BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Medhat Nasr, Ph. D." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:31:31 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
State's high court defends beekeepers

March 8th, 2005
BY DENNIS LIEN; St. Paul Pioneer Press, MN

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/11075985.htm

Landowners who spray pesticides on hybrid poplar groves can be held liable
for damaging neighboring bee apiaries, according to an opinion by the
Minnesota Supreme Court that could have nationwide implications.

The decision late last week allows a negligence lawsuit filed by three
western Minnesota beekeepers to proceed in district court.

The beekeepers argue that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and International Paper used a toxic pesticide to control cottonwood leaf
beetles on poplars despite knowing that vulnerable beekeeping operations
were within forage range. The three - Jeff Anderson, Steve Ellis and Jim
Whitlock - said they suffered annual stock losses of 30 percent to 50
percent, amounting to more than $500,000.

Two lower courts ruled against the beekeepers, saying the landowners had
no legal obligation to them.  But the beekeepers pressed their case to the
state Supreme Court, which held, in part, that "a land possessor with
actual knowledge or notice of foraging honey bees on the property comes
under a duty of reasonable care in the application of pesticides.''

"In this case, they were aware,'' said Tim Rundquist, a Fergus Falls
attorney representing the beekeepers. "That is what we are alleging.''

Rundquist said this is the first time a court has recognized a common-law
duty to protect bees. He also said the decision could have broader
implications because decimation of bee stocks from negligent pesticide
applications is a national problem affecting not only honey production but
the pollination that bees provide to blooming crops.

A dissenting opinion by Justice Helen Meyer, however, said the decision
goes too far.

"The majority is plowing new ground in tort law by recognizing a
common-law duty owed to foraging bees,'' said Meyer, who was joined by
Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz.
DNR officials said only that they support Meyer's position.

Hybrid poplar trees have become increasingly popular in rural Minnesota as
an alternative crop used in the pulpwood market or as a fuel. Because the
trees are planted in groves, however, they are more susceptible to attacks
from large numbers of cottonwood leaf beetles.


Medhat

Medhat Nasr, Ph. D.
Provincial Apiculturist
Crop Diversification Centre North

17507 Fort Road
Edmonton, AB, Canada T5Y 6H3
Tel: (780) 415-2314    Fax: (780) 422-6096
Mailto:[log in to unmask]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2