>If city ordinances do not allow beekeeping, they may be able to be changed.
 
   I found out a few years back that at least one Atlanta-area city
ordinance (that of Decatur, GA) was ruled on in such as way as to
specifically PROMOTE beekeeping within the city/county. Apparently
some nuisance cases were brought up by neighbors of a beekeeper within
Decatur city limits. These cases were not based on specific incidents,
but were brought to court because neighbors found out about the bees
and just didn't like the idea of them in their vicinity (NIMBY strikes
again). The cases were intended to eliminate beekeeping within the
city based on bees being "domesticated" animals; such animals are not
allowed within city limits.
 
The Georgia Extension Service argued on behalf of the beekeeper that
in fact bees are wild animals, and that they are exempt from such
ordinances; beekeepers in this context provide a home for the bees,
but that does not constitute ownership anymore than putting up a bird
house does not constitute ownership of birds that use it. This
argument was accepted, based in large part on a desire to encourage
beekeeping in areas that are experiencing a decline in feral Apis
populations.
 
My conclusion is that you shouldn't be shy about checking the
ordinances; there is a changing mood in state governments,
particularly those in agricultural states that are experiencing crop
declines due to lack of adequate feral pollinators. In fact this
does NOT mean that you should be irresponsible about keeping the bees,
but the fact is that unless neighbors can prove that your bees
specifically are causing a problem, you are likely to be home free.
 
   Jeef