Dee Lusby said, about European honeybees:

> I must say it was well known that just in our state alone, there were
> ongoing bee stinging incidents of at least a couple dozen each year
> involving livestock and domestic pets, that included the stinging to
> death of such animals, as well as major stinging incidents involving
> people, some of which also were documented to have cost lives.

> Much of what is said today, if the true were known, is blown out of
> proportion.

I'll accept the honesty of the statements above, but the societal
implications of statements like those should be considered with
great care before they are repeated in open forums where they
might be interpreted as universal truths.

In other words, which "truths" would you LIKE to be blown out of
proportion?

Of those AZ and TX cases mentioned, how many can be proven
beyond ALL possible doubt to have been caused by European
honeybees?  Of those with credible supporting evidence, how
many can be proven to have not been "special cases", where the
bees were somehow provoked, and the target was unable or
unwilling to flee the area of the hive?

Before you answer that, read on.

European honeybees suffer from negative perceptions now.  These
perceptions can be overcome with education, which I hope can be
generally agreed to support the stance that European honeybees
are not a generalized threat to anyone or anything who stays away
from the immediate area of a hive.

The AHB has been sensationalized, and while this may be a damn
shame, it has at least been possible to clearly differentiate between
the AHB and the "domesticated" European honeybee, and avoid
having any hysteria directed at managed colonies.

Given the large number of "sensational" tabloid publications one can
find at the supermarket check-out, please note that not all journalism
is "responsible".  Imagine what the "Weekly World News" might do
with even a single story of a death caused by European honeybees.

While one can dig up somewhat ancient documentation of court cases
where a beekeeper was, for example, held liable for the death of a horse,
even these could be dismissed as "somewhat apocryphal anecdotes",
given the lack of clear and compelling proof that honeybees were the
actual proximate cause of the incident.

But more recent cases might be better documented, if someone tried.
If the press and general public got the impression that European honeybees
could be a fatal threat, even to those not venturing close to a hive, what
would the reaction be?

If European honeybees were described by the media as a possible
risk, under more than very narrow circumstances, all of the hysteria
about Africanized honeybees might then be re-focused on honeybees
in general.

Hysteria leads to calls for "public action", and elected representatives
can be expected to try to protect the interests of their constituents,
most often using methods like these:

a)  Zoning boards might then have a valid reason to prohibit
     all beekeeping within their areas of influence, which would
     eliminate a significant percentage of US beekeepers.
     Beekeeping would no longer be possible in urban or suburban
     locations, where most of the US population lives.

b)  Even rural beekeepers like myself would face "liability issues".
     (As it stands now, "everyone knows" that European honeybees
     certainly defend their hives, but bees are not viewed as presenting
     any generalized risk to neighboring farms, stocked with very
     expensive livestock.  As a result, one does not need to carry
     "liability insurance" coverage specifically for bees, and general
     liability insurance for beekeepers is cheap.)

c)  Even an "agricultural" zoning designation does not imply that one
     is free to do what one wishes.  For example, "hog farms" are
     prohibited in my county without a special permit, and not
     surprisingly, there are none.  Even the most rural beekeeper has
     some risk of being perceived as a "public nuisance", and having
     beekeeping restricted, regulated, or prohibited.

d)  While criminal matters require "strict proof, beyond all reasonable
     doubt", civil matters require no more than the "preponderance of
     the evidence".  The entire concept of "proof" in science, while
     rigorous, does not translate well to the social forums of law and
     government.

The majority of beekeepers located in "zoned" areas who would be affected
can be assumed to be "hobby" or small-scale beekeepers.  These beekeepers
"keep the industry alive", by buying supplies at retail, buying packages and
queens, and paying good money for things that large-scale operations can
afford to produce in-house.  The ripple effect would be nasty:

1)  The loss of all but rural beekeepers would likely mean that costs
   would go up for the remaining (rural) beekeepers, since even a simple
   thing like a hive tool currently has a low(er) cost due to "mass production".

2)  Some number of beekeeping supply companies would fail, or be forced
   to make significant "downsizing" moves.  Less customers means less
   sales, and sales to hobby beekeepers are more profitable, since hobby
   beekeepers do not qualify for "quantity discounts".

3) The various beekeeping magazines might also be forced to downsize or fold.

4)  The queen and package bee business would also suffer, and the current
   wide range of choices in types of bees available might shrink.

Given scenarios like the above, one should be very, very careful to apply
extremely rigorous criteria to the evaluation of reports of "bee attacks".

The most basic criteria should be an understanding that even well
educated people cannot seem to tell a bee from a jellowjacket.

Heck, even after doing repeated training to intelligent and observant people,
I still get reports from the telephone company, cable-TV company, and the
local electrical co-op that they have "bee swarms" in their equipment.
The insects turn out to be yellowjackets or wasps nearly every time.
All these companies have an incentive to report "wasps" or "yellowjackets",
since the deal is that we charge them for bee removal, but do not charge
them for wasps or yellowjackets.  (It is a good deal - they pay obscenely
high prices for bee removal, the whole "pest-control" issue is avoided, and
they get the insects removed by people who treat their high-tech and/or
high-voltage equipment with care, understanding, and respect.)

Bottom line, the AHBs that have spread over the Mexican border have
proven to be much more defensive over a much wider radius from their
hives than the European honeybee.  Differentiating between the two is
technically difficult, but an absolute necessity to allow beekeeping
to continue to be viewed as merely an "unusual" avocation, rather than
a "public nuisance".

        jim

        farmageddon