The Fate of Bee Inspection in the
Bee Culture (2003) Vol. 131 (7): 19-21
By
Malcolm T. Sanford
http://apis.shorturl.com
Bee
inspection services have been public whipping boys in the
The results
of inconsistent rules have caused many in the beekeeping industry to re-examine
the role of regulators. Dr. Richard
Taylor, long-time writer for Bee Culture, asked the question, "Have
inspection programs outlived their usefulness?" (July, 1991). He ends his
piece by stating, "My own view is, and has for some time been, that
mandatory inspection of apiaries is something whose time has long since come,
and gone. American foulbrood is a manageable problem that can be left in the
hands of beekeepers themselves. This is not going to eliminate American
foulbrood, to be sure, but neither is anything else. It is not a proper area
for government."
Dr. Taylor's
comments concerning the historical reason for bee inspection (American
foulbrood control), why it is no longer needed and the fact that
such bureaucracies tend to have a life of their own are valid. Most
professionals in the research and education establishment would agree with much
of what he said.
Although
technologies to control American foulbrood, Varroa
and tracheal mites are in place, however, this does not necessarily warrant
eliminating inspection services around the nation. The old saying, "Don't
throw the baby out with the bath water," applies. Although in some cases
inspection agencies are viewed as abusive and having a life of their own, as
stated by Dr. Taylor, this does not mean they cannot adapt their programs to
aid the industry being regulated instead of damaging it. Inspection services,
like most political entities, are not necessarily immune to pressure from the
group being regulated. And there are many benefits that inspection services
perform for the industry that are not often fully appreciated.
As a former
extension worker, I have always thought of bee inspectors as my agents in the
field, providing needed information to beekeepers, running the gamut from the
one-colony beehaver to a seasoned migratory operator.
I don't know how many times I've referred persons to inspectors for a wide
range of services beyond simply inspecting colonies for potential problems.
These have included collecting pesticide-killed bees for analysis,
investigating stinging incidents and nuisance colonies, and participating in
local beekeeper meetings and educational events. Without these helpers in the
field, I would not have access to information on beekeeping around the state or
statistics about the industry.
Inspection services have also been involved in working with mosquito
control agencies, power companies and property owners concerning honey bee
issues.
A survey by Bee
Culture (May 1991) would not have been possible without state inspection
services. Research into bee problems
also is promoted by inspection services and sometimes they are active
participants in the process. The current menthol application technology was
championed by the
In
There is an
Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) association through which inspectors around
the country are able to communicate.
For a more
recent example of the kinds of service inspection programs provide, consider
the following from Jimmy Dunkley, Program Coordinator, Louisiana Department of
Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) Nursery & Apiary Programs:4
“For approximately 3 years we
have had an established SHB presence in the greater
“In January 2003, one beetle
was collected by a beekeeper in south central
“
“LDAF inspectors have checked
10 queen and/or package honey bee producers for SHB the last six years with no
detections. Several migratory operations are also inspected
annually. Inspectors have been asked to check 25% more colonies this
spring. No detections have been made to date.
“On March 10th I was notified
by USDA-ARS personnel about an introduction of SHB at the
“Upon notification the LDAF
placed a ‘Stop Order’ prohibiting any movement of bees and beekeeping equipment
from the main laboratory site and a site directly across from the lab, off
“Partial releases of bees and
equipment have taken place since LDAF involvement but only after inspection and
risk assessment (queens and attendants, used supers with new foundation after
inspection, used honey supers after being frozen, etc.). Additional
inspections were made on May 14 - 15, 2003 and no additional SHB detections
have been found. The USDA Bee Lab was released from ‘Stop Order’ on May
15th.”
Here is some
further information on that particular situation from Dr. Thomas Rinderer, Research Leader at the
“Bees on comb came in.
Beetles came also. We had a short period when beetles might have gotten
into lab hives. We discovered the beetles and killed the colony.
The state instituted a quarantine on the apiary
site. They inspected twice, this week being the last. The
quarantine is now lifted based on no detection. We operated under
inspection and certification of material that had to leave the site. LDAF
officials went out of their way to make sure we could still do what we needed
to do and I am grateful for their efforts.
“Having a
regulatory action that ends with a full clearance of ‘no hive beetle’ makes
moving bees possible. The
inspections were thorough and complete, removing any cloud of doubt about
whether or not we are infesting other beekeepers. Also, since we do not
want to be the source of other beekeepers’ SHB we would have rather
restructured what we do if we had been found to be generally infested. But now,
we can move to states that would not otherwise accept us and may be able to do
so for a long time to come. Indeed, the places we go may get SHB before we
do.
“This is another example
of good regulation serving the needs of the
beekeeping industry. If there is anything to think about here,
it is that good apiary regulation is very important to all of us over the
long term. The pay offs of moving bees and queens without spreading
problems is well worth the price of the short-term inconveniences of being
regulated.”
The
inspection service is a vital bureaucracy, which can be used to hammer at the
doors of an increasingly urban officialdom about the problems the beekeeping
industry faces. And it is not a given
that some of the same concerns prompting establishment of bee inspection
services in the first place, and well supported by the beekeeping industry in
the past, will not reappear in the future. It is far easier to get rid of a
bureaucracy than to try to re-establish one; beekeepers who support the
dismantling of bee inspection services do so at the peril of losing a strong
ally in their efforts to survive in a society less and less in touch with its
agricultural roots.
References: