they show up, but I would definitely be happy to have another 10 years before they do. I'd even be happy with just one more year before they arrive.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

For people to believe that it is even possible to be free from government is silly.

Even in the basic unit of society, the family, government, of a sort, exists.

I don't know about your household, but when I was growing up I lived in a dictatorship in Maryland, just outside of washington, D.C. I'll bet most of you did too.

So, let's grow up. Alright? Government of some sort will always exist. Be thankful that we live in this country. 

And if you don't care for the way that certain government agencys are working, get involved and change them, through your influence. You have more of that than you might think.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<sqkcrk>
Government of some sort will always exist. Be thankful that we live in this country.

True enough.

<sqkcrk>
And if you don't care for the way that certain government agencys are working, get involved and change them, through your influence. You have more of that than you might think.

And be vocal. Let people know that you think they may be headed in a bad direction.

<Kieck>
slow that spread through regulations.

For some people, this is the only possible solution that they can muster. Heck, Marx felt that a human's effort should be regulated because some people wanted to do things that he didn't think necessary.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>For some people, this is the only possible solution that they can muster.

All right. I'll bite. You imply that you know of other ways to slow down problems like spread of AFB and spread of AHB and spread of SHB and spread of Varroa, rather than using regulations. Let's hear them!


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
You imply that you know ...

Gosh no. I was making a general statement that some people always lean on regulation. I don't know enough about those acronyms to suggest that their spread is an issue or that I have a clue how to stop them.

Just a general distaste for backdoor law.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>All right. I'll bite. You imply that you know of other ways to slow down problems like spread of AFB and spread of AHB and spread of SHB and spread of Varroa, rather than using regulations. Let's hear them! 

So far regulation hasn't made any difference. Can you suggest how it could?


----------



## chillardbee (May 26, 2005)

and election day is coming soon here in canada too


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I don't know enough about those acronyms to suggest that their spread is an issue or that I have a clue how to stop them.

Well, let's see.

AFB is American foulbrood. That's the disease that initially inspired most of the regulations and inspection programs in states. Do the regulations and inspections help slow or limit the spread of foulbrood? I don't know really, but I can't imagine that they hurt.

AHB is Africanized honey bees. Obviously, these are spreading, both through natural migration associated with swarm and almost certainly through interbreeding with queens that are being shipped to beekeepers or with migratory operations.

SHB is small hive beetle. So far, this pest hasn't shown up in SD, but most of the commercial operations believe that it will come back with the migratory colonies next summer. This pest is spreading pretty rapidly right now.

And Varroa, of course, is Varroa mites. Personally, I doubt that Varroa is increasing its range much in the United States right now. I don't know that there's much of the U.S. left for it to increase its range here. But they certainly spread from hive to hive. If any hives out there are totally free of Varroa, they're unlikely to stay that way long.

So that's the long version of the acronyms I listed earlier. Most if not all of them are spreading. We might not be able to stop them, but I hope we can slow 'em down a little, at least.

>>So far regulation hasn't made any difference. Can you suggest how it could?

A fair question. I don't know that I can come up with a real situation, but I can suggest how regulations can slow or limit spread of diseases and pests. Here in SD (and, to the best of my knowledge, even more so in ND), we have regulations on minimum distances between apiaries. Three miles is the minimum distance between two apiaries right now. So, how could this slow the spread of disease? If the number of contacts among bees from different apiaries is reduced, the chances that a disease or pest could transfer are also reduced. It's the same principle that humans use when we stay home from work with contagious diseases.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Let's face it, there are some basic philosophical differences here.

I see that when I see people write about what they do for a sting. All the medications they take etc. What I usually do for a sting is nothing. Sometimes I try to scrape out the stinger, but that's about it, unless it really bothers me, then I might crush a little plantain and put on it and go on about my business. Some of you take all sorts of medicine for stings and have all sorts of medicine handy for stings. Obviously you have a different view of things.

I've never had a flu shot. Last time I had the flu bad enough that I even noticed, was 1975 or 1976. My philosophy is that my body will fight and my immune system will get stronger. I never try to avoid people who are sick. I seldom get a cold either.

A lot of you, when you get a fever, instantly take something to reduce it. I go in a 235F sweat lodge to help my body HAVE a fever. My fevers always break before I get out.

My philosophy is you should work WITH things not against them. My philosophy is that coddling yourself is counterproductive. Coddling your bees is, in my opinion, just as counterproductive.

Laws that try to prevent disease by preventing exposure seem counterproductive to me.

I've seen the "eradication" programs for everything from insects (usijng DDT) to thistles (using Roundup) to prairie dogs (using "rat" poison). I've never seen one work. Nature is a juggernaut. You best get out of her way. If you can redirect things in a small way, be happy. But trying to stop pests and diseases that are already in the wild is not only hopeless but usually results in a backlash. Try to kill the prairie dogs and you end up killing the predators (Black footed ferrets, burrowing owls, rattle snakes, eagles, hawks). And then you know what you get? MORE prairie dogs.

I've observed people trying to solve problems by passing laws my whole life. I've never seen any real difference in the original problem after the laws were passed other than the problem gets bigger, because anything you throw money at does, and it costs me more money and more trouble to comply with and pay for the new laws. The problem does not go away. Laws don't solve problems. People solve problems.

If a lack of an Apiary program will cause a disaster then there are many states that should be in the midst of one right now. If lack of a car safety inspection is a disaster then many states should have astronomical accident rates right now. But none of these doomsday scenarios have happened when the regulations were dropped.

I know this is contrary to the philosophy that many of you have. I apologize that I can't see it your way, but I've observed too much to the contrary for too many years.

Respectfully,


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
Well, let's see.

LOL sorry. I knew what the acronyms were. I didn't mean to imply that I needed a primer.

<Kieck>
but I can suggest how regulations can slow or limit spread of diseases and pests.

Ok, I think this is what he asked for.


<Kieck>
minimum distance

I do see how keeping a distance between apiarys might slow the spread of a disease, but how are regulations doing it? Any chance I will be able to get you to see that your proposed solution can be done without a regulation? Any chance I could get regulation out of your vocabulary at all?

Anyway, this minimum distance thing seems off hand that it might be a good idea. So, why don't you buy the rights from the landowners for some distance around your apiary and keep yourself safe?


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Oh boy, Bees AND Politics!

Here's a couple of appropriate quotes, and I voted against regulation.

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.~H. L. Mencken


The problem with regulation is that there is no evidence that the regulation will do what it is supposed to and plenty of evidence that it usually makes matters worse.

Then there are other victimless crimes that automatically appear. What if the inspector is checking out your beehives and discovers a poker game with money on the table? Or a still? What if someone sicced an inspector on you out of spite? If there was no inspector, then there would be no crime of lying to an inspector, or inadvertently breaking the law.

Voluntary measures are the best option. 

Don't you think it is better to convince people to change their ways through reason rather than by regulation?

Walid


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>I know this is contrary to the philosophy that many of you have. I apologize that I can't see it your way, but I've observed too much to the contrary for too many years.

You don't have to appologize, your absolutely right. And BTW, well said!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

ikkybeer, what would you suggest be done when reason fails.

Have you ever tryed to reason someone into doing what they should do but aren't?

Would this be evidence of effectiveness of inspection? (I'll bet that you'll come up with a reason other than Inspection.)

2004 AFB rates of colonies inspected in NY, showed a 4.5% rate of occurance.

@005 AFB rates of colonies inspected in NY, showed a rate less than 2%.

Slice it any way you want.

I'd rather that people would do what they are supposed to. What do you do about those who don't?


----------



## JohnBeeMan (Feb 24, 2004)

>>>I'd rather that people would do what they are supposed to.

This is the problem, your option of what they should be doing may not match what they think they should be doing. And, you want the power to dictate your option.

An inspection process when requested is a lot different from an inspection process by mandate.


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi Mark,

>>>what would you suggest be done when reason fails.<<<<

If for example it comes to failing to reason with someone that they should keep a healthy hive, then their hive will die. You can do nothing else without violating their god-given rights.


>>Would this be evidence of effectiveness of inspection? (I'll bet that you'll come up with a reason other than Inspection.)

2004 AFB rates of colonies inspected in NY, showed a 4.5% rate of occurance.

@005 AFB rates of colonies inspected in NY, showed a rate less than 2%.

Slice it any way you want.<<<<

Let me see if I understand...NY inspectors inspected hives in 2004 and 2005 and discovered that the percentage of hives with AFB dropped to less than half. What are you saying, that the inspection system educated the beekeepers to control AFB? That is quite possible. This result could be accomplished more effectively with a private system. Private consultants could visit x number of beekeepers and notate the percentage of AFB hives. After educating the clients, they come back the next year and check those same hives and the percentage drops. You could say that the private inspection process and it's reccomendations accomplished something. What does that have to do with using force to accomplish your means. 


>>>I'd rather that people would do what they are supposed to. What do you do about those who don't?<<

If you don't own them or their property, I suppose you could leave them alone.

Walid


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Not my dictation of my option. It's the states option.

ikkybear, their hive dies nextdoor to you and then what?

I think we are at an impass, because what you seem to suggest is what the state is doing. I would maintain that the reson that the disease rate was half of what it was the previous year is directly linked to the fact that the hives that were diseased in 2004 were not around in 2005. The state took measures to see that the beekeepers did what they themselves were not able to do without direction.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If you don't own them or their property, I suppose you could leave them alone.


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi Mark,

<<ikkybear, their hive dies nextdoor to you and then what?>>>

I am at a disadvantage because I am not sure where you are leading. Are you saying force should be used to burn their equipment since it might affect yours? Remember, you tried to explain to them how to solve their problem and they rebuffed you. Now that their hive died, maybe they will respect your opinion and change at least some of their ways.

<<The state took measures to see that the beekeepers did what they themselves were not able to do without direction.>>

That is sugarcoating the statement that the state used force to accomplish it's means. I don't have a problem with addressing problems, it is the use of force that I have a problem with.

Walid


----------



## JohnBeeMan (Feb 24, 2004)

>>> It's not me - it's 'THE STATE'.

sounds like 'BIG' government employee to me.

Since the state may not believe in FGMO - no more fogging. Since the state does not think small cell works, only commerical foundation. etc. etc. Finaly, no more diversity.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

ikkybeer, The purpose of the Apiary Inspection Program in Ny is to protect the beekeeping industry from diseases and pests of Honeybees.

That is where i am coming from. The question is should there be a program like that or not.

And if yes, there should be a program like that, what should it be like? How should it be run? 

If regulations exist, how stringently should they be enforced? 

Explaining what has happened to cause the AFB to be there and what should have been done are things that can be and are talked about. 

But once the disease is present in a form that can be seen, it needs to be addressed by the beekeeper, under the direction of the Inspector. That is the way that things are here. 

How are things done where you live? 

There was a time, or so I've been told, when NC would burn out of state hives that weren't moved out of the state fast enough. 

I am curious about your use of the term "force".
A policeman pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket. Is that force? Is that an example of force? Is that whatm you mean? The state enforcing it's laws? Is that force?


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi Mark,

<<And if yes, there should be a program like that, what should it be like? How should it be run?>>

In your other thread, a day or two ago, you were agreeing with the idea of a private inspection service. That is what I believe should exist. 

<<If regulations exist, how stringently should they be enforced?>>

Regulations where there is no actual victim of a crime should not be enforced. 


<<How are things done where you live?>>

I assume the taxpayers of North Carolina are subsidizing the bee industry. If they find AFB, I imagine the regulators kill the hive and fumigate the boxes for a dollar a pop.


<<I am curious about your use of the term "force".
A policeman pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket. Is that force? Is that an example of force? Is that whatm you mean? The state enforcing it's laws? Is that force?>>

Taxes or force, same thing however you want to look at it. If you refuse to pay they will forcibly extract it from you. The decision to give the ticket is up to the policeman, is he equitably enforcing the law? Is it based on his quota? Is it pouring down rain? Is she pretty? Is he black? Is it a fancy car? Does the driver's lawyer fix the ticket with the prosecutor? 

If you really want to know why something is being done, there is a little latin phrase that sums it up nicely, "cui bono?" (who benefits?). In the ticket scenario you could list the tax authority, the policeman, the judge, the lawyer, the insurance company. We lose.

Walid


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

okay


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>I do see how keeping a distance between apiarys might slow the spread of a disease, but how are regulations doing it? Any chance I will be able to get you to see that your proposed solution can be done without a regulation? Any chance I could get regulation out of your vocabulary at all?

To answer in order, I'll get to it, yes, and no. How are regulations keeping minimum distances between apiaries? In SD, the state sets minimum distances between apiaries. Beekeepers apply for rights to establish apiaries, and the state regulatory agency maintains maps that designate which areas are "available." Here, the minimum distance between apiaries is three miles. (Beekeepers actually wrote the bills that established these laws or regulations. I believe beekeepers could change these regulations in SD pretty easily if we wanted to; this state doesn't like to pay for anything it doesn't have to.)

Secondly, yes, you could convince me that there are ways other than state regulations that could work to create and maintain these minimum distances. Any suggestions? I should qualify my statement here. Other methods, really, should be cost effective (ask commercial beekeepers if they can afford to pay landowners NOT to put bees on their land; usually, it works the other way around with landowners paying for pollination, and the profit margin isn't that great in commercial operations), needs to be level (so the biggest operators don't have more rights than the smaller operators), and needs to work with some method of "enforcement." I use "enforcement" in quotes, because if someone violates the system, how does retribution work?

As far as removing "regulation" from my vocabulary, not on your life. It's a good word. It has a distinct meaning. It should stay in the vocabulary.  

Seriously, though, are "regulations" bad by definition? Why did humans ever create such things? What makes "laws" or "rules" different than "regulations?"

>>This result could be accomplished more effectively with a private system. Private consultants could visit x number of beekeepers and notate the percentage of AFB hives. After educating the clients, they come back the next year and check those same hives and the percentage drops. 

And who pays these private consultants? I've done some consulting work, and continue to do some work along similar lines. Guess what? You don't pay me, I don't give you information or advice. This system is fine for a few people who feel the need of inspections for diseases, but how can it accomplish the same goals as the current inspection systems? The beekeeper down the road with massive numbers of Varroa doesn't believe he has a problem, and won't do anything about it. I doubt he would pay for a private consultant under those circumstances.

>>Laws that try to prevent disease by preventing exposure seem counterproductive to me.

I agree with your comments, Michael, about many attempts to control things backfiring. Do you really believe this statement, though? What about some of the worst diseases? Do you think vaccinations for polio and scarlet fever are wrong? What about the "regulations" in effect right now when we're trying to avoid spreading bird flu through the global population of humans? What about programs that try to prevent the spread of HIV?

>>Laws don't solve problems. People solve problems.

I agree with the principle. However, in my mind, people write laws, so laws can be tools to solve problems.

Overall, the tone I'm getting from this thread is that some beekeepers don't like or want inspections, and they're very outspoken about their beliefs. The poll seemed to show that the majority of beekeepers who responded to the poll wanted state inspections. Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority?


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi Kieck,

<<In SD, the state sets minimum distances between apiaries. Beekeepers apply for rights to establish apiaries, and the state regulatory agency maintains maps that designate which areas are "available." Here, the minimum distance between apiaries is three miles. Beekeepers actually wrote the bills that established these laws or regulations.>> 

This is incredible! Do you mean if someone wants to have a couple of hives in their back yard, they have literally lost that freedom is someone has an apiary within 3 miles? Do you think that the beekeepers were a little biased towards their existence when they wrote these laws?

<<Seriously, though, are "regulations" bad by definition? Why did humans ever create such things? What makes "laws" or "rules" different than "regulations?">>

There are God-given laws that everyone pretty much understands but do not necessarily respect. Basically, you are free to do anything you want as long as you don't harm or steal someone else's body or property. Men can write laws that support that idea and sometimes they can write laws that violate that idea. So you understand just because it is a law, it doesn't mean it is a good law. So when you pass a seemingly innoccuous law that states "let's create a state department called the State Apiary Service to protect the agriculture in the state", it might seem like a good idea. Regulations are then written by people who don't see or care about the overall ramifications. And then other people still yet, make their own interpretations. It's mind boggling.

<<And who pays these private consultants? I've done some consulting work, and continue to do some work along similar lines. Guess what? You don't pay me, I don't give you information or advice. This system is fine for a few people who feel the need of inspections for diseases, but how can it accomplish the same goals as the current inspection systems? The beekeeper down the road with massive numbers of Varroa doesn't believe he has a problem, and won't do anything about it. I doubt he would pay for a private consultant under those circumstances.>>

Who is this guy down the road that I keep hearing about? I feel like wringing his neck (lol) because he is always mentioned as the guy we need to be protected against and therefore everyone is now subject to an instrusive state agency. If you know someone nearby that has varroa in their hives, why not approach them with an attitude of helpfulness exhibited by everyone in this forum instead of threatening them with uncaring regulations? Who will pay for these consultants? Everyone already does so. They come in the form of queen breeders, equipment sales, other beekeepers, authors, (don't forget many people who could actually enter into a bee consulting service if the state wasn't there taking their place), etc. all provided by the free market.


<<Overall, the tone I'm getting from this thread is that some beekeepers don't like or want inspections, and they're very outspoken about their beliefs. The poll seemed to show that the majority of beekeepers who responded to the poll wanted state inspections. Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority?>>

Two things here. If you ran an informal poll in this thread after much discussion, I believe you would have different results. But the question needs to be narrower. "If you could choose between two systems that accomplish the same results (not goals), one being private or the other run by a state agency, which would you prefer?" Or this. "Do you think apiaries have enough of a problem to warrant a coordinated effort, yes or no?" Just because a majority would join a coordinated effort, doesn't mean the state will be the most efficient or even effective at it.

Do you believe that might makes right? Maybe a minority is more vocal because they clearly see the inequity in a state regulatory agency. They (we) don't take loss of freedom lightly.

Walid


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I agree with your comments, Michael, about many attempts to control things backfiring. Do you really believe this statement, though? What about some of the worst diseases? Do you think vaccinations for polio and scarlet fever are wrong?

There are many who don't believe in vaccinations, including, but not limted to the Jehovah's Witnesses and many of the "healthy food" crowd. There are many who believe that vaccinations are responsible for many childhood problems that have grown exponetially since vaccinations became comon. Do I think vaccinations shoudl be available? Of course. Do I think they should be required? Of course not. If I have no say so about what is injected in my body or my child's body, then how would you define freedom?

I know of no state where you are required to have vaccinations. Most have laws that supposedly require them for school attendance, but you can sign waivers that exempt your kids if it's against your beliefs.

BTW there is NO vaccine for Scarlet Fever. 

>What about the "regulations" in effect right now when we're trying to avoid spreading bird flu through the global population of humans?

It is very doubtful it will make any difference. We do it because we don't know what else to do. Since no person has yet to catch it from another person, it seems unlikely to actually cause a problem for humans anyway.

>What about programs that try to prevent the spread of HIV?

Programs? Regulations? Laws? I would guess there is more private money being spent on programs for HIV solutions and prevention than government money. Just outlaw sex and IV drugs and blood transfusions. We can eradicate it in one generation.  

>I agree with the principle. However, in my mind, people write laws, so laws can be tools to solve problems.

It is a nice theory. One I have never seen work.

>Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority? 

They usually do. The majority of the American people did not participate in the Revolutionary war either. But they still reaped the benefits.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>This is incredible! Do you mean if someone wants to have a couple of hives in their back yard, they have literally lost that freedom is someone has an apiary within 3 miles? Do you think that the beekeepers were a little biased towards their existence when they wrote these laws?

I should have clarified this a little further. Landowners are exempt from this minimum distance if they are hobbyists. Hobbyists, in SD, can have a maximum of 5 yards with a maximum of 10 hives per yard before they are no longer considered "hobbyist." The minimum distance applies to all commercial apiaries, but even those have exemptions for "temporary pollination" contracts.

>>So you understand just because it is a law, it doesn't mean it is a good law. 

I agree. Not all laws are good. Becoming "law" doesn't make an idea good or right.

>>There are God-given laws that everyone pretty much understands but do not necessarily respect. Basically, you are free to do anything you want as long as you don't harm or steal someone else's body or property.

Not necessarily, and these "laws" differ widely in the ways they're interpreted. For example, is deliberately killing a person "murder?" What if it's done as an act of war? What about executing a murderer or someone convicted of treason? Are those deliberate killings still "murder?"

Keep in mind, too, that a lot of wars have been fought, "in the name of God." Both sides claim God is on their side. Who's right? I suppose the winners must be, looking at the situation logically, but try to convince the losers that, not only did they lose, but their religious convictions must be all wrong because they lost.

>>"If you could choose between two systems that accomplish the same results (not goals), one being private or the other run by a state agency, which would you prefer?" 

This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure you could get the same results with these two different systems.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the possibilities of "privatizing" bee inspections services, how they could work, if they could work, etc. I was noticing yesterday and today (read the thread on "GM again") that many beekeepers worry about the influence of big business on food production and agriculture. At the same time, (I hope they're not the same) beekeepers are advocating setting up private businesses to provide inspections.

>>Do you believe that might makes right? 

No, I don't. I also don't believe that lack of might makes right. But, really, is having your beehives inspected periodically by a governmental agency a grave "loss of freedom?" And shouldn't we be just as worried about losing our rights to big business as to government?


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<IkkyBear>
If you don't own them or their property, I suppose you could leave them alone.

This sounds reasonable.

<IkkyBear>
Regulations where there is no actual victim of a crime should not be enforced.

Or exist. But this is an incomplete answer. We need to corral the idea of crime. What regulation does is invent crimes in a not so objective way. Think Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness here as well as property rights. Property being strictly defined. So, no killing, stealing, destroying other peoples property. Keep your arguments also contained by intent.

<sqkcrk>
I am curious about your use of the term "force".

Think of this as any situation in which there is a person that does not have a choice. This person is made to act by force.

<Kieck>
To answer in order, I'll get to it, yes, and no. ...

Boy, you're missing the trees for the forest. I didn't ask how regulation is maintaining a minimum distance. You ought to reread what I said.

Perhaps if I simplify your argument:

1. SD regulates minimum distance (stated as fact)
2. minimum distance controls AFB (stated as fact)
3. AFB is controlled because SD regulates(conclusion)

Your conclusion is a fallacy because it presumes that "SD regulates" and "minimum distance" are the same thing.

Your argument is the same as:

1. John fishes.
2. fish are caught via fishing.
3. Fish are caught because John fishes.

Back to the point, You have not shown that regulation stops the spread of any of those acronyms.

By the way, my response to your points of argument were:

1. I believe this is fact.
2. I agreed that this may be true and that it seemed reasonable.
3. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

<Kieck>
Any suggestions?

I made a bunch, and cost effectiveness is your problem. If the business can't survive the way you see it then it should die.

<Kieck>
Seriously, though, are "regulations" bad by definition? Why did humans ever create such things? What makes "laws" or "rules" different than "regulations?"

Humans created them because it is much easier to create these controls then having to put the ideas through the whole legislative process. Laws are things that are created in a strict way.

Now this is going to be a general statement, I know that abuses exist, but an easy way of think of the difference in practice is that laws are meant to protect my rights and regulations are meant to control me. Notice the synonym in regulate and control.

<Kieck>
And who pays these private consultants?

Asked and answered. You said it in the same paragraph, the people that think they need it.

<Kieck>
doesn't believe he has a problem...

He doesn't think it is an issue and you think it is. Who is right? Why do you think you should get to be right by force?

<Kieck>
Do you think vaccinations for polio and scarlet fever are wrong?

You make the same logic error as above. Vaccinations has been shown to be good. Doesn't say nothing about laws or regulation.

<Kieck>
Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority?

Might makes right. I am trumped.

<read IkkyBear's response>

Yeah, and what he said!


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Michael Bush>
Just outlaw sex and IV drugs and ...

Whew, you scared me for a second. I though you were going to say rock-n-roll...









<Kieck>
Keep in mind, too, ...

Man, have I ever mentioned before that you like to shift context?  

<Kieck>
But, really, is having your beehives inspected periodically by a governmental agency a grave "loss of freedom?"

Yes. A deep resounding booming yes. In an extremely huge way it is. Liberty is something you either have or you don't, there are no degrees.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

JohnF:

I went back and reread your post. Now that you've clarified the "it," I think I did miss the intention of your first question.

>>I do see how keeping a distance between apiarys might slow the spread of a disease, but how are regulations doing it? Any chance I will be able to get you to see that your proposed solution can be done without a regulation? Any chance I could get regulation out of your vocabulary at all?

The way you wrote your first question could just as easily be interpreted, "How are regulations keeping a minimum distance between apiaries?"

>>Perhaps if I simplify your argument:

>>1. SD regulates minimum distance (stated as fact)
>>2. minimum distance controls AFB (stated as fact)
>>3. AFB is controlled because SD regulates(conclusion)

Actually, what *I* intended was more along the lines of:

1) South Dakota regulates minimum distances between apiaries.
2) Greater distances between apiaries slow the spread of diseases and pests.
3) Diseases and pests SHOULD spread from apiary to apiary in South Dakota more slowly than in states without minimum distances between apiaries.

You simplified my argument, but you also added your own interpretation of my intent. 

Now, how is your other example about fishing even really parallel? Even to the other? I don't understand how "John fishes" is along the same lines as "South Dakota regulates minimum distances between apiaries."

And, just for further clarification, the minimum distances between commercial apiaries in South Dakota are established in South Dakota's uniform, codified laws. Are they "regulations" then, or "laws?" What's the difference again?
 

>>Might makes right. I am trumped.

Do you maintain those same views and make similar statements when your opinion agrees with the majority?

Personally, like I said before, I don't believe that "might makes right." Theoretically, and we're all talking like a bunch of idealists here, our government operates on the idea that the majority opinion is greater than the minority opinion. Otherwise, bills that receive a minority of the votes in our legislative bodies would still pass, candidates who receive fewer votes than their opponents would be elected over those who receive more votes, etc. It's important to protect the rights of those in the minority opinion, but we rarely operate where the minority sector sets the "rules."

>>He doesn't think it is an issue and you think it is. Who is right? Why do you think you should get to be right by force?

I don't think I should be right by force. At the same time, why should I have to pay for someone else's faults, or pay because someone is developing (whatever disease or pest you want to name hear) resistance? How do you balance the rights of one person against the rights of another person?

For what it's worth, your debates drive me nuts at times, JohnF, but I do appreciate them. Dissenting opinions, even if we don't wind up agreeing, should hone our own opinions. Thanks much for adding to the debate about these topics!


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi Kieck,

<<Hobbyists, in SD, can have a maximum of 5 yards with a maximum of 10 hives per yard before they are no longer considered "hobbyist." The minimum distance applies to all commercial apiaries, but even those have exemptions for "temporary pollination" contracts.>>

So someone that wanted to become a honey magnate without registring with the state, could setup individuals to rent their property to him. He could sell them a hive or ten and have a contract to service the hives and buy the honey. If the state rewrote their guidelines to close the loophole to this scoundrel then you would realize that their intent is to control the business and not the mites.

<<is deliberately killing a person "murder?" What if it's done as an act of war? What about executing a murderer or someone convicted of treason? Are those deliberate killings still "murder?">>

Maybe we should keep the discussion in the bee realm, but killing is always wrong except in self defense. How can you teach your children, or disciples, or subjects that killing is wrong but then hypocritically use it as punishment. God created this world and people understand in their gut that an institution should not be able to morally end the life of a human being superior to it's existence. And war is always a racket.

<<I'm not sure you could get the same results with these two different systems.>>

Again, those are two different issues. After you decide there needs to be a cooperative effort, you would then need to objectively decide which system would do a better job. Unfortunately it is easy for politicians to pose as guardians when in fact they really wish to control.

<<I also don't believe that lack of might makes right. But, really, is having your beehives inspected periodically by a governmental agency a grave "loss of freedom?" And shouldn't we be just as worried about losing our rights to big business as to government?>>

Exactly. Might, majority, minority, equality have nothing to do with right. 

Think of it this way. If near total freedom is defined by an infantessimal restriction on that freedom, then any intrusion on your freedom is infinitely large in comparison. If people can't make a voluntary choice and pick the obvious answer to a problem, why force it on them? Might doesn't make it right.


If you support your subordination to a government agency and the big business controls the government agency, then you are supporting your loss of rights to both the agency and the big businesses. 

Walid


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>So someone that wanted to become a honey magnate without registring with the state, could setup individuals to rent their property to him. He could sell them a hive or ten and have a contract to service the hives and buy the honey. If the state rewrote their guidelines to close the loophole to this scoundrel then you would realize that their intent is to control the business and not the mites.

I might agree with you on this one IF the "state" rewrote the laws. So far, that hasn't happened. Also, in SD, most of our legislators are teachers and farmers and small business people and things like that. They're only in legislative session for two months out of the year, and we only pay them for the time they work. In this state, no one can make a living as a legislator only. 

Also, like I keep emphasizing, these laws were established from bills drafted by beekeeping organizations. "We" (I use quotation marks because I wasn't even alive at the time these laws were enacted) decided that this would be best for beekeeping, especially with the growth of commercial operations in the state. I believe part of the idea behind the legislation was to avoid conflicts among commercial beekeepers, too. No one "else" forced these rules upon beekeepers in SD; beekeepers just chose to use the state system for their benefit.

>>If you support your subordination to a government agency. . . .

I realize I'm idealistic on this one, but I still believe I have a voice in our government. People like to spout that quip about, "government by the people, of the people, and for the people." If that's true (and I know you can argue that it isn't), then this subordination would be to ourselves. That's a deep philosophical debate that I won't get into.

>> If near total freedom is defined by an infantessimal restriction on that freedom, then any intrusion on your freedom is infinitely large in comparison.

I think this one gets back to balancing my rights with your rights and so forth. Yes, I like personal freedoms. I don't know that I'd like the results of limitless personal freedoms.

Just some food for thought:

Like all Americans, I have a right to freedom of speech. However, that isn't a limitless right. I don't have a right to slander someone else. I really don't believe that I should have that right, but that restriction definitely limits my freedom of speech.

I also have a right to freedom of movement. If I am freely moving across someone else's property, I could be charged with trespassing. That limits my right to freedom of movement.

To bring it back to bees, should my management techniques for hives limit your right to have healthy bees? How do you balance the two? How do you "enforce" that balance? Or, should I just be able to keep bees anyway I please wherever I'd like? 

At the danger of taking it to extremes, imagine that you're raising queens, either for yourself or for sale. Hypothetically, I could be using Africanized bees a few miles from you. Without regulations or laws about such things, I'd be within my rights. How would you feel about your ability to produce acceptable queens? I know I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent with this scenario, but I'm curious what specific suggestions those of you have that are opposed to regulations on beekeeping to such a situation. How should we deal with a situation like that?


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
The way you wrote your first question ...

Agreed. No foul.

<Kieck>
1) South Dakota regulates minimum distances between apiaries.
2) Greater distances between apiaries slow the spread of diseases and pests.
3) Diseases and pests SHOULD spread from apiary to apiary in South Dakota more slowly than in states without minimum distances between apiaries.

(note, we don't need the between apiarys and other such qualifier because we are disecting the logic. The other stuff is given by context.)

Also, we can't use the word should because it cannot be conclusive. If you are taking a stand you have to support some conclusion. For example, you can argue that I SHOULD give you 10 bucks and I may completely agree with you. Does this mean I will? I have to change your use of SHOULD to WILL in order for you to have an argument.

Just changing the form for your argument:

1. SD regulates distance (stated as fact)
2. Other states do not regulate distance (stated as fact)
3. distance relates inversely to rate (stated as 
fact)
4. lower rate is good (stated as goal)
5. rate will be lower in SD and not lower in other states (conclusion)

<Kieck>
Now, how is your other example about fishing even really parallel? Even to the other?

It was the logic that was parallel, just trying to show the error.

A little more formal than.

my original form:

1. Actor Action Variable (stated)
2. Variable begets Benefit (stated)
3. Action begets Benefit (conclusion)

Conclusion is not supported by premises.

New form:

1. Actor1 Action Variable1 (stated)
2. Actor2 does not Action Variable1 (stated)
3. Variable1 is Variable2 (stated as inverse relationship)
4. Variable2 begets Benefit (stated)
5. Action begets Benefit (conclusion)

Again, conclusion is not supported by premises.

And...

1. John Fishes
2. Michael does not fish (for example purposes







)
3. having fish makes hands stinkier
4. stinky hands are stinky
5. John will have stinkier hands than Michael

(That last bit was just for fun.)


<Kieck>
What's the difference again?

I told you, it is an abused system. I even mentioned that I was giving a general definition. I can't help it if SD folks make regulations into law.

<Kieck>
Do you maintain those same views and make similar statements when your opinion agrees with the majority?

Yes I do. I do not remotely believe that might makes right. I always argue from the perspective of reason to the best of my knowledge. I am not always right and would never consider my opinion infallable. Reminds me of a passage from "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills. (I cannot remember it exactly, so I am paraphrasing) We cannot squelch the voice of the one over the voice of the many because if he is right the many will have learned what is right and if he is wrong the many will have supported its claim.

<Kieck>
our government operates on the idea that the majority opinion is greater than the minority opinion.

No it doesn't. It was even created to operate against it. If this were the case then our government would be decided for us by the folks living on the coasts (higher pop. density) and those of us stuck in the middle would have no voice.

But we get into a different kind of discussion here if we get too deep into this.

<Kieck>
At the same time,

You won't, he will. You have options. You can always move.

<Kieck>
For what it's worth,

This is music to my ears. It means you are considering my arguments.

First though, I do not expect to convert other's opinions to my own. I do expect convergence OR an agreement that a paradox exists and that we (the actors of the discussion) do not know enough to identify the error. Yes, I believe reality operates in a logical manner.

Now, I do not waste my time. You should ask, (oh, and you have on occasion) how does he profit? What if he is right? (Your economics homework will help a little with understanding the first question.)

I believe that I know who you are philisophically better than you do. (or you than know me for that matter.) I do understand that this is probably due to some quest I have undertaken that you have not. I stand by my assertion that all surviving human beings that are not broken are philosophers so don't go letting some meaningless name hold you back. You should be more afraid that I am left-handed.

I suggest that you assume all opposing viewpoints/data as right. In fact, accept it as the truth. Then, like my little logic descriptions above, hold this new truth against your premises (principles). Does it hold up? Does it identify a premise that suddenly appears in error?

For one thing, your arguments will then flow logically. You can even state the premise that invalidates the idea. As actors in a discussion we may find that we hold two different premises and we may part with an unsolved paradox or try and resolve the difference.

Dang! I went philosophical. Sometimes my wife looks at me and just says "Don't care!"

Anyway, perhaps I will be able to get that "regulation" word out of your vocabulary.









Discover the premises.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
How should we deal with a situation like that?

I would move my operation to a place I felt better suited to my needs or create an artifical envornment better suited to my needs or pay the guy down the road to move his.

You assume that AHB is a bad thing. You have defined this for yourself. Perhaps the neighbor disagrees and wants AHB.

We keep giving you these examples and you keep asking. Dig into my response and accept that what I have said is true and discover what premise you think contradicts it.

In this case, you will see that it is that you believe AHB is bad.

What if this premise is wrong?
What are the premises that support this conclusion?
What if they (one of them) are (is) wrong?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Aaaahhh! See, I'm thinking along a different line again. I'm prepared to test the idea, rather than draw conclusions from. Honestly, I don't know if any data exists to show that diseases and pests spread more slowly in areas with minimum distances specified between apiaries.

So, in my mind, I was setting it up as a hypothesis. 1) SD (and ND and maybe some other states) has minimum distances between apiaries.
2) Studies of contagious diseases and parasites have demonstrated that these organisms spread through populations more slowly when contacts are limited. 3) The minimum distances between apiaries should limit the contacts (I'm not stating this as "fact" because I don't know that this is really the case). 4) HYPOTHESIS: States with regulations that specify minimum distances between apiaries should have slower rates of spread of diseases and pests.

Like I said, I'm not ready to draw a conclusion. I'm just setting it up as a test. If is doesn't work, then we scrap the idea of minimum distances for the purpose of slowing spread of diseases and pests.

We still might need the minimum distances to avoid conflicts among commercial beekeepers.  

>>I told you, it is an abused system. I even mentioned that I was giving a general definition. I can't help it if SD folks make regulations into law.

Is it "abused," or is the system working the way it's designed to work? I was trying, earlier, to point out that the differences between "laws" and "regulations" are minor, if they exist at all.

>>I believe that I know who you are philisophically better than you do. (or you than know me for that matter.) I do understand that this is probably due to some quest I have undertaken that you have not. 

Huh?!?


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi Kieck,

<<Like all Americans, I have a right to freedom of speech. I also have a right to freedom of movement. If I am freely moving across someone else's property, I could be charged with trespassing. That limits my right to freedom of movement.>>

To me, it's absurd that the idea of words coming out of your mouth or pen can be compared to the instrusion on your God-given rights. You have the right to jump off a cliff without a parachute, but you don't have the right to avoid the consequence. You certainly do have the undiminished right to tresspass, but you also face the consequences. Rights as you think of them are not granted to you by the constitution, the constitution bars (or is supposed to) the government from intruding on your already existing God-given rights.

<<To bring it back to bees, should my management techniques for hives limit your right to have healthy bees? How do you balance the two? How do you "enforce" that balance? Or, should I just be able to keep bees anyway I please wherever I'd like?>>

You have the God-given right to raise bees but not the right to succeed at raising your bees. How do you balance it? You raise your bees knowing that there is some bad stuff out there. Be careful. You might have the legal right to force the citizens of SD to support you in your business or hobby, but you certainly don't have the moral right. 

<<imagine that you're raising queens, either for yourself or for sale. Hypothetically, I could be using Africanized bees a few miles from you. Without regulations or laws about such things, I'd be within my rights. How would you feel about your ability to produce acceptable queens?">>

Are AHB the problem or the result? Apparently, now, there is a lot of nectar and pollen out there for the taking, and AHB are stepping up to the plate (baseball or dinner, lol). In mother natures laboratory, the twain shall meet. If my queens produce honey producing brats, maybe people won't buy them. Maybe I could breed for more desirable traits, like their seeming resistance to mites, or prolific honey foraging. Or I could move, which is much more acceptable than using force on my neighbor.

Walid


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

I have a great idea along this discussion! I'll make a chain of logical conclusions as an exercise and I will let other folks here make or break the arguments. This might be a little of what sqkcrk was asking for in the other thread.

Using the subject of my last post.

Conclusion: AHB is bad.

Premise:

1. AHB randomly kill people and will extinct the human race.

2. AHB leave flie specks on my truck.

3. AHB do not produce honey.

4. AHB crossing causes HB to not produce honey.

5. AHB swarm constantly and cannot be kept in a hive.

6. AHB are not gentle and cannot be managed by a beekeeper.

7. AHB are smaller and cannot carry enough pollen to support life.

Now, this is my claim and I am sticking to it!


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
Like I said, I'm not ready to draw a conclusion.

Yes you are, if you cannot state your hypothesis as a conclusion then you cannot create a valid test. Who's the scientist now? In simple terms you will declare: This SHOULD that so I am going to test if this WILL that.

<Kieck>
I'm not stating this as "fact" because I don't know that this is really the case

When you design a test you certainly do state it as fact. It's the premise of the test. It is also part of what you are trying to disprove. And stating it as fact doesn't make it so. Of course I understand that usually when you are outlining a test you identify the things that are stated but could be wrong, otherwise you couldn't design controls or make it double blind.

But you will have to be able to logically state it!

<Kieck>
we scrap the idea of minimum distances

Now you've changed your claim.

You claimed regulation provides the benefit.

<Kieck>
to point out that the differences between "laws" and "regulations" are minor, if they exist at all.

They are in principle. IkkyBear is doing a great job of diferentiating.

<IkkyBear>
the constitution bars (or is supposed to) the government from intruding on your already existing God-given rights.

This is getting to my distinction between protection and control.

<Kieck>
Huh?!?

I completely accept that response.


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi John,

Thanks for the compliments. I kinda like this bee crowd.

Walid


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

>>When you design a test you certainly do state it as fact.

No. We've had the debate before about "facts" versus "hypotheses." Look up the definitions again. By the ways that I read the definitions, the two are mutually exclusive. Facts can't be hypotheses, hypotheses can't be facts.

When you design a test, whether stated explicitly or not, you start with a series of alternative hypotheses. Then you attempt to disprove them.

Since you used the term, what is a "double blind" test? What's the advantage of a double blind test? I know it's one of those great "scientific" sounding terms, but should all tests be double-blind?

>>Now you've changed your claim.

>>You claimed regulation provides the benefit.

In this case, one of the regulations (or, actually, laws) sets the minimum distance. Not all apiary regulations will provide the same benefit. I never claimed that "all" regulations collectively provided the benefit.

>>They are in principle.

What's the principle? Really, how do laws and regulations differ?

OK, I'll step off this one now. This thread was devoted to "Do you want an Apiary Inspection Service?" I think it's pretty clear to everyone that I see merit in having such a service. I also think it's pretty clear that others on the board feel the infringements imposed by inspection services outweigh any benefits to them. No need for me to argue further on this thread.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Kieck>
Look up the definitions again.

I know what I'm talking about and you aren't reading what I said.

<Kieck>
alternative

Not necessarily.

<Kieck>
Since you used the term,

I know what a double blind is, no, not all tests can even be double blind. You missed the point.

<Kieck>
I never claimed ...

You claimed that regulation was good. The specific one cited is not the point. You have not supported this claim.

<Kieck>
What's the principle?

The difference between protection and control.

<ikkybeer>
I kinda like this bee crowd.

I think this site specifically is amazing. The information flow is just too cool.

I keep typing ikkybear I noticed. Weird, because my brain reads it right but my fingers type it wrong.


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

<JohnF>
I keep typing ikkybear 

Probably has something to do with honey and winnie the pooh, lol. I could resemble a big bear, maybe I should change my moniker to sticky bear.

Walid


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

John, of course none of your premises (or even any parts thereof) are true but even so does not lead to a logical conclusion that AHB are not bad.

Point?

[ January 19, 2006, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

Joel,

It's an exercise in critical thinking. If I were your math professor I would give you C. You got the answer right but you need to show your work.









All of the premises except one can be proven false except one. #2 is completely subjective. It would be the one to create a super long debate that may end in a couple of normally friendly folks spitting online fire. Starts out along the line, Why is your truck so important, How does you having to wash your truck effect society, technically - can bees make FLY specks?, fly specks are good for automotive paint...

I don't think it hurts to throw a little exercise into the frey every now and then to check what we are doing.

This thread is really two different things. A philosophical argument and a political debate. I am hoping the philosophical argument sinks in. One is a search for truth and the other is a method to pass things off as truth.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Well I'm assuming that's the point and if so are we extrapolating that onto this post to say that all the negatives in the inspection program don't make the inspection negative or am I completely missing it?

John, enforcement in NYS is already being done by private organizations in other areas. They are not for profit. For example, we've all seen Animal Precinct. ASPCA is a private not for profit organization. There officers are appointed as NYS Peace Officers (full police powers for arrests, warrants etc when acting pursuant to their special duties) just by their virtue of employment as an officer or agent of the ASPCA.

Do you think there is be an economic model for this (just enforcement powers not arrest)for inspections and how would it be modeled. With ASPCA types they usually have muncipal contracts that cover some costs and other monies are a result of animal redemption fees, fine returns and licensure fees. They are enforcing state and local laws as a private organization.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<Joel>
am I completely missing it?

You are spot on.

<Joel>
are not for profit.

We have to be careful here, this is an IRS distinction and not an economic one.

<Joel>
There officers are appointed as NYS Peace Officers

Oh my gosh, do they get training for that? I have family LEO and don't envy that job at all.

<Joel>
Do you think there is be an economic model for this (just enforcement powers not arrest)for inspections and how would it be modeled.

Enforcement is a sticky word in your question. I'll come back to it later.

Yes, if there is value in the inspection then there is an economic model that will support it. The best example for this industry I can come up with is to say that I would pay to know that the bees I buy have been looked at by someone in-the-know that sticks their neck out with their assessment. Unrelated to bees but a good example is to study the UL listing process.

Now for enforcement. The free market "enforces" valuable things by preference. Sort of natural selection in all things economics. As an example, let's say sqkcrk takes my idea from above and makes a business out of it. He offers to package producers a certification service and will stamp each package with his seal. To the buyer he gurantees health and if unhealthy bees arrive he will buy the bees back at twice the cost. Sqkcrk finds one package producer that decides to give it a try. He advertises this fact. Sqkcrk also advertises his business to the package producers customers. The producer eventually improves his profitablity and the buyers start to move to him only. The "enforcement" is done by the producer's customers.

Not all things in an economy show up directly. The broader you can see your economic footprint, the better your plan will be and the liklier it is to succeed.

In this society you can also improve your probability of success by forcing people. There are any number of ways to do this, like: spreading the cost to others not involved through taxation, licenses, regulations, ordinances, approved lists, ... In my opinion you'll have to cross a moral boundary to do it, but then my morals aren't everyone's morals or even necessarily right.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Since you mentioned morals.

Is it amoral or unethical to knowingly sell AFB infected nucs?

What about unknowingly? Amoral, unethical, wrong or just plain negligable?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Darn! I meant immoral, of course.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<sqkcrk>
Is it amoral [immoral] or unethical to knowingly sell AFB infected nucs?

No. It would be unethical to misrepresent what you are selling.

For example, what if the buyer wants AFB infected nucs?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Well, in that case do you think that a person who has AFB infected nucs should sell them at a premium?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Speaking of ethics. Check out the other two threads related to this topic.


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

<sqkcrk>
Well, in that case do you think that a person who has AFB infected nucs should sell them at a premium?

He should sell them for no more than the market will bear and the buyer should buy them for no less.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

JohnF, are you just a philosopher or do you know anything about beekeeping seriously?


----------



## John F (Dec 9, 2005)

No, I am not just a philosopher and I know next to nothing about beekeeping.

This site has been a great place to learn though.


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

sqkcrk
<<Is it amoral or unethical to knowingly sell AFB infected nucs?
What about unknowingly? Amoral, unethical, wrong or just plain negligable?>>

I believe WC Fields said, "You can't cheat an honest man".

If a man knowingly sells AFB nucs, is the buyer possibly dishonest with himself for not discovering for himself that the nucs are not AFB infected? Wouldn't a buyer be dishonest with himself in believing that some seal of inspection does not actually guarantee that the nuc doesn't have AFB?

Do you think that possibly under cover of an underbudgeted, stretched state inspection system, a seller of diseased nucs could get rid of them (amorally) easier than in a system where the buyer would be more honest with himself and make a serious personal investigation at his own time and expense? 

The unknowingly part is more difficult. Do you mean intentionally unknowing, like the hive doesn't seem to be doing so well, why don't I sell the frames without actually looking at them, therefore it is unknowing. 

Or do you mean, you sold some frames that were infected but the state inspected all your hives the day before and they were clean. This would be unknowing.

Or do you mean, some inspection service is available but you choose not to inspect and sell a nuc anyway not having any idea it is infected?


Walid
Walid


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

John, "C" that's what my logic professor in college gave me. the exercise did make me look at the issue from a different perspective. It got me looking for the actual problems and solutions as they do exist (or could for solutions). It suprising how we get stuck in our own bias and a simple mental excercise clears the cobwebs.

Yes. The ASPCA officers have to complete a 40 hrs. school, are enforcing misdemeanors and felonies (cruelty laws). It is scary and so are some of the folks doing it.

As to value, I know disease and symptoms inside out so there is no value to me in me paying someone to do it. (Although I also know how to fix my truck and often pay someone else to because my time is better spent doing what I do best). I need inspection when I migrate my hives. This means a professional inspector would somehow have to be qualified so as to have their certification recognized by other states.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Joel, If you went to FL, you cuold get a permit that wopuld allow you re-entry into FL, as long as you returned within 6 months. Maybe SC would be willing to do the same program. Has anyone ever inspected your bees in Sc? Fred Singleton does mine down there.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

ikkybeer, Ole W.C. a;so said, "I never drink water, fish...." Darn, I forgot. Littl ears. Right, Barry.

I was relly trying to find out if anyone thought that an Apiary Inspection service should eb charged with the responsibility of inspecting nucs.

Now, I know that some would rather be left alone and let the AFB even things out, but I don't think that most folks really feel that way, if they think about it.

There are plenty of folks who say, "Leave mine alone. But check so and so's bees. I think he may be rotten."

Under those circumstances, if the inspector inspected the bees of a competeing beekeeper and not the first guy, wouldn't that be as bad as a "Conflict of Interest"? 

Wouldn't the Inspector be acting as the agent of the first beekeeper?

In my opinion, it either needs to be all or none. 

If only some are inspected, aren't some getting preferential treatment and some neglect? Or you could look at it the other way, that being, that some are picked on and saome are getting left alone?

Either way, no ones happy. In any case. Whether, all or none or like now.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

<In my opinion, it either needs to be all or none.>

None.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks, pj.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

peggjam, You've made it clear that you don't want regulation of your beehives and your behavior.

Does it bother you then, to be part of a "regulated" discussion? The moderators are the regulators, the inspectors of our posts.


----------



## Tim Vaughan (Jun 23, 2002)

The problem with many types of law enforcement is that you get little people who are all swollen up with themselves and can't handle power, and these people are attracted to jobs like that. 

As a general principle, the State is much too big, and that which would add power to the State is bad and that which would reduce the power of the State is good.


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark,

<<Does it bother you then, to be part of a "regulated" discussion? The moderators are the regulators, the inspectors of our posts.>>

The diference here being, if you choose not to participate in this board, you can still raise bees in the free world. But if you refuse to participate in your regulated world, the options are much fewer.

Walid


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

<peggjam, I don't understand why you want to assume the worse about me, so often. By the words you use, you seem to think that I or other Inspectors think that you are dumb and stupid. I don't know you to be one way or the other. I work on the premiss that each individual is the same and deserves the same respect as the next, until they show me otherwise.>

I brought this over from the thread that got closed because I feel that it needs a response. I don't assume anything about you Mark. My responses are aimed at the NYS Inspection Program, of which you are a part, or at least used to be a part of. The reputation and abuses done by inspectors of this program in the past have earned you this distiction. There is nothing personal, strcictly aimed at you, because I don't know you. It seems funny that we had this disscusion on here about the problems of this program, and all of a sudden the Ethics Committe decides that there is a problem with commercial inspectors being state inspectors. Considering they have not had a problem with it in the last 50-60 years?????????????

<What about your Amish neighbors? It seems to me like maybe you'd like them looked at, no?>

I've put up with them this long, so I guess it doesn't make much difference. Besides, I don't see them allowing anyone to inspect them anyway.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

ikkybeer, yes, I can see your point.

peggjam, thanks for that reply. May there be respect and peace betwen us, if and when we do meet. Who knows, you might recognize my name at a beekeepers meeting.

It is too bad that the program has a bad reputation with so many. Beekeepers have a great historical memory. We are personally involved with or craft.

The interesting thing to me about the Ethics Board ruling is it's timing. Considering the events of the last 5 months. There are a number of things that have happened that may have brought the Apiary Inspection Program to the Ethics Board's attention and review.

As far as the Amish, if they are in an area where an active Inspector lives or works and that Inspector is aware of the fact that they have bee hives, they will get inspected. I've never had an Amish person refuse me, when it comes to inspection. It could happen, just hasn't yet. So, if you want them inspected, you can probably figure out what to do.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

ikkybeer, the options in the real world may be fewer but, at least here in New York, if you don't want your bees looked at "usually" you have that option. If a need appears, from things in your area, such as higher levels of AFB occuring around someone, then the regulators are going to want to look at your colonies too. You can still slow things down, to try to stop any inspection, legally. And if the need seems to warrant it, legal action to enforce the law is an option that the Commissioner of Ag&Mkts can exercise. A very rare occurance, of which I only know about one happening in the last 20 years. Most folks, when presented with the situation in the right light, i.e. benefits to them and their civic duty to their neighbors, agree to the inspection.


----------



## ikkybeer (Jan 11, 2006)

Hi Mark,

I appreciate your experience and knowledge in the bee business, and the inspection business. I believe it is of great value to you however you wish to use it.

You can look at the actors in the inspection scenario in a couple of ways. They both are similar in that an inspector (a professional) visits a beekeeper with the intention of mitigating some valid or perceived threat to the community.

The inspector can come in the form of a state inspector, a representative of a group, or simply a neighbor beekeeper. If the understanding is that the beekeeper can refuse the inspection or accept it and make any and all decisions, then it is not a problem with me.

<<Most folks, when presented with the situation in the right light, i.e. benefits to them and their civic duty to their neighbors, agree to the inspection.>>

Now there is a moral duty that a beekeeper has to himself, his neighbors, his bees to do the right thing. This is more important than a civic duty because I take that to mean that the state will assume the position of monitoring that duty. Their intent they say is to safeguard the community, but this front is usually a disquise for controlling their subjects through ever increasing fees and regulations. 

So when you say presented in the right light, you understand part of the light spectrum is that blue flashing light.

Walid


----------



## Tom Miller (Aug 10, 2005)

Hi All:

After reading this entire thread, I am reminded of the saying that "he who is governed least is governed best".

That said, I agree with Michael Bush that the poll should have a question allowing for voluntary inspections. Since this poll doesen't give me that choice, I voted NO.

Tom Miller


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

64% for, 36% against

That's a big minority to me.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

How about the three choices:

Mandatory
On request
None

You might get an entirely different outcome.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yup, peggjam took up that suggestion. And so far, with only 5 votes, the results are 60/40. 

Hopefully more people will participate in peggjams poll. 

If they don't, what does that tell us? That beekeepers don't like to take polls? Most beekeepers are content to keep their opinions to themselves? Most beekeeperas don't care? Or none of the above? Or something else?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Even if more people do take the poll, the results will be a general feeling nationwide, not nessacerly for NY. If NY beekeeps want an inspection service, we need one that works better than the ones in the past have. At this point, I would suspect that we will end up with nothing, because there isn't enough beekeeps that want one, or are willing to support one that will work.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

You may be right but, I would think that at least a few Inspectors would be kept working to serve the needs of Migratory Beekeepers who need permits to travel to other states.

Time will tell.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"I would think that at least a few Inspectors would be kept working to serve the needs of Migratory Beekeepers who need permits to travel to other states."

I should hope so, but it maybe a paid for service by the beekeep.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I've been thinking about this conflict of interest thing. 

What if as an apiary Inspector/Beekeeper you weren't allowed to sell any hive products in the state of NY? Nucs, honey, equipment, nothing. And no pollination. And if your apiaries were too close, say 3 miles, to another persons apiary, let's say, you'd have to move your apiary. Any honey produced would have to be sold out of state.

Wouldn't that almost eliminate the "C o'I"?

With the honey economy the way that it is, how is anyone in competition with anyone else as far as bulk sales to packers? Certainly I am not getting more for my honey from a packer because of another beekeeper and if I don't sell my honey you wouldn't get more for yours. Or am I wrong? Tell me how, please?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"I've been thinking about this conflict of interest thing. 

What if as an apiary Inspector/Beekeeper you weren't allowed to sell any hive products in the state of NY? Nucs, honey, equipment, nothing. And no pollination. And if your apiaries were too close, say 3 miles, to another persons apiary, let's say, you'd have to move your apiary. Any honey produced would have to be sold out of state."

I think your looking for a way to have your cake and eat it too, but I'll bite. This would settle the C of I for me...not to say it would for anyone else...
1)If the inspector keeps bees:
Inspections should be volintary
2)They should be schuled at the convienance of the beekeep, not the state.
3)If any damage to hives is apparent within 10 days of inspection, the state pays the damage.
4)Inspectors would not be allowed to place a yard in an area where there has been an inspection performed by him in the last year.\
5)Any and all lab testing of samples suspected of AFB are paid for by the state, and options other than burning are allowed, with follow up inspections required.
6)Inspectors would not be allowed to recommand any of his own services or the services of any other beekeep.
7)Inspectors would not be allowed to inspect and certifly their own yards, and it must be done by someone with no C of I. Another words you can't have your buddy inspect your yards.

That's a start, but I reserve the right to add more as I happen to think of them!!!!!!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

pj, If you don't mind, I will address your comments in order.
1.Clarify please? Whose inspections would be voluntary? The Inspectors or all beekeepers? I'm confused. Not unusual.
2.Right now, the Inspector is supposed to contact the beekeeper and schedule an inspection. If the beekeeper wants to be present, the inspector is supposed to accomodate the beekeeper. The beekeeper can say, "No inspection unless I am there." If you don't believe me, ask Lloyd Spear. 

Lloyd, I hope you don't mind me mentioning you in this regard. Perhaps you would like to comment on your stipulations on time of inspections of your apiaries.

Believe it or not you can even say, "No inspection." The Inspector will want to know why and try to convince you of the importance of inspection. But if you insist, he should back down.

On problem that would cause this to not work in your favor is if the Inspector has some reason to believe that your bees are a source of infection in the area.

3.Other than obvious equipment damage, how would that be verifiably attributed to the actions of the Inspector? I really urge all beekeepers to insist on beekeeper presence at the time of inspection.

4.How big of an area would this entail? Such as with me. I usually run between 600 and 800 colonies, in yards from Ft. Covington Center, in Franklin Co. to Heuvelton, in St. Lawrence Co. That would be an area that is about 60 or more miles long. I also inspect hives in St. Law. and Franklin Co.s. Traveling to Jefferson Co. is a 1.5 hr trip. And Clinton Co. is a 1.25 hr trip.

5.Lab tests are paid for by the state. We tryed alternative methods of control. It was found that the same sites continued to have AFB and that beekeepers with light infections don't always keep up their treatment schedules. And then there the ever growing numbers of AFB that are terramycin resistant. Do you really think that we should be promoting the use of harder and harder chemicals?

6.This is already true.

7.This is already true too. I can't and don't inspect my own colonies for he purposes of interstate transport. Can't have my buddys inspect my colonies? Since I work with the other Apiary Inspectors, even at a distance, are they all suspect, in the buddy department? Wouldn't anyone be suspect? Maybe if you could find an enemy of mine to inspect my colonies, after he did that a time or two, wouldn't he be suspect? He might even be my buddy by then.

I'm not arguing that some of what you suggest isn't practical, though some of it isn't real practical, I'm just giving you my bent on your ideas.

Did I use too much double speak or hair splitting talk? I hope not.

I await your response.

The cake remark, that was your way of saying that I wanted to have it both ways. Be a Beekeeper and an Inspector? Well, yeah. I guess so. 

But even if it isn't me, I'd rather have someone who knows at least as much about bees and diseases and pests as I do and hopefully more.

Wouldn't you, if youm had to have your colonies inspected?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"1.Clarify please? Whose inspections would be voluntary? The Inspectors or all beekeepers? I'm confused. Not unusual."

All inspections would be on a voluntary basis. I wouldn't want my inspector to have bees in an area that I operate in. That would suggest that beekeeps who are inspectors, inspect areas that are away from their areas of operations. That way they wouldn't be tempted to move bees into an area they inspect because of distance.

"2.Right now, the Inspector is supposed to contact the beekeeper and schedule an inspection. If the beekeeper wants to be present, the inspector is supposed to accomodate the beekeeper. The beekeeper can say, "No inspection unless I am there." If you don't believe me, ask Lloyd Spear."

I don't want a supposedta, if the beekeep can't be present for the inspection, NO inspection.

"3.Other than obvious equipment damage, how would that be verifiably attributed to the actions of the Inspector? I really urge all beekeepers to insist on beekeeper presence at the time of inspection."

Well, when the inspection was done, the queen was there, later it was discovered that the queen was squashed, for some reason or another. State pays for it. Now, there will be some beekeeps that would take advantage of this, and squash the queen, but the vast majority wouldn't, and the few can be weeded out. Thats one example, I am sure you can come up with a few more on your own.

"4.How big of an area would this entail? Such as with me. I usually run between 600 and 800 colonies, in yards from Ft. Covington Center, in Franklin Co. to Heuvelton, in St. Lawrence Co. That would be an area that is about 60 or more miles long. I also inspect hives in St. Law. and Franklin Co.s. Traveling to Jefferson Co. is a 1.5 hr trip. And Clinton Co. is a 1.25 hr trip."

Read answer for 1. You'll see where I'm going with this.

"7.This is already true too. I can't and don't inspect my own colonies for he purposes of interstate transport. Can't have my buddys inspect my colonies? Since I work with the other Apiary Inspectors, even at a distance, are they all suspect, in the buddy department? Wouldn't anyone be suspect? Maybe if you could find an enemy of mine to inspect my colonies, after he did that a time or two, wouldn't he be suspect? He might even be my buddy by then."

I would suggest a supervisor preform the inspection.

"I'm not arguing that some of what you suggest isn't practical, though some of it isn't real practical, I'm just giving you my bent on your ideas."

If you want an inspection service where inspectors own bees, then you need to make it practical.

"Did I use too much double speak or hair splitting talk? I hope not."

You did fine.

"The cake remark, that was your way of saying that I wanted to have it both ways. Be a Beekeeper and an Inspector? Well, yeah. I guess so."

Yes.

"Wouldn't you, if youm had to have your colonies inspected?"

Yes, assuming inspection is maniditory.


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

So how does an inspector guarantee he is not spreading diseases from one hive to another or one yard to another? If you get AFB spores on your hands and your tools and on the steering wheel of your truck, bee suet, shoes, pens, inspection reports even the tires of your truck??? What if an inspector intentionally wants to spread disease to put a competitor out of business? After all, all is fair in love and business. When it comes to money, people do some of the worst things imaginable.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks pj, that makes it clearer.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Good questions mac. I'm glad you asked. Apiary Inspector Disease Syndrome is what Speedybee's article from way back in the early 1980s called it.

I can tell you what precautions are taken here in NY to avoid the spread of AFB by Apiary Inspectors.

Here, we wash our hands and hive tool and smoker after finding an AFB colony in a yard and after we finish inspecting an apiary. So, no spores on the steering wheel or other parts of the reports or truck.

Think about what you are asking also. Where do bees get the AFB spores from? (retorical question to spur thinking on the part of the reader) Bees don't get AFB spores off of steering wheels, beesuits, shoes, pens, inspection reports or tires. They don't forage there.

As easy as it appears for colonies to get AFB it is also quite hard. The right conditions have to be aligned. Presence of AFB spores in the brood food of the right age larvae in a non-hygenic colony of bees. 

I'm sure that there are plenty of you all that will take exception with that simplification, but there it is.

It is certainly possible for someone to take AFB tainted honey and spread it around apiaries to try to put someone out of business or to provide themselves with more work. That person doesn't have to be an Apiary Inspector. Do you know anyone who has done that? Do you know OF anyone who has done that?

In the realm of imagination, anything CAN happen. But does it and how often, really. Taking into account the total number of colonies, apiaries and beekeepers that have been inspected over the past 50 years, how many have been a negative experience for the beekeeper. I can tell you that most of my experiences have been positive ones. Not all, but most, more than 90%, I'd say. Maybe more.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> So how does an inspector guarantee he is not 
> spreading diseases from one hive to another or 
> one yard to another?

Funny story - years ago, I attended my first
EAS meeting. I was hanging out at the apiary
waiting for the start of one of the workshops,
and saw a gentleman standing there, cleaning
his hive tool with a paper towel. 

I complemented him on his nice shiny hive tool,
and he instantly launched into a 5-minute tirade
on how "*YOU REALLY HAVE TO KEEP YOUR HIVE
TOOL CLEAN TO KEEP FROM SPREADING AFB!!!*"
My head swam - the first person I meet, and he
thinks he some sort of Navy Drill Instructor.
So, I act like a good little midshipman, and
await the end of his performance.

After a bit, he runs out of steam, so I'm
able to interject "Really, I _do_ keep
my hive tool clean, I have for years - I've
just never seen anyone with a chromed hive
tool before, and I thought it looked cool."

It was Bill Troup, one of the MD State Bee
Inspectors, and a person who bothered to
take the EAS Master Beekeeper test, who
was to lead the workshop. We are good
friends now, but he still obsessively
cleans his hive tool with rubbing alcohol,
wears disposable gloves to keep his hands
clean, and so on.

All this is despite clear and compelling
evidence from controlled studies that it
takes a LOT more than a dirty hive tool
or dirty hands to transfer AFB from one
hive to another - you have to really work
hard at it, doing things like moving frames
or supers between an infected hive and an
uninfected hive.

So, even though it is overkill, most bee
inspectors bend over backwards, even to
the point of wearing surgeon's gloves,
which are hot and uncomfortable.


----------



## danno1800 (Mar 13, 2004)

I know Bill also, and that is a REALLY funny story, Jim. You nailed him. He is a great guy, but very obsessive about that hive tool. Thanks for sharing it. -Danno


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

J F, your story reminds me of when I attened EAS at Lancaster, PA. There were 5 or 6 hives on hand for demonstration purposes. I was there when a beekeeper said to Jack Mathinious, NJ State Apiarist, that he thought that one of the hives had AFB. Jack went over to the hive, got down on his knees, stuck his nose near the entrance and took a deep breath and said, "Yes, you are right." I don't remember what happened next, but I remember that.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 1, 2004)

Mark invited me to comment on putting restrictions on inspections. You all need to know that Inspectors are under very strict rules that prevent them from telling other, privately or publically, information that they get as part of their position as inspectors with the NYS Dept. of Ag. and Markets.

Three years ago, I think, I got a call from an inspector I had never heard of that he wanted to inspect some of my yards. He called our honey house in the evening...when we are not normally there, and left a message. I called back the next day, and the phone rang repeatly with no answering machine. Knowing Dept. policy was 'no contact, no inspection', I felt I had fulfilled my obligation and forgot the matter.

At the time I was following a recommendation by the USDA foulbrood guru that we try ceasing terramyacin treatment...yard by yard.

Several days later I was surprised to receive a notice that, contrary to NYS Inspection Guidelines, said inspector had gone into one of my yards without my consent and found AFB. I did two things (1) called Mungari, the guy in charge, and complained and (2) inspected the hive in question.

Mungari apologized, said it would not happen again, etc. The hive in question was in one of the two yards that I had gone 'cold turkey' on the year before. No AFB in that year, but now it was clearly there. (I subsequently found out that it is normal for AFB to only show the 2nd year after stopping Terra. treatment.) It did, in fact, have AFB as did another hive in the yard (which the inspector had missed). The law is that the beekeeper is not to move the hives until the diagnosis is confirmed by a lab test (STUPID LAW). But I immediately moved both hives to a location where they were both burned.

Now...Mungari had promised me that there would be no more inspections until I had been contacted and agreed, and understood that since my hives were supered for the flow that I would not agree until fall, when I had pulled honey supers. He put that in writing.

Said inspector, and note that I am not using his name, either decided to ignore Mungari's instructions or never received those instructions, and proceeded to sneak into several more of my yards. (In one instance he presumably told the owners of the property he had my permission!) In one yard he 'thought' he saw lots more AFB and proceeded to mark the equipment with a permendent marker. With the same marker he also made notes about swarm cells, state of the queen, etc.

I was furious. I found that he also left off excluders, put the queen above the excluder in at least one hive, etc. In addition, I could not find any AFB. Mungari was full of apologies and sounded very upset his instructions were not followed. THE AFB LAB TESTS CAME BACK 'NO DISEASE'. I was left with (1) a significant honey loss due to hive disturbance and (2) lots of equipment with inappropriate markings.

I take pride in my hive appearances, and this marked stuff is still around, and will be until I bring it in for repainting!

Others have had similar problems with this inspector. We (beekeepers in the area) do talk to each other and the word gets around. At least 2 others have also complained to Mungari, but the guy still has a job!

So, as Mark says, we can say put limitations on Inspection and as long as this guy is around I have said 'no inspections' in my yards. And I know others who have done the same.

Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. I got this Inspector in difficulty with Mungari. In apparent retaliation he has been bad-mouthing me to all who mention my name. This past year he made the mistake of doing so to a member of the NYS Advisory Council, who reported him to Mungari (and later told me he did so). Did Mungari see this as a Conflict of Interest?

Who, in their right mind, would want inspections when guys like this are allowed to run loose?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Others have had similar problems with this inspector

Then the actual solution to the problem is NOT
to place up-front structural restrictions on the
inspectors, but to better support the State
Apiarist, and lobby to get him the power to hire
and fire at whim.

Think about it - the State Apiarist was not a
complete moron, like any manager, he KNEW he
had a "problem employee", and he KNEW he was
sitting on a time-bomb. No manager likes to
be in that position, but when one works for
a government agency, it is difficult to hire
and fire based upon actual performance.

The alternative solution may be to make all
inspectors independent contractors, to allow
the state apiarist to draft agreements with
strict "performance" criteria, and short-fuse
termination clauses.

There will always be lunatics in beekeeping.
The type of person who has an affinity for
stinging insects is clearly not "normal" to
start with.







But there are ways to solve
the problems, and address the valid concerns
of beekeepers without eliminating all the
SKILLED people from the poll of potential
inspectors right off the bat.

So, in short, the problem was not enough
beekeepers watching the back of the State
Apiarist, which is inexcusable. If my State
Apiarist asked me for anything at all, I'd
jump to it. Why? 'Cause I "owe" him. 
I don't have any idea what he's doing next
week, but I "owe him" regardless.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Lloyd, as you see from posts here and I expect in your dealings with other beekeepers these types of things are not isolated. This is the common concensus among vitrually all of the beekeepers I speak with. One strong supporter in particular is our past, now defunct club, president who was so supportive that he invited one of the now senior inspectors to a club meeting and subsequently gave the membership list to this inspector without consent of the membership. Despite this the clubs position was to support the program and I believe almost every member, including me, scheduled inspections. In the end, for a variety of reasons including inspectors not showing up for inspections as scheduled, the un-necessary destruction of all infected bees and equipment, alleged crushed queens, the tenor of some of the encounters, the support went south quickly. This past supporter who animatedly worked to gain support for inspection no longer allows inspection of his hives and is clear he does not support the inspection program in its' current set up, as is the same with most of the members.

I give a standing ovation to whomever or what ever stepped in to bring the whole conflict of interest issue to the forefront. It will make inspections more difficult for now ( if that is possible) in the interim but it is forcing the department to do some introspection and hopefully make make some needed changes. If this does not come about on it's own I am confident beekeepers in the state will make it happen.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Then the actual solution to the problem is NOT
to place up-front structural restrictions on the
inspectors, but to better support the State
Apiarist, and lobby to get him the power to hire
and fire at whim."

I don't think we have a state apiarist. That is one of the many problems with the current program. I don't know what the solution for this persistant problem would be, but the current program is more of a problem than a solution, and would need drastic overhauls to be successful. There is also the past tensions with NY inspectors that will cause future problems until NY beekeeps develop trust of the new program. Joel brings up valid points about not having a pool of skilled inspectors to draw from, and with the elimitation of the commecial beekeeps from consideration for a job as an inspector, there is a large void of skilled inspectors acceptable for the available jobs. What NYS deems acceptable inspectors might not be what NYS beekeeps deem aceptable.


----------



## BeeBear (Jan 20, 2004)

I can't say that I've read every word of every post in this thread, but I've come to a conclusion.

Last week I received a letter from the MN Department of Agriculure asking my opinion on whether the Apiary program should be disbanded. I have decided to vote for disbanding it. I have no idea what this "vote" means. Probably nothing. But it's most interesting that there is discussion on simply repealing all the state regulations.

My conclusion is that, in today's political environment of cutting costs, there is no chance that funding will be found to maintain a good program. The funds available can either be used to hire a very few good people or to hire a larger number of inexperienced ones. Neither of these alternatives serves either the commercial or hobby beekeeper. To me, this is a case of "do it right" or "don't do it at all". Since the former is not possible, I will vote for the latter.

In the best of all worlds, a state apiary program could be a valuable asset, and I would support it. We are far from this "best of all worlds". I don't think that we can convince our state politicians that funding an apiary program is in the public interest, so let's face reality and give it up.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lloyd, the Apiary Inspectors in your area last year were Rip Bechmann, Bruce hauser and Allan Nirschl. Is the person who you refer to amongst those? From when you are talking about, the Inspector that you are refering to isn't working and hasn't been working for two years. Do you know his initials?

On another note, but along these lines. My comments, at Joel's prompting, but I'm sure that he had no way of knowing that I would react that way, sorry Joel, were out of line, uncalled for and unprofessional of me. So, Mr. Lloyd Spear, I apologize for what I said and I hope you accept my apology in the spirit that it is given.

Lloyd Spear has PMed me about this, but didn't dmand or ask for it. As he can confirm, if necessary.

I am not doing this to try to save my job. Since I plan on keeping my bees, I don't see how I could be hired. Unless someone sees the light and changes policy. But with my attitude about folks who have rubbed me the wrong way, personally and professionally, maybe I am the wrong person for the job.

But most importantly, Lloyd, I'm sorry and I'll try to keep my comments and opinions about you and others on a more mature and professional level.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Joel, If Robert J. Mungari, Director of Plant Industry and Edward Rowley, Deputy Ethics Officer are to be believed, and I choose to believe them until shown otherwise, this descission isn't because of complaints. 

We, Apiary Inspectors, haven't received the "Approval of Outside Activity" form to fill out for some years now. Perhaps not since we came back to full force in 2000. Lloyd, do you remember filling one out?

We used to get them every year or so, in March, from 1986 to 1995 anyway.

The chain of events, in relation to this form, as far as I know, was in September word went out to Inspectors that if they owned bees they had to be on the list of apiaries, if they weren't. Any new yards had to be registered. So, we did.

A while later the "Approval of Outside Activities" form came to us. It must have been dated October 4, 2005, since that is what was said in my letter that informed me of the dissapproval. So I must have sent mine in before the end of the month, since I went to Maryland to be with my Mother and Sister on Saturday October 1st.

Now, on February 8th, I received this letter of disapproval, dated February 3, 2006. Four months later? Does it really take that long to make a descission like this? That long to get all of the opinions from the State's Ethics Commission? Apparently so. And I doubt that this was very high on the to do list, since we weren't working again until April or May.

Anybody have any insight?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Could the Conflict of Interest that this descission is based on be called "Corruption" as defined by state law?

If so wouldn't those who have known of this Conflict of Interest be lible for disiplinary action? On the Conduct and Responsibility handout, under Code of Ethics it says, "You must fully comply with the intent of the State Code of Ethics and shall: .................
4. Expose corruption if and when discovered."

Wouldn't that encompass almost everyone connected with Apiary inspection at the Department level since 1950, when the program started, and up until now?

There are plenty of people who know that we keep bees. And have known for years. So, shouldn't others be held responsible and to just as high a standard?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Mark, I don't know anywhere in the law where corruption is specifically defined. I do think it need more than just what has happened, probably much more. If it is not defined in either Penal or Executive law than the definition as standard in legal cases fall back on the common dictionary definitions. It would likely be in NYS Executive Law if it is anywhere. I will check on this tomorrow.

I have met and spoken with Ed Rowley numerous times, he has been with Ag. & Mkts at least since 1984. I find him very straight forward and having a clear opinion on legal issues. He is the type of person you can call on the phone and ask questions.

I don't know that Lloyd should name names, I don't know it matters. The particular inspector problems are a symptom of the department and not significant as to who is the problem or whether they are still inspectors or not.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Oh, I agree about naming names. I know that these guys stand behind what they do and I'd be surprised if there is anything that they wouldn't admit to. this is not to say that what Lloyd said didn't happen. It wouldn't surprise me. I seem to remember some one telling us to try to make contact and then it's the beekeepers responsibility to get to us. I'm sure that that would be denyed, but that is not unusual either.

I have talked to Ed Rowley a number of times lately too and found him as you said. He's been there since 1984? And he said that he had never seen these forms come across his desk. Hmm. Makes me wonder. Of course, perhaps it wasn't his area of pervue, early on.

Thanks Joel.


----------

