Peter Borst said:

> We had to move a yard of 16 this summer.
> The law may have been on our side, but common
> courtesy compelled us to get out of his hair.

I doubt that the law would have been on "your side" that time.

One or more of the 16 beehives were being a tangible
and repeated nuisance to the neighbor.  Repeated
stinging incidents near a beeyard would be enough
for a judge to order hives moved.  An enlightened judge
might want to see some proof that the stinging insects
were bees (rather than wasps or yellowjackets), but after
that, he'd rule against the beekeeper.

The crucial difference with ordinances is that they
impose prior restraint, based upon an faulty
assumption that bees are a general nuisance by
their mere presence, or a "threat" to "the general
welfare" by definition.

Courts have ruled multiple times against such assumptions.

Therefore, even though local government ordinances
can be challenged, blocked, and overturned, any specific
hive(s) can still be ordered moved, if there is clear proof that
the bees from the specific hive(s) have become a tangible
nuisance.

The short version is that bees are not a nuisance per se,
but they can become a specific nuisance under specific
circumstances.


        jim