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:
Christina Wahl <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:30:31 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
"Could the aerial spray mix have included some form of dormant oil? I wonder if the court records included such detail. Is it known what crop was sprayed for what pest??"


Yes, it did, and yes, it was. Oil was the adjuvant and the spray was for gypsy moth infestation of the island parks. Tourists were complaining about defoliation.


"Mr. Wahl at first thought a new disease had struck his bees and made inquiries in Syracuse on May 22d about new diseases?.."


Up until that time in the 1950's, beekeepers like Wilburt and Arthur Wahl and the others involved in this case had never experienced spray kills. That is why they first thought about disease. But none of the diseases they knew of fit the symptoms that they saw, so they asked the "experts" whether new diseases could explain their losses. However, they were told that there were no new diseases with this particular set of symptoms. Then they discovered that the state had done a DDT spray the day before they saw the first carpets of dead bees (the public wasn't officially notified of aerial spraying back then). When they asked to have an analysis done of the wind, temperature, and other conditions on the day of the spray....and when they realized that this insecticide could travel in "microdroplets" for many miles in the atmosphere....and further, when the 30+ beekeepers compared notes on the conditions of bees in their yards, they concluded that DDT spraying on Grindstone Island and other state parks in the area was responsible for their bee kills.


Some hives died outright and others "dwindled" over the honey flow months, dying later. Anyone who has experienced a honey flow here in upstate NY knows that no hive, if even only moderately healthy, "dwindles" when the flow is on.


The symptoms did not resemble CCD. They also did not resemble any of the diseases on the State's list of "other explanations". But by the time attention of neutral parties was brought to bear on the situation, the primary evidence was gone (bees decayed). This was the reason, IMO, that the beekeepers ultimately lost the case. They didn't photograph the yards immediately, they didn't have a way to freeze their bees and didn't preserve them some other way (although I doubt they could have gotten a residue analysis in any case), they didn't suspect pesticides initially, the "experts" weren't there to see what the beekeepers saw, and when they finally got help....their own first-hand analysis was not given any credence. In the court case, only the testimony of those who never saw the evidence was given weight in the trial.

Christina


             ***********************************************
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2