Jerry:

> Admittedly, there were abuses of the indemnity program.  Jimmy Carter  put 
> an
> end to the program.

So this finished avery long time ago.

> However, when it was in place, EPA had a pesticide lab that processed bee
> samples for pesticides at NO CHARGE to beekeepers and researchers.

Sounds like a great facility.  Here, pesticides incidents would be 
investigated free, but the beekeeper would not be provided with evidence 
that could be used in court.

> The indemnity program required data to show that bees had been exposed to
> pesticides, and at toxic levels.

Could hardly function without evidence.

> The other downside - when there was no longer any place to go to collect
> damages, other than via litigation; many beekeepers adopted a 'nothing can 
> be
> done' attitude.

Civil law rather than criminal law?  (I am not familiar with the finer 
points of your legal system).  Killing bees through the mis-use of pesticide 
has to be a criminal offence, with the courts able to award compensation to 
the injured party, i.e. the beekeeper.

> CCD has focused attention on bee losses.  One aspect of that is the
> continued presence of pesticides, and bee losses.  Beekeepers are now 
> talking
> directly to EPA (which I believe is a good thing) and to Bayer  chemical - 
> and
> hopefully, will soon engage other chemical companies.

That must be a good thing - but is this not the time to sort out the legal 
aspects?  The public and the lawmakers are more aware of, and sympathetic 
to, the problems that beekeepers face than at any time in history.   The 
press is also on your side.  What an opportunity!
Best wishes

Peter Edwards
beekeepers at stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk
www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html