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:
Mike Rossander <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:41:00 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Dick Marron answered the question of whether bees are "livestock" with the definition of "domestication" and appears to argue that the mere housing of bees in artificial hives (wood boxes, skeps, etc) is sufficient evidence of having had their behavior or lifecycle changed.  
 
That's a reasonable argument but as a counter-argument, I would point to the birds in my backyard.  They live in a series of artificial birdhouses built by my sons.  I care for them, I feed them and I benefit from their presence in my yard/neighborhood but they can not be considered either livestock nor domesticated.  (I'll grant that it's not a perfect analogy because they don't live in them year-round but arguably neither do my bees since I'm not sure that I'm very good at controlling swarming.)
 
I think that Dick's cited definition of domestication is insufficient.  My first pass at a clarification postulated that domestication include a change in behavior such that life without continuing human support is no longer possible.  A modern milk cow, for example, is in tangible distress if not actively managed and milked regularly.  Even with varroa, CCD and other threats, I'm not sure that bees meet that standard.  Regardless, that definition also fails because it precludes the possibility of a currently domesticated animal reverting to a feral behavior such as a dog or cat might when abandoned.  It leaves me wondering whether domestication is as well understood as we like to pretend and wondering whether it is a useful proxy for the definition of livestock.
 
Thinking about it from a different direction, I believe that "livestock" carries a strong connotation of domesticated animals kept primarily a source of food.  An animal kept primarily as a source of companionship or entertainment, on the other hand, is a "pet".  Even an animal as clear as a pig can't be neatly classified.  Many would be livestock but try telling that to the owner of a Vietnamese Potbelly.
 
Bees are almost certainly livestock to a commercial beekeeper.  To a hobbyist, the analogy to the birds hosted in my backyard may be more appropriate.  I care for them, I feed them and I benefit from their choice to continue living in my yard/neighborhood but my span of control is limited at best.  To a sideliner, bees are probably somewhere on the spectrum between those two positions.  
 
I have to admit that I'm not sure that it's particularly useful to try to draw a bright line about whether an entire species is "livestock" or not.  Is there a particular legal standard that drove the original question?  If so, we should probably consider the question in the context of that specific legislation.

Mike Rossander
www.rossander.org/infosec


      

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2