> These beekeeper friends of mine are not by any
> strech of the imagination "utter fools".
Then explain why they keep repeating the same mistakes
year after year, somehow expecting different results?
> Actually when you understand the boll weevil program
> you might think differently.
You presume that I "misunderstand". I don't. The landowner/
grower has strict liability, and is a willing participant in
a program that sprays. Sue just ONE grower, and watch how
quickly they demand changes in the program! Pick a small
incident, just to set precedent. No reason for anyone to get hurt.
> They held meetings with cotton growers and the growers voted
> to set up the program.
And are hence "willfully negligent" by not keeping abreast
of both the exact pesticides being sprayed and the schedule
of spraying. I'll go my best imitation of a small claims
court judge here:
"Let me see if I have this straight - you expect
me to believe that you let the USDA hire
you-don't-know-who, to spray you-don't-know-what,
at any time THEY please, on YOUR land and crop?
Let's just count how MANY overt acts of negligence
we have here..."
> Once the growers have signed on the USDA takes control of the
> spray program. Hires the crop dusters, decides which sprays to
> use *and when*. Decides which chemicals to use.
But the growers agree to all this, and it is for THEIR sole
benefit. Sounds like the growers need to change the program,
and get a little more involved in "the details".
> Cotton does not need bees to produce cotton.
Yes, of course. I was addressing the "general case",
which applies to ANY agreement for pollination of
any crop or agreement for hive placement.
When money or even just honey changes hands, one
has an agreement. Clearly, there is an expectation
that the bees will survive the placement, regardless
of the reason for the placement or the form of payment.
> The cotton locations went with the bee farm purchase and
> represent a large part of the bee farms income.
Hence these "placement agreements" are even transferable
negotiable instruments, and can be sold, leased, whatever.
These seem to be VERY valid contracts.
> The Missouri cotton growers see the treatment of Missouri
> beekeepers by the program as an injustice but do not know
> what to do about the problem.
Sorry to be a hard-nosed fascist, but they could have thought
about (and asked about!) how beekeepers would be treated
when they were setting up the program, or demanded changes
when the first kills happened. As landowners, the liability
is theirs, and they have an obligation to fix their program,
warn beekeepers away, or pay for the damage it does.
> The boll weevil program sees the beekeeper as a thorn
> in its side.
> ...beekeeper[s] [have] quit for the most part sitting hives
> on cotton both in the bootheel and in Texas.
Then the growers should compare the "savings" in marginal
higher yield from the spraying program versus the loss of
income from not getting yard rent from beekeepers, and decide
where their own best interests lie. Perhaps they have, and
this is why nothing has been done.
Note that if these same growers had pesticide run-off from
these specific sprayings pollute the water of someone else,
they would be liable for damages, and pointing a finger at
the USDA would not help them. It is not a too big cognitive
leap from "runoff liability" to "pesticide kill liability"
for anyone, is it? If so, take a copy of Black's Law
Dictionary, and call me in the morning. :)
> Most of us beekeepers consider the USDA our friend.
Well, I considered AT&T Bell Labs a fine employer, and
a wonderful place to work on trying to make the world a
better place. Except for the tiny part of AT&T that ran
Sandia National Labs, where they designed and made, ummm
nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, and other nasty stuff
designed only to kill. No one ever wanted to talk about
it, but we clearly had more than one way to "reach out
and touch someone" at AT&T! :)
The point here is that organizations can't be a "friend"
to anyone. They often have different parts in direct
conflict with each other. Individuals have to be very
intolerant of organizations that do things like help
cotton growers while hurting beekeepers, and need to
be vicious, mean, and underhanded to prevail in their
efforts to change the practices of the organization.
> I feel the people in the boll weevil problem are trying
> to keep a lid on the problem because of their own
> mismanagement of the situation.
And the proper way to address the issue is to (ahem)
motivate the cotton growers to demand changes in the
program, as it should be clear by now that the boll
weevil management is ignoring beekeeper concerns.
> reasonable attempts to settle the problem have been tried.
Like what? Asking them nicely? To comply with federal law?
If you have to ask, you might as well not bother to ask.
> Beekeeper friends of mine used the courts in Florida against
> huge bee kills from spraying around Miami. The trial lasted
> over two years in the courts and the beekeepers lost.
That's why small claims is so much more effective.
Cheap, fast, and if you loose one, you can learn
what you did "wrong" and try again. Not to worry,
word will get around even if you loose. Sometimes
the mere veiled threat of litigation is enough to
have the desired effect.
> One of the beekeepers said he lost around 50,000
> in lawyers fees as his share of the case.
> Five beekeepers were involved.
One of the problems with lawyers is that they tend
to be better businessmen than beekeepers, and suggest
legal approaches that are anything but cheap and quick
as they have boat payments to make. What one needs
to buy before hiring any lawyer is a short leash and
a choker collar.
> "justice is the will of the stronger".
Funny you should use that quote. It's Thrasymachus.
Well, OK, at least Plato CLAIMED he said that. :)
The best rebuttal to that claim was given in a speech
by Abraham Lincoln. (One of the perils of a classical
education include having this sort of stuff bouncing
around in your head for a lifetime.) Lincoln's
rebuttal is HIGHLY appropriate to this discussion:
"When politics asks us to deal with institutions that are
beyond the moral pale, it asks us, it appears, to place
politics above morality, and nobody wants to do such a thing.
The ironies to which this position is subject are obvious
enough to be sketched in in a few sentences. When one draws
a moral line in the sand, one does so in the faith that public
life should be something other than merely a contest for power.
One does this as a way of rejecting the Thrasymachean claim that
right is an illusion, that what we call justice is in fact
nothing more than the will of the stronger. Yet once one has
drawn a line in the sand one has no choice but to engage in a
contest of force with those who are on the other side of that line."
I think Lincoln's stand is clear. Do what must be done,
even if an "innocent" grower might be offended or hurt
to be made a "scapegoat".
jim
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
