> I see a lot of complaining about the NYS Apiary Program

I wrote this in 2009, after I resigned from the Apiary Program. 

The NYS Apiary Inspection program has a long standing history and reputation of being heavy handed, outmoded and prone to unequal and arbitrary enforcement. When I was inspector, I heard countless credible stories and participated in many incidents where I was compelled to act against my better judgment, under the direction of my employer.

One beekeeper, well into his seventies told me of his very first experience with the state inspection service. He had gotten interested in beekeeping as a boy and had several hives, of which he was understandably proud. One day, upon coming home from school, he found a note from NY State on his door and a big black pile of ashes where his hives were. He learned nothing, gained nothing, from this experience except a mistrust of NY State and so called authority.

More recently, I went to a beekeeper’s meeting in Albany. While there, I got to talking with a woman from somewhere up in that area. She said she was inspected last summer. She said the bee inspector found two sick ones, one in the home yard and one somewhere else. She said he told her she had to burn each hive onsite, and get a back hoe to dig a hole at each site.

I asked her why they didn't burn both hives at home in a shovel hole (which is what I would have recommended) and she said the inspector had told her it was illegal to move the hive (not true). It is a real financial kick in the teeth to have to hire a back hoe to go around digging holes to burn a couple of hives in. The whole thing made me sick. I thought: No wonder the bee inspection service has a reputation for bullying and twisting the rules.

I referred this case to Stephen Wilson of the Apiary Industry Advisory Committee, and he replied: “While I can understand your concern about the woman's allegation, what is not clear is whether she had reported this incident.”

To which I replied: "She did not report it, for the simple reason that she was led to believe that everything that transpired was legal and indicated. This incident, by no means isolated, is a typical example of how the law is applied by amateur bee inspectors such as those currently employed."

I will relate several additional incidents that I have actually been a party to. I am compelled by NYS Law to keep all names and details confidential, but these incidents are true and can be corroborated.

Local beekeepers informed me of a commercial beekeeper who moved in annually after the apple bloom, and kept bees onsite all summer, presumably going to Florida in the late autumn. The apiaries were poorly maintained, lots of junk strewn around, chaotic in appearance. They were concerned that he was bringing in diseases and pests from Florida (Varroa, foulbrood, small hive beetles, etc.) The yards were registered with NYS and there was a clear record of past cases of Foulbrood. I asked my supervisor about inspecting this guy, and I was told to leave him alone. Why? Because in the past he had threatened to sue Ag & Mkts for inspecting his hives without his permission and for destroying his property. As a similar case was lost by the state of Ohio, Ag & Mkts didn't want to push it.

A similar story, local beekeepers complaining about commercial beekeeper. This one is not migratory, keeps bees in permanent locations, mostly registered with state. He was a NY State bee inspector for many years and allegedly bullied beekeepers throughout his territory. Local reputation as belligerent and unhelpful. Currently old and possibly unable to properly maintain hives at all. Ag & Mkts issued express instructions not to inspect or ever even call this beekeeper. Why? Because if bee inspectors even called him, he immediately called Ag & Mkts and unleashed a lengthy harangue. By the way, he is collecting a comfortable pension from NY State.

I had a beekeeper in my territory and called him two years in a row, to get permission to inspect one yard. He was openly hostile and my supervisor suggested leaving him alone. The third year, I got a different person on the phone (several sons were working for the outfit). He encouraged me to inspect them, so I did. Of thirty hives, over one third were showing symptoms of disease and there was approximately a ton of new honey in the hives. The beekeepers were medicating for disease and it appeared to be clearing up. I was instructed by my supervisors to get them to kill the bees and destroy the honey. The owner told me that he was a dairy farmer and the idea that he couldn't medicate his own livestock was wrong. Besides, inspectors had allowed him to medicate them in the past. In fact, they told him how to use the newer drug (Tylosin).

I contacted Pennsylvania State Apiculturist Dennis van Englesdorp for advice. He said in PA a beekeeper would be allowed to harvest the honey and to treat for 30 days. When I asked Ag & Mkts for permission to allow them to do this, I was told I was to get tough with him and try to force them to destroy the hives and honey. These instructions were issued by the same person who had allowed them to medicate in the past, but now he had evidently changed his mind and was trying to show that exceptions would not be made for individuals. This, despite the two ongoing incidents described above. Naturally, the beekeeper felt he was being singled out and bullied by the inspector who has formerly been his friend -- before the inspector was promoted to a higher office. I was caught into the middle. I resigned at this point, and the case was handled by others.

* * *

In a letter to the Apiary Industry Advisory Committee of Feb. 19, 2009, NY State Commissioner of Agriculture Patrick Hooker wrote:

“The Department has the authority to inspect apiaries to detect and control honeybee pests that may adversely affect the primary pollinator of the state's agricultural crops. Central to this responsibility is the apiary survey.”

My response:

I am going to suggest that the Department has done nothing to control honey bee pests, nor does it have a coherent plan to do so.

In June 1988, Frank Robinson, chairman of Florida's Varroa Task Force and secretary-treasurer of the American Beekeeping Federation, suggested:

A. Varroa will eventually spread throughout this country.

B. Eradication isn't possible and the best that can be hoped for is to maybe slow advance of the pest.

C. Chemical treatments are not going to achieve a "mite free" status

D. The longest possible interval between treatments and the least numbers of colonies that are treated should be the goal of any control program.

E. Residues in honey and/or wax may be unavoidable

F. As far as possible, the normal movement of colonies, queens and package bees must be a goal of any program.

In other words, quarantines were ruled out because beekeepers need to move the bees about freely. They would fail in any case, to prevent the complete ubiquity of Varroa, which would then prove to be ineradicable. The problem would ultimately become chemical residues.

All of this has been borne out. 20 years later, we find Varroa in most hives in NY State. They cannot be eradicated. Residues of miticides are present at alarmingly high levels and have been implicated as a possible cause for the honey bees' decline, as these substances are potent insecticides as well.

We now have additional parasites such as the small hive beetle and Nosema ceranae which are widespread. Nothing was done to prevent the spread of these pests, and nothing is being done to eliminate them. The best approach that most are seeking is newer pesticides, with resultant contamination of wax and honey. That, or the inevitable restocking of dead hives with bees from the South, which is where the pests came from in the first place.

Ag & Mkts has done nothing to prevent these catastrophes, and is offering no solution, as there is none. In fact, the most effective treatments currently available have been developed in Canada and are either recently approved or NOT YET approved for use in NYS. Hence, many large scale beekeepers are using them surreptitiously.

What is needed to ensure a viable beekeeping industry is a research unit based on the Canadian model, where the industry contributes funds directly to researchers to carry out work that directly benefits them. In NY State the taxpayers are expected to fund programs like the Apiary Inspection and the Dyce Lab at Cornell that have not produced significant tangible benefits to anyone except their respective employees.

I have not mentioned the two pests that the State is actually legally mandated to control: brood disease and African Bees. The brood disease (AFB) occurs at very low levels and is easily contained with antibiotics rendering dubious the need for inspection for it.

African Bees have already been brought to this state inadvertently by migratory beekeepers and have frankly caused little problem for anyone but them. They have compelling reason to exterminate them upon discovery since the bees are vicious and interfere with routine apiary work.

In other words, the industry is capable of regulating and advising itself and if there is money available to help the industry at all, it would be better focused on stock improvement. The Dyce Lab received  a large grant from the USDA to do so, and produced no known results.


Peter L Borst 
Beekeeping Professional since 1974 
NY State Bee Inspector for 3 seasons 
Frequent Contributor to the American Bee Journal and Bee Culture Magazine

 

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