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:
"Dave Green, Eastern Pollinator Newsletter" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 17 Jun 1995 11:13:30 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (210 lines)
   Twenty three years after the passage of FIFRA, public authorities are
still propagating pre-FIFRA *solutions* to bee kills that did not work, and
encouraging applicators to CIRCUMVENT compliance with labels by schemes of
beekeeper notification.
 
   I've had enough.  All other challenges to beekeeping (and there are many)
have solutions that are within my power to institute.  But pesticide MISUSE
is in the hands of the applicators, those who advise them, and those who
enforce the law.  Compliance with the law is certainly inconvenient, and the
long unwillingness to implement and enforce the law indicates the power of
the pesticide applicators.  But reform is inevitable, or the consequences are
loss of pollination, and eventually famine.
 
   Unfortunately pollination is too abstract for many minds, particularly
bureaucratic ones. And bees are not considered grand, like whales, or
loveable, like pandas.  Pollinators should be a key environmental issue.
 
   My livelihood has been stolen from me.  I have decided to hold accountable
those who have done so, in hopes that reforms will make it possible for a new
generation of young pollination beekeepers.  Here is one such step:
 
 
                   NOTICE OF CLAIM
 
(Sent to E. M. Kane, and T. L. Galloway of the SC Department of Pesticide
Regulation)
 
   The new Bulletin 5 of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, prepared by
E. M. Kane and T. L. Galloway  is a basic recommendation of pesticide misuse.
I have been pointing out for years, in numerous communications, including
personal conversations with Mr. Galloway, that such recommendations are in
violation of federal and state laws.  This is therefore a notice of claim for
E. M. Kane and T. L. Galloway for environmental and personal damage.
 
   This is the first official publication I have seen from any South Carolina
agency that indicates that applicators are required by law to comply with
label directions protecting bees. This could be a positive step, but no
assistance is rendered to the applicators in means of compliance.  For
example, this publication recommends "spraying in early morning or late
evening."  Early morning, in hot weather, is the worst possible time to spray
cotton during bloom, as the bees will be foraging prior to sunrise, so this
is a clearcut recommendation of misuse.  It recommends time of spraying based
on conjecture, rather than fact.  There must be a mechanism to determine
realistically, when bees are foraging. This means some kind of monitoring.
 
    The bulk of the publication is involved with setting up a circumvention
in lieu of compliance with label directions: that of notification of
beekeepers and leaving protection up to them.
 
    I have long maintained that if the label directions that protect bees
were carefully followed, losses of bees would drop to tolerable levels.  I
have never tried to stop anyone from spraying, though I have been misquoted
as saying that. I have only insisted that the spraying be done properly,
following label directions, as required by law.  I am a former apple grower,
which demands more insecticide use than almost any other crop.  We kept bees
alongside the orchards during the spray season, and did not damage them,
because we complied with the labels.  There were times that this was
inconvenient, but it was possible (as well as required by law).
 
    Note that label directions apply to FORAGING bees, and that they apply to
ALL bees, whether or not they have a human defender.  They are listed under
Environmental Hazards, which properly recognizes their role as pollinators, a
vital environmental resource.
 
    Kane and Galloway's alternative scheme: that of notification of
beekeepers does not protect all bees, as do the label directions.  Cotton,
for example is highly attractive to bees, and there will be foraging bees in
cotton fields, as soon as they begin to bloom.  The numbers have been
seriously reduced in many areas where cotton has been grown for several years
and violations have been common.  These include kept and feral honeybees,
bumble bees, and solitary bees of many species.
 
    Years of refusal by regulatory and extension to implement and enforce
pesticide laws that protect bees have already cost tremendous damage to our
pollinator populations. Despite numerous appeals, Kane and Galloway's new
official publication continues the refusal to implement label directions to
protect bees.
 
 A.)   This is a claim for damages to the environment by the malfeasance of
Kane and Galloway in recommending a scheme of protection, which only offer
any protection to bees that have a human defender, the claim to be satisfied
by restocking and maintaining for two years, a minimal base level, to
replace lost pollinators, of four hives per square mile in all agricultural
areas where insecticides are used during the 1995 season.
 
    My own surveys this year of  pollinator populations on some of our
commercial crops indicate that solitary bee populations (except for carpenter
bees which are dormant during cotton bloom, have been decimated within the
cotton growing areas.  These are important to our fruit and vegetable growers
as well as wildlife which needs its food supply pollinated.  In observations
on melons outside the cotton growing area, I often find four or five kinds of
solitary bees within one minute of observation. There have been virtually no
solitary bees so far this season, in the cotton growing areas I have
observed.
 
 B.)   This is also a personal claim for the seizure of my property without
compensation, and a refusal of equal protection under law.  This is an ex
officio and personal claim against Kane and Galloway, who are now included as
co-defendants in the one million dollar claim for violation of my civil
rights. The refusal of certain South Carolina authorities to implement and
enforce the label directions that protect bees constitutes an entire system
of abuse of my civil rights.
 
    I also claim that Kane and Galloway are now responsible to provide the
resources of mine, that they freely have tried to give away.  I demand that
they (personally) do the protective steps that they indicate are required to
protect my bees.
 
   They will have to move rapidly,  as cotton will be blooming within a week,
and it will take approximately a week to locate and notify all cotton growers
within range of my bees.  (I will also hold them responsible for any
consequent damages that occur from following this step, including vandalism
of bees, attempts to evict me, loss of customer clientele, and personal
threats or injury.)
 
   I suggest that they find locations which are safe for the bees (I don't
know of any, if their scheme is followed), as they recommend removal, as soon
as pollination is finished.  The only places I know where cotton is not being
grown this year are the coastal marshes, where mosquito spraying has also
decimated pollinator populations.  I know of dozens of cases where beekeepers
have moved to run from a known application, and been hit by another
unanticipated application.  If Kane and Galloway do find safe locations, it
is likely that they will be several hundred miles from home, so they are
responsible for my travel expenses to care for them.
 
   I suggest also that they be prepared to pay claims from crop growers where
they are still actively pollinating.  Cucumbers normally bloom for 25 - 30
days.  One day lost while bees are moved out, or confined, therefore would
cause proportional damage to these growers, so that another grower can spray
in violation.
 
   They will need to purchase 400 burlap sheets, as they recommend covering
hives with wet burlap, and this is about the maximum number of hives that may
be exposed during cotton spray season on any one day.
 
   They will need to hire 15 - 20 employees to be in the bee yards and
pollination locations during the peak of pesticide applications on cotton, as
there may be as many as that sites exposed on any given day.  These employees
will have to trained in advance, and be provided with veils and other
protective gear, smokers and other tools, and they will have to be on site
before bees begin to forage (about 5 am. in hot weather).  Each employee will
have to have a cellular phone to keep in contact with applicators, in case
times of application are changed.  They may also need assistance, if they get
bogged.
 
    By the time Kane and Galloway spend more money than my gross income, just
during the cotton bloom, and face all the consequent frustrations of trying
to do the impossible; they will discover that the recommendations that
beekeepers protect the bees could only be written by uncaring bureaucrats.
Remember, the labels do not refer to hives.  They protect the foraging bee.
 
    Therefore, I require that Kane and Galloway undertake the steps they
recommend for the protection of my bees.  Perhaps they will learn something.
 
    The irrationality of the program is apparent, but there are two specific
gross irrationalities that I must point out.   Moving bees 1/4 mile to avoid
a spray is ridiculous beyond belief.  That would cause a loss of almost the
entire field force.  The "cure" is as bad as the pesticide hit they claim to
avoid. Bee will simply fly back to the previous site.
 
    Also the comment about keeping bees away from tobacco.  Besides the
obvious question of "where" (in the Pee Dee Area?), tobacco is not allowed to
bloom. In normal culture, bloom is immediately removed. Where there is no
bloom, there are no bees.  Compliance with bee directions on the label is
made and there is no significant bee kill.
 
    The liability of each of the co-defendants will be in ratio of their
position and ability to make reforms to implement and enforce label
directions.  Liability could be reduced by vigorous and effective steps to
reform.
 
    I insist that Kane and Galloway, and all others involved in perpetuation
of this effort to avoid, circumvent, or ignore label directions vigorously
retract and repudiate these recommendations of misuse (prior to cotton bloom
this season), and institute a system of
bee protection based on label compliance and focusing on the FORAGING bee
referred to by the label, rather than the hives.
 
    Please note that the refusal thus far, of authorities to implement and
recommend label directions that protect bees, has placed me in a difficult,
isolated, and dangerous position.  I have already suffered property loss, and
endured verbal abuse and threats because I insist on obedience to the law.
The inaction of state authorities increases the danger to my property and
person.
 
     I am faced with the choice of losing my bees to misuse, or seeking
enforcement with all its consequent repercussions.  The refusal of
enforcement people, including Galloway, whom I have repeatedly begged to make
spot checks on bee-label compliance during the bloom season, and the
incompetence of agents to determine sources of damage after kills, requires
me to do neighborhood watches during application.
 
     In effect, this means that, I, a private citizen, am forced to do the
work of the regulatory agencies, without the authority to request records,
enter private property, etc.
 
   The failure of authorities to implement and enforce the law means that
there will be some dislocations when it is finally started.  The blame for
these dislocations is properly placed on those who did not implement or
enforce in the past.  Any efforts to pass the buck, and the blame onto me;
any action which tends to increase applicator perception of me as a
"troublemaker" rather than as a citizen who seeks compliance with the law;
will likewise increase the danger for my business and me.  So I encourage you
to tread very carefully!
 
Sincerely yours,
 
 
David L. Green

ATOM RSS1 RSS2