> The USDA  boll weevil eradication program in Texas & Missouri is
> one of the biggest offenders. Even when *iron clad proof* exists
> that their crop dusters killed hives they fight reimbursements for
> dead hives.

How long are beekeepers going to continue to be utter fools
in their business dealings?  This may not be the sole source
of all the problems in every case, but it sure as heck isn't
helping any.

The "offender" here is the GROWER.  The guy you can take to
small claims court, or general district court.  All the
pointing at the federal government is simple misdirection.

If I cut deals like the ones that appear to being cut for
pollination and "hive placement for a crop" in Missouri/Texas,
I'd not only be unable to find a single lawyer to churn out my
contracts, I'd be unable to afford a lawyer, as I would be
living in a cardboard box.

If the beekeeper chooses to not demand a "pesticide kill clause"
in his contract, then he clearly is tolerating an unacceptable
situation.  If beekeepers adopted a "standard form contract",
rather like the standardized real estate and rental agreements
used in all US states, there would be less opportunity for
growers to play one beekeeper against another, as they clearly
are doing.

Agreement terms aside, I don't see how a grower's overt and willing
participation in an effort that yields tangible economic benefit to
his operation can be viewed as anything but classic "negligence"
if pesticide kills result.

If the contract said nothing about pesticide kills, or even if there
was NO contract, and the grower did the spraying himself, one would
have a simple civil action, enforceable by local courts.

Since the USDA contracts out the spraying as part of a program in
which growers actively participate, the USDA is really nothing more
than another "hired hand" for the grower, clearly under the control
of the grower.  If the grower tries to claim that he has "no control",
this does not relieve him of liability, as he owns the land, grows
the crop, knows of the spray program, and knowingly contracted for
bees to be placed upon his land (or allowed bees to be placed upon
his land).  The grower cannot deny knowledge of the spray program,
so his lack of due diligence to exert control over the spraying
schedule for his land is significant and willful negligence and the
"direct and proximate" cause of the bee kill.  Classic strict liability.

If I rent you a store, and I fail to maintain the wiring, and the
store burns down, I am liable, and no amount of pointing at the
electrical contractor's error or the building inspector's failure to
notice the bad wiring will protect me from a judgment for the full
value of your stock, loss of business, etc.  (If I want to sue the
electrical contractor, that is yet another lawsuit.)

Bees are property.  They have value.  They generate income.
It is a business.  Treat it like one.

Even though the USDA may be contracting out the specific spray flights,
the participation of the grower in the program (and the fact that
the grower permits his land to be sprayed at all) makes the grower
the better target. Trying to sue the federal government is simply a
waste of time.  "Negotiating" with the government is a waste of time.
Begging is futile.  Legislation is time-consuming, and prone to being
watered down by lobbyists.  The only practical approach is to use the
courts. (Is it an wonder why "tort reform" is such a big deal to big
business?)

The grower might claim that he is not liable for the actions of
the crop duster or the USDA program that hired the crop duster,
but this would be as silly as saying that, as a bar owner, I
would not be liable for the actions of an off-duty policeman
that I hired to be a "bouncer".  Sure, the cop is not subject
to civil suit when he is "on duty" as he is an agent of the
government, but this protection is not afforded him when he
is working for me as a hired hand for my business.

While a federal court might entertain a motion by a grower
to "enjoin" the USDA to the suit, a suit in a local court
would not be thrown out simply because the federal government
was CLAIMED to somehow be involved in the spraying of the
grower's fields.  The local court would view this as a simple
tort.  Negligence, contributory negligence, and so on.

If the growers don't want to bother to get pushy with their local
USDA reps on this issue, then refuse to place hives one anyone's
land who does not agree to a "pesticide kill" clause.

In short, if the grower has no concern for your bees, then don't
put your bees on his land, and tell the other members of your
co-op, association, whatever about his lack of concern.

Any beekeeper who continues, year after year, to willingly expose
their bees to such risks has no one to blame but himself.


      jim (Who works hard to appear to be about
           as frightening as the Snuggle fabric
           softener bear in all business dealings)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::