> The key to any successful negotiation
> is understanding the other side.
Not to worry, we understand the "other side" very well. The fact that the
group arguably charged with supporting beekeeping is "the other side", says
volumes in itself. The entire charade was plainly an attempt by the
profiteers to make sure that the state's response to the Presidential order
would blunt any possible progress, and to actually move us backwards by
trying to reverse the basic presumption of liability in pesticide kills.
> In this case maybe the right answer is to start with
> your hat in your hand instead of a row of lawyers
> and demanding your smarter than everyone else in
> the room, and your bugs are the most important.
Sorry, you weren't there, and those of us who were there sat silently, as we
had no opportunity to even ask appropriate questions. There was no
representative from the group in NY that is charged with enforcing FIFRA.
We sat in silence, and listened as a group of mostly non-beekeepers talked
in halting, stumbling, incoherent terms about drafting a BMP for beekeeping.
The beekeepers in the room were polite, no one laughed or even snorted.
(While they were talking, Emma Mullen, from Ontario, but working at Cornell
as the state's sole extension agent for honey bees, pulled up on her laptop
screen the Ontario BMPs for winter prep, which made us smile.)
> So starting this battle of wills, with someone with a lot
> more clout and money, not the smartest move.
One should consider who works for who. We expect the state to work for us,
not thing other way 'round. If the subject is "pollinator protection", it
stands to reason that the discussion should be about how to enhance the
protection of pollinators, not further frustrate the effort. It also stands
to reason that "enhance" means what it says.
> It seems to me looking from way back here, most of the beeks are already
throwing rocks, and writing bad press.
Ah, so the trend is clear - good! The beekeepers need to use both rocks and
bad press, as nothing else will shame Ag & Markets into at least doing no
more harm to the protection of pollinators. The relationship has been
highly adversarial, and it started long before legislation was introduced a
few years ago that would have drastically effected all beekeepers of any
significant size, and without anyone's knowledge, let alone consent. When
every beekeeping group in the state is either opposed or unaware, there's a
problem, and the beekeepers are not the cause.
> if you want to refuse to register and let the
> sprayers know where your hives are, and
> be ready to move or protect them, you get
> what you deserve....but that's just an opinion.
Hold on there, any beekeeper places his hives on land with the overt consent
of the landowner, and often with a written "lease". The land owner assures
the beekeeper that, among other things nothing will sprayed on that land.
Now, if a neighboring land owner decides to spray something, that
neighboring landowner should keep the spray on HIS land, and off the land
rented as a beeyard. That drift should be unconditionally prevented,
REGARDLESS OF THE COST OF DOING SO, no matter if the adjacent land has been
rented as a beeyard or not. If the neighbor allows his spray to drift, he
is violating FIFRA, and subject to enforcement.
Under FIFRA §26, States have "primary enforcement responsibilities" for
pesticide use. Where we are heading is to FIFRA §27, which says:
"Whenever the [EPA] Administrator determines that a State having primary
enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations is not carrying out
(or cannot carry out due to the lack of adequate legal authority) such
responsibility, the Administrator shall notify the State. Such notice shall
specify those aspects of the administration of the State program that are
determined to be inadequate. The State shall have ninety days after receipt
of the notice to correct any deficiencies. If after that time the
Administrator determines that the State program remains inadequate, the
Administrator may rescind, in whole or in part, the State’s primary
enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations."
So, beekeepers have the ability to call the EPA's attention to the NY State
demand that beekeepers flee illegal misuse of pesticides on demand, and the
EPA can hold the state's feet to the fire, up to an including revoking their
right to have any say in the matter. Talk about threatening empire-building
in the Empire State! The NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
will not be happy to hear that Ag & Markets has attempted to usurp their
regulatory authority, and will likely make their displeasure known in very
clear terms.
So, the beekeepers don't need clout OR money, all we need is the phone
numbers for the DEC and the EPA northeastern region office.
> if you want to refuse to register and let
> the sprayers know where your hives are,
> and be ready to move or protect
> them, you get what you deserve...
I'm keeping a mere 2 dozen hives in a city that has forsworn pesticides,
fungicides, and herbicides. Rat poison, is all they still use. But the
whole "registration" issue in NY has a long and sordid history that is
complex enough for me to defer to others to explain in full. Suffice to say
that beekeepers do not "deserve" to be the victim of acts that are punished
with both civil and criminal prosecution in states that give a damn about
more than graft and corruption.
And NY State is # 1 in corruption:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/how-new-york-became-most-corr
upt-state-in-america-117652
http://tinyurl.com/q6c5m99
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
