Proposed. 1) G. An apiary operator shall not maintain an apiary within 50 feet of any animal that is tethered, kenneled, or otherwise prevented from escaping a possible stinging incident.

I think this is onerous requirement and really not fair to require.  It is possible that someone moves in with a tethered or kenneled animal after you have your apiary established and then their rights supersede yours.  I think that it would be better to read that the  apiary owner should not keep a kenneled or tethered animal on their property but in the case that this type of animal exists on a neighbor's property, the apiary owner should alert the neighbor with the tethered or kenneled animal to the potential problems associated with keeping the animal next to an apiary.

Propsed: 2.  4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms;

I am not sure this is necessary- it seems like an extreme requirement.  Perhaps soften if to assess behavior within 45 days of capturing or trapping swarms and requeen if defensive behavior becomes apparent.

Proposed: 3.  5. Replace queens in all colonies every two years to minimize swarming behavior; and

Could this be amended to state- with the exception of established queen breeders.  This is so that those fully engaged in breeding queens, which require at least 2 winters for a queen to survive do not get penalized for this standard queen breeding practice?  

I have been a beekeeper for only two years.  My hives are located within ten feet of property lines but are sitting on top of a hill that stands above all houses adjacent to my property. Section E  requires hives be located at least ten feet from property lines.  When my bees exit their hives into my property they are in fact higher than the all adjacent houses.  I am in total compliance with all other requirements of the proposed legislation. My hives cannot be relocated anywhere on my property and still be in compliance with section E.  Please amend the legislation to allow hives within ten feet if and only if bees exit in such a manner they are higher than the roofs  all adjacent houses or grant grant be an exception to section E.  If a waiver is not granted or legislation is not modified to incorporate a height exception I will have no other option and will remove my bee hives and discontinue bee keeping. Bill Willis Woodbridge VA 22191

5. Maintaining a minimum of 20 pounds of honey in a hive with the equivalent of one frame of pollen stores for brood production during the growing season; This would be difficult to impossible in nucleus type hives used for overwintering or sale.  

I. An apiary operator shall only maintain a colony with EHB or EHB hybrid stock and shall:

1. Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock, or obtain a queen and bees from a local supplier; What if we raise our own local queens based on our selection criteria?

4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms; Replacement Queens are not always avialable locally or on short notice from catalogs

5. Replace queens in all colonies every two years to minimize swarming behavior; This will be onerous to documement and most queens don't last more than 2 years before being superceded. 

 Because the BMPs, once adopted by the VA Department of Agriculture, may become "the standard for compliance" for local governments, it is important to incorporate some additional flexibility.  To that end, I offer the following suggestions.

Section A(3); Eliminate the term old since it is undefined and in the eye of the beholder. the other descriptive terms are more than adequate.

Section C:  The minimum store recommendations are sensible, but because stores can vary and quickly, you might add a reference to feeding as a supplement to stores, and a mitigating factor for having stores below the recommended level.

Section E; The entrance of the hive should be 40 feet from the property line, with barriers to establish the bee flyway, but for urban beekeepers with small lots erecting barriers on the sides and back of their hives may be problematic and unnecessary.  Specifying that the entrance side shall be 40 feet, with a flyway barrier may remedy this.

Section H; Operator shall avoid opening or disturbing colony when another person is participating in outside non-beekeeping activites..... For urban beekeepers property lines may be less than 150 feet from the hive, and during an inspection beekeepers cannot control activities on neighboring properties.  The beekeeper should avoid those times when other activity is more likely, and never open a hive when the neighborhood barbecue is ongoing, but pedestrians, cyclists, and others may come well within 150 feet during an inspection. Mowing, on adjoining property for example, may begin after the hive is open.  A house may lie between the hives and the neighbor- yet the standard would not be met. Perhaps the standard should be modified to 50-100 feet and within line of sight.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these important standards.

B.1. "Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary...."empty" means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees."  For years I have kept a bait hive in or near my apiary containing an old comb and a pheromone lure to attract swarms.  I have never experienced a complaint about this practice but it appears to be contrary to the Best Management Practices and a potential liability problem.  I think that having a swarm move into a bait hive is preferable to having it fly off to some unknown location.

B.3. "Repairing or replacing old, worn or defective hive boxes, frames and other bee equipment."  This is too subjective.

B.4. "Replacing frames containing old comb with new comb or cleaned frames containing foundation...."  I sometimes use frames without foundation as part of a varroa mite control procedure.  It would appear that use of frames without foundation or top-bar hives are contrary to Best Management Practices and a potential liability problem.

E. Distance from property lines.  I keep bees in Arlington County on a typical 50 foot by 118 foot lot.  My apiary is located on a roof and less than ten feet from the property line.  The bees fly well over the heads of people on the ground and I have never had any complaints from neighbors or passers-by.  Roof-top apiaries are not taken into consideration in the Best Management Practices and could be a potential liability problem if close to the property line.

G. "An apiary operator shall not maintain an apiary withing 50 feet of any animal that is tethered, kenneled or otherwise prevented from escaping a possible stinging incident."  My neighbor has many cats which she allows access to an outdoor cage in her wooded backyard.  The caged cats are less than 50 feet from my apiary and there has never been a complaint from my neighbor or any sign that a cat has been stung.  This appears to be contrary to Best Management Practices and a liability problem.  Is the problem the way I keep bees or the way my neighbor keeps cats?  There is no way for me to move my apiary 50 feet from her cat cage and conform to Best Management Practices regarding distance an apiary must be from property lines.

H. "An apiary operator shall avoid opening or disturbing a colony when another person is participating in outside non-beekeeping activities or using machinery within 150 feet of the apiary."  This is impossible in an urban area like Arlington County.  Nobody has complained about my beekeeping activities in the sixteen years I have managed bees on my property but I can't even see all the people that might be within 150 feet of my apiary for all the houses and vegetation in the way.

2VAC5-319-10. Definitions.

"Apiary operator" means a person who operates an apiary and seeks to limit his liability for any personal injury or property damage that occurs in connection with his keeping and maintaining of bees, bee equipment, queen breeding equipment, apiaries, or appliances as provided for in § 3.2-4411.1 of the Code of Virginia.

Strike gender references.

2VAC5-319-20

2VAC5-319-20. Limitation of liability.

A. An apiary operator operating in conformance with § 3.2-4411.1 of the Code of Virginia and this chapter shall not be liable for any personal injury or property damage that occurs in connection with his keeping and maintaining of bees, bee equipment, queen breeding equipment, apiaries, or appliances. This limitation of liability does not apply to intentional tortious conduct or acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or negligence.

B. A person is not required to comply with the provisions of this chapter unless he seekings to limit his liability as provided for in § 3.2-4411.1 of the Code of Virginia.

Strike gender references.

2VAC5-319-30

2VAC5-319-30. Best management practices.

A. An apiary operator shall comply with local, state, and federal ordinances, regulations, and laws pertaining to beekeeping.

Need to append:  "Local, state and federal ordinances, regulations and laws shall take precedence over these best management practices."  This will provide the desired liability limitation.  Localities which have adopted their own ordinances should not be bound by the best management practices.

B. An apiary operator shall maintain a healthy populous colony of bees by:

1. Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary. For the purpose of this subdivision, "empty" means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees;

This would appear to prohibit bait hives which are commonly used to attract swarms which have already been cast.  Bait hives provide an preferable alternative for swarms, feral or otherwise, which may settle in a human structure if the bait hive is not available.

5. Maintaining a minimum of 20 pounds of honey in a hive with the equivalent of one frame of pollen stores for brood production during the growing season;

Need to state this is for a "Full" hive.  This is not possible for a nucleus hive, particularly for new splits or swarms on medium equipment.

I. An apiary operator shall only maintain a colony with EHB or EHB hybrid stock and shall:

This would appear to indicate that a AHB x EHB hybrid is acceptable.  Perhaps it should read, "An apiary operator shall only maintain colonies free of AHB genetics."  Another alternative would be to remove the "or EHB hybrid" and expand the definition of EHB to say "EHB means European honey bees free of africanized honey bee genetics".

4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms;

Need to insure that it is understood that queens need not be purchased from a commercial breeder.  Lack of genetic diversity has been identified as a key challenge facing honey bees.

5. Replace queens in all colonies every two years to minimize swarming behavior; and

Need to insure that it is understood that queens need not be purchased from a commercial breeder.  Lack of genetic diversity has been identified as a key challenge facing honey bees.

I understand how a backyard beekeeper might need to provide a water source to prevent their honeybees from becoming a nuisance to neighbors.  However, to require me to provide a water source within 50 feet of my apiaries is beyond ludicrous. I live on 130+ acres in Floyd County with abundant springs, ponds and streams. I pride myself in being a responsible beekeeper. This is just one of the "BMPs" for beekeepers that I find to be heavy handed.  Pet dogs are allowed to run free on my property under state law.  That is where legislation is needed.  Keep your laws out of my bees!

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  The proposed text of 2 VAC 5-319-30 states:

"E. An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive. . . ."

This language does not account for the low risk presented by hives whose landing platforms face away from the property line.  As you know, honeybees use the upper, rear entrance of the hive on rare occasions, and do not use that rear entrance for orientation, day-to-day foraging, or mating flights.  Thus, there is no "impeding" of normal bee flight activity near the rear of the hive. 

The Fairfax County zoning ordinance in section 2-512, similar to other Virginia county ordinances, uses language that refers to the location and direction of the landing platform:

"If the landing platform of a hive faces and is within ten (10) feet of any lot line, there shall be a flight path barrier, consisting of a fence, structure or plantings not less than six (6) feet in height, located in front of the hive."

Thus, I recommend that you revise proposed 2 VAC 5-319-30(E) to read as follows:

E. An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive, except that the side or rear of a colony may be located not less than four feet from a property line provided that a barrier that is no less than six feet in height is located between the relevant side or rear of the colony and the property line. If the landing platform of a hive faces and is within forty feet of any lot line, the apiary operator shall place the colony behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height and is located between the colony and the property line. Barriers should be of sufficient density, length, and height to establish bee flyways six feet or higher above ground level.

You may wish to add definitions for "colony side," "colony rear," and "landing platform," if you feel that these terms are subject to misinterpretation.

This language would be consistent with -- but still more restrictive than -- for instance, the Michigan Department of Agriculture Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practice for bees (http://www.michiganbees.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/bee-GAAMPS.pdf), which states:

"Hives must be located in a quiet area of the lot, not placed directly against a neighboring property unless a solid fence or impenetrable vegetative barrier not less than six feet high forms the property boundary.  Keep hives as far away as possible from roads, sidewalks, and rights of way. Hive entrances should face in such a direction that bees fly across your property. If this is impossible, use barriers (hedges, shrubs, or fencing six to twelve feet high) to redirect the bees’ flight pattern."

And the Massachusetts Beekeepers' Association best management practices (http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/programs/bmp/bee-bmps.pdf), which states, without providing specific distances:

"If the hive is proximate to a property boundary in an urban or built-up area, attention should be given to the bees’ flight path. ... Consider using barriers, including solid fencing, hedges and shrubs six feet high or more, to redirect the bees’ flight path so that they do not fly directly into adjoining properties or areas where people may frequently pass."

Thank you for your attention and for your efforts.

Kind regards,

Ruth Miller

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have a number of concerns with the proposed regulations which seem to be onerous to hobby beekeepers (a group who has helped fortify the honeybee population in the face of Colony Collapse Disorder). Specifically I am concerned with:

1. Maintaining a minimum of 20 pounds of honey in a hive with the equivalent of one frame of pollen stores for brood production during the growing season -- When is this measured? Summer? Spring? The "growing season" on the border of North Carolina may be different than the growing season in Northern Loudoun County. Honey and pollen stores in a hive vary throughout the seasons and feeding, splitting hives, and natural factors such as weather will also influence the stores. 

2. Monitoring disease and pest levels to ensure that treatment thresholds are not exceeded. An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address any disease or pest infestation or remove all disease or pest-infested hives that may be detrimental to the health of other colonies in the vicinity of the apiary.  -- I don't think even seasoned or commercial beekeepers can agree on what the "treatment thresholds" are. Which diseases/pests are they specifically referring to? There are a lot of them. What if I am breeding pest-resistant stock and do not wish to apply chemicals which could potentially weaken the bees in the long term? 

3. Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers within 100 miles from known Africanized honey bee populations -- Much of the bee stock of Northern VA comes from counties in Georgia which have been known to have Africanized bees for several years now. Are we no longer allowed to buy bee stock from the major bee suppliers in Georgia?

4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms -- By replacing queens from swarms you are potentially destroying the genetic variation that allowed a feral colony to survive in the first place. These genes are crucial for maintaining healthy bee populations in the face of honeybee diseases and poor pesticide application practices which are threatening the honeybee.

5. An apiary operator shall avoid opening or disturbing a colony when another person is participating in outside nonbeekeeping activities or using machinery within 150 feet of the apiary -- If I am managing my hive in my backyard and someone walks by on the street 150 feet away and gets stung, I am liable? How on earth do you prove it was my bee versus someone else's bee (or an un-owned bee) that did the stinging? Bees travel MILES for forage and mating. 

6. An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height and is located between the colony and the property line.-- So even if my bee landing boards and hive entrances face away from the adjacent property, I have to install a barrier because they are less than 40 feet from the property line? This does not make sense due to the nature of bee flight paths. Additionally this is an enormous cost to be shouldered by the beekeeper for little to no increase yield in safety.

We should be supporting backyard beekeepers and encouraging more people to enter beekeeping with reasonable, achievable, guildelines instead of hindering their efforts with vague, overly restrictive covenants.

Sincerely,

Nicole Reid

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have a number of concerns with the proposed regulations which seem to be onerous to hobby beekeepers (a group who has helped fortify the honeybee population in the face of Colony Collapse Disorder). Specifically I am concerned with:

1. Maintaining a minimum of 20 pounds of honey in a hive with the equivalent of one frame of pollen stores for brood production during the growing season -- When is this measured? Summer? Spring? The "growing season" on the border of North Carolina may be different than the growing season in Northern Loudoun County. Honey and pollen stores in a hive vary throughout the seasons and feeding, splitting hives, and natural factors such as weather will also influence the stores. 

2. Monitoring disease and pest levels to ensure that treatment thresholds are not exceeded. An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address any disease or pest infestation or remove all disease or pest-infested hives that may be detrimental to the health of other colonies in the vicinity of the apiary.  -- I don't think even seasoned or commercial beekeepers can agree on what the "treatment thresholds" are. Which diseases/pests are they specifically referring to? There are a lot of them. What if I am breeding pest-resistant stock and do not wish to apply chemicals which could potentially weaken the bees in the long term? 

3. Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers within 100 miles from known Africanized honey bee populations -- Much of the bee stock of Northern VA comes from counties in Georgia which have been known to have Africanized bees for several years now. Are we no longer allowed to buy bee stock from the major bee suppliers in Georgia?

4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms -- By replacing queens from swarms you are potentially destroying the genetic variation that allowed a feral colony to survive in the first place. These genes are crucial for maintaining healthy bee populations in the face of honeybee diseases and poor pesticide application practices which are threatening the honeybee.

5. An apiary operator shall avoid opening or disturbing a colony when another person is participating in outside nonbeekeeping activities or using machinery within 150 feet of the apiary -- If I am managing my hive in my backyard and someone walks by on the street 150 feet away and gets stung, I am liable? How on earth do you prove it was my bee versus someone else's bee (or an un-owned bee) that did the stinging? Bees travel MILES for forage and mating. 

6. An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height and is located between the colony and the property line.-- So even if my bee landing boards and hive entrances face away from the adjacent property, I have to install a barrier because they are less than 40 feet from the property line? This does not make sense due to the nature of bee flight paths. Additionally this is an enormous cost to be shouldered by the beekeeper for little to no increase yield in safety.

We should be supporting backyard beekeepers and encouraging more people to enter beekeeping with reasonable, achievable, guildelines instead of hindering their efforts with vague, overly restrictive covenants.

Sincerely,

Nicole Reid

I object to this requirement because:

1.  Some queens seem to be rejected by the colony once marked.  Although this is not a universal response to marking, however, I have personally witnessed bees "balling" a newly marked queen that minutes before had been accepeted and laying in the hive.

2.  Some marking comes off of the thorax of the queen, so it is hard to be sure queens were marked.  It would be a shame for liability to be voided just because paint was removed from a healthy queen.

3.  I believe that clipping the wings of a queen is harmful to the queen, may lead to less acceptance of the queen by the colony, interupt natual swarming which is really heathy for the colony

4,  I don't see any connection between marking a queen and any potential "harmful" activity from the hive.  How would a marked queen prevent some innocent person from being stung.  There needs to be a strong connection between the two for this to be included in the BMP.

Regarding the suggestions discussed in the Best Management Practices, all are good advice for best managing bees, but those that relate directly to liability might be more effective and legally safer (as I will discuss below) if they could be somehow highlighted in a separate section for emphasis.  You might provide most of the BMP suggestions, then say something like the following:  "All the above will help you keep happy, healthy and productive hives. Following are some additional BMPs that will protect you from being held liable as a beekeeper," (or something like that).  I guess the legal question and concern I have is that if one does not follow all the BMP suggestions, could a lawyer point out any infringement of the suggestions as a reason to find a beekeeper liable, hence my suggestion to separate the liable-related acts from the other BMP acts? This may seem a small point until some lawyer brings it up!  I suggest you look at each suggestion from the viewpoint of a lawyer looking to make a case against a beekeeper.

As beekeepers we all have our ways of doing things and there is much disagreement.  In my comments I give my reasons for not totally agreeing with some of the suggestions.  If you are interested, and when and if you find the time, you might wish to discuss some of my comments with me.  In my comments I repeatably ask the question, "how would it make a beekeeper more liable".  Perhaps you should tell beekeepers how, in cases that might indeed increase beekeeper liability, which are not obvious to me (nor, possibly, to others. The fewer things we do to increase our liability, the better for all beekeepers and the VSBA.

By the way, I point out a probable contradiction regarding collecting swarms, which you will see as you read on.  Following are my comments on each suggestion:

Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary. For the purpose of this subdivision, "empty" means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.   What is the reason for this?   I can’t think of what harm an empty hive might present.  Some beekeepers might want to keep an empty hive, as describe herein, to attract a swarm of bees looking for a home.  In fact there is (or was) at least one product on the market, a pheromone (?), that is placed in an empty hive for that purpose.  Should that product be discouraged?

Removing all colonies in a state of decline or combining such colonies with other colonies.  How does one define state of decline and at what point?  A queenless hive, a laying worker hive, a hive weakened by mites, a hive with a poor queen, a hive blown over by a storm, a hive damaged by a bear, etc.?   All such hives are salvageable and I would personally do my best to save them.  I can see one that is in decline from an incurable disease as qualifying for removal, but shouldn’t a beekeeper do his or her best to save a “declining hive”, as described in my second sentence above?  What is the harm presented by a “declining” hive, hence its removal?  How would it make a beekeeper more liable?

Repairing or replacing old, worn, or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment.  I have hives that have eroded corners that I actually prefer to use because they offer more restricted openings for the bees to come and go, as well as better ventilation.   Other than not being pretty, what is the harm here?  There has to be a good reason for replacing old, worn hive boxes.  Please tell me what problems such hives present and why it can cause a beekeeper to be made liable because of old or worn boxes?  I can think that some beekeepers might drill holes or cut out sections in the supers to achieve what I observe in my hives to be beneficial (air circulation, moisture control, greater bee access).  

Replacing frames containing old comb with new or cleaned frames containing foundation such that all comb in a hive is replaced every five to seven years.  I think that this is something all beekeepers do when they see their comb becomes too thick to remain functional.  In my case this occurs before 5 years.  But again, why would old comb make a beekeeper more liable?  Do you see why I think you should separate simple BMPs from truly negligent acts, so as not to give a lawyer an excuse to destroy a beekeeper's defense? 

Maintaining a minimum of 20 pounds of honey in a hive with the equivalent of one frame of pollen stores for brood production during the growing season.  If a beekeeper did not leave a minimum of 20 pounds of honey with some pollen the hive might simply die, but it's good advice.  Is one’s liability increased if this is not done, however?  Could a lawyer build a case on this?

Preventing disturbance or injury to bee colony or hive by vertebrate pests.  Why increased liability, other than disturbed bees being aggressive?  Are mice included here – not much worse than some invertebrate pests (ants, for example, not to mention wax worm and hive beetles.  Again, I'm thinking legally.

A full hive should enter the winter with a minimum of 60 pounds of honey and the equivalent of four frames of pollen stores. A nucleus hive should enter the winter with a minimum of 30 pounds of honey and the equivalent of two frames of pollen stores.  An apiary operator shall practice proper management and control techniques to reduce the likelihood of swarming. All good advice, but what has this to do with liability?

Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock, or obtain a queen and bees from a local supplier.  Does that mean that no one should collect swarms (you contradict this later, see below)? Unless killer bees are known to be in the vicinity, what is the harm?  Wouldn’t all swarms in our area (so far) be of European origin, escapees from local hives.  Are there any wild hives that are not escapes from local hives?  Who is willing to give up collecting swarms?  I see no danger from collecting swarms and having to obtain bees from suppliers.  How does one define a local supplier?  If I sell or give a nuc or hive to anyone, am I a local supplier?  And what if I created the nuc or hive from a swarm I found in the woods or anywhere else, hence not obtained from a supplier?  Perhaps this is a moot point because of the aforementioned contradiction where you later state: Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days ... .  Does that negate the first part of this paragraph about obtaining bees only from a supplier?  What would a lawyer do with this?

Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms. I can see this being done if the bees seem overly aggressive, otherwise why bother?

Introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies.  Good beekeeping advice, but what has it to do with liability?

Replace queens in all colonies every two years to minimize swarming behavior.  May be a good idea, but how does it affect liability? 

Mark the thorax or clip a wing of the queens prior to their introduction to splits, swarms, and colonies. Marking a thorax makes it easier to find and age a queen, and clipping a wing would limit swarming (and possibly age a queen), but why is “or” in the sentence, since the purposes are not necessarily the same.    Should one do one instead of the other, or both.  If the former, which is preferred and why.  Perhaps “and” should replace “or”.   In any case, either or both may be a good idea, but how does either affect liability (or a lawyer's argument)?  

The following do make sense when considering liability and should be put into the liability section:

An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive. An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height and is located between the colony and the property line. Barriers should be of sufficient density, length, and height to establish bee flyways six feet or higher above ground level.

 An apiary operator shall maintain a water source within 50 feet of a colony or less than one-half the distance to the nearest unnatural water source, whichever is closest. An unnatural water source includes a swimming pool, bird bath, and pet or livestock watering receptacle.

 An apiary operator shall not maintain an apiary within 50 feet of any animal that is tethered, kenneled, or otherwise prevented from escaping a possible stinging incident.

 An apiary operator shall avoid opening or disturbing a colony when another person is participating in outside non-beekeeping activities or using machinery within 150 feet of the apiary.

 An apiary operator shall only maintain a colony with EHB or EHB hybrid stock.

Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers within 100 miles from known Africanized honey bee populations.

IDear Ms. Martin

Regarding the suggestions discussed in the Best Management Practices, all are good advice for best managing bees, but those that relate directly to liability might be more effective and legally safer (as I will discuss below) if they could be somehow highlighted in a separate section for emphasis.  You might provide most of the BMP suggestions, then say something like the following:  "All the above will help you keep happy, healthy and productive hives. Following are some additional BMPs that will protect you from being held liable as a beekeeper," (or something like that).  I guess the legal question and concern I have is that if one does not follow all the BMP suggestions, could a lawyer point out any infringement of the suggestions as a reason to find a beekeeper liable, hence my suggestion to separate the liable-related acts from the other BMP acts? This may seem a small point until some lawyer brings it up!  I suggest you look at each suggestion from the viewpoint of a lawyer looking to make a case against a beekeeper.

As beekeepers we all have our ways of doing things and there is much disagreement.  In my comments I give my reasons for not totally agreeing with some of the suggestions.  If you are interested, and when and if you find the time, you might wish to discuss some of my comments with me.  In my comments I repeatably ask the question, "how would it make a beekeeper more liable".  Perhaps you should tell beekeepers how, in cases that might indeed increase beekeeper liability, which are not obvious to me (nor, possibly, to others. The fewer things we do to increase our liability, the better for all beekeepers and the VSBA.

By the way, I point out a probable contradiction regarding collecting swarms, which you will see as you read on.  Following are my comments on each suggestion:

Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary. For the purpose of this subdivision, "empty" means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.   What is the reason for this?   I can’t think of what harm an empty hive might present.  Some beekeepers might want to keep an empty hive, as describe herein, to attract a swarm of bees looking for a home.  In fact there is (or was) at least one product on the market, a pheromone (?), that is placed in an empty hive for that purpose.  Should that product be discouraged?

Removing all colonies in a state of decline or combining such colonies with other colonies.  How does one define state of decline and at what point?  A queenless hive, a laying worker hive, a hive weakened by mites, a hive with a poor queen, a hive blown over by a storm, a hive damaged by a bear, etc.?   All such hives are salvageable and I would personally do my best to save them.  I can see one that is in decline from an incurable disease as qualifying for removal, but shouldn’t a beekeeper do his or her best to save a “declining hive”, as described in my second sentence above?  What is the harm presented by a “declining” hive, hence its removal?  How would it make a beekeeper more liable?

Repairing or replacing old, worn, or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment.  I have hives that have eroded corners that I actually prefer to use because they offer more restricted openings for the bees to come and go, as well as better ventilation.   Other than not being pretty, what is the harm here?  There has to be a good reason for replacing old, worn hive boxes.  Please tell me what problems such hives present and why it can cause a beekeeper to be made liable because of old or worn boxes?  I can think that some beekeepers might drill holes or cut out sections in the supers to achieve what I observe in my hives to be beneficial (air circulation, moisture control, greater bee access).  

Replacing frames containing old comb with new or cleaned frames containing foundation such that all comb in a hive is replaced every five to seven years.  I think that this is something all beekeepers do when they see their comb becomes too thick to remain functional.  In my case this occurs before 5 years.  But again, why would old comb make a beekeeper more liable?  Do you see why I think you should separate simple BMPs from truly negligent acts, so as not to give a lawyer an excuse to destroy a beekeeper's defense? 

Maintaining a minimum of 20 pounds of honey in a hive with the equivalent of one frame of pollen stores for brood production during the growing season.  If a beekeeper did not leave a minimum of 20 pounds of honey with some pollen the hive might simply die, but it's good advice.  Is one’s liability increased if this is not done, however?  Could a lawyer build a case on this?

Preventing disturbance or injury to bee colony or hive by vertebrate pests.  Why increased liability, other than disturbed bees being aggressive?  Are mice included here – not much worse than some invertebrate pests (ants, for example, not to mention wax worm and hive beetles.  Again, I'm thinking legally.

A full hive should enter the winter with a minimum of 60 pounds of honey and the equivalent of four frames of pollen stores. A nucleus hive should enter the winter with a minimum of 30 pounds of honey and the equivalent of two frames of pollen stores.  An apiary operator shall practice proper management and control techniques to reduce the likelihood of swarming. All good advice, but what has this to do with liability?

Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock, or obtain a queen and bees from a local supplier.  Does that mean that no one should collect swarms (you contradict this later, see below)? Unless killer bees are known to be in the vicinity, what is the harm?  Wouldn’t all swarms in our area (so far) be of European origin, escapees from local hives.  Are there any wild hives that are not escapes from local hives?  Who is willing to give up collecting swarms?  I see no danger from collecting swarms and having to obtain bees from suppliers.  How does one define a local supplier?  If I sell or give a nuc or hive to anyone, am I a local supplier?  And what if I created the nuc or hive from a swarm I found in the woods or anywhere else, hence not obtained from a supplier?  Perhaps this is a moot point because of the aforementioned contradiction where you later state: Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days ... .  Does that negate the first part of this paragraph about obtaining bees only from a supplier?  What would a lawyer do with this?

Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms. I can see this being done if the bees seem overly aggressive, otherwise why bother?

Introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies.  Good beekeeping advice, but what has it to do with liability?

Replace queens in all colonies every two years to minimize swarming behavior.  May be a good idea, but how does it affect liability? 

Mark the thorax or clip a wing of the queens prior to their introduction to splits, swarms, and colonies. Marking a thorax makes it easier to find and age a queen, and clipping a wing would limit swarming (and possibly age a queen), but why is “or” in the sentence, since the purposes are not necessarily the same.    Should one do one instead of the other, or both.  If the former, which is preferred and why.  Perhaps “and” should replace “or”.   In any case, either or both may be a good idea, but how does either affect liability (or a lawyer's argument)?  

The following do make sense when considering liability and should be put into the liability section:

An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive. An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height and is located between the colony and the property line. Barriers should be of sufficient density, length, and height to establish bee flyways six feet or higher above ground level.

 An apiary operator shall maintain a water source within 50 feet of a colony or less than one-half the distance to the nearest unnatural water source, whichever is closest. An unnatural water source includes a swimming pool, bird bath, and pet or livestock watering receptacle.

 An apiary operator shall not maintain an apiary within 50 feet of any animal that is tethered, kenneled, or otherwise prevented from escaping a possible stinging incident.

 An apiary operator shall avoid opening or disturbing a colony when another person is participating in outside non-beekeeping activities or using machinery within 150 feet of the apiary.

 An apiary operator shall only maintain a colony with EHB or EHB hybrid stock.

Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers within 100 miles from known Africanized honey bee populations.

Well, those are my comments.  I hope they are useful.

Matt Cormons  

July 8, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am writing on behalf of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA) to share the HBA’s comments on the proposed language for 2VAC5-319 detailing the best management practices (BMPs) for the operation of apiaries in order to limit operator liability.  HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While the members of the HBA are in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and in favor of promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, we are concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

The HBA offers the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. We suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  We suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  We suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  We suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  We suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, we suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  We suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  We suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  We suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  We suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While we agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance from, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). We suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bee populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  We suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  We suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  We suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Doug Anderson

President, Huguenot Beekeepers Association

July 8, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Louisa County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Ed Turner

14236 Cross County Rd

Mineral, VA  23117

July 8, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Wade K. Johnson

3602 Branch Lake Ct.

Powhatan, VA  23139

July 8, 2016

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Cumberland County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA).  HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through education, technical support, and long term viability;
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Leo Henderson

87 Boston Hill Road

Cartersville, VA  23027

I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA).The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension.As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:

• technical support, and

• long term viability

• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;

• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;

• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and

• having fun.

  HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and areconsidered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  Afailed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”“Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While Iagree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations”in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6).I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies. The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.)to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead tosupercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Thomas A. Glasheen

2819 Judes Ferry Road

Powhatan, VA 23139

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Allen Davis

2041 Cedar Cross Ct.

Powhatan, VA  23139

July 8, 2016
Ms. Debra Martin
Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
P. O. Box 1163
Richmond, Virginia
RE: Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability
Dear Ms. Martin:
I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:
? promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
? education,
? technical support, and
? long term viability
? exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
? being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
? supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
? having fun.
HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.
While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices. The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.
I offer the following for your consideration:
2VAC5-319-30.B
At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive. With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not. A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs. Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:
“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”
2VAC5-319-30.B.1
The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere. I suggest the following language:
“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary. For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees. This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”
2VAC5-319-30.B.2
The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony. However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline. A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies. The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches. I suggest the following language:
“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”
2VAC5-319-30.B.3
Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and
to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment. I suggest the following language:
“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”
2VAC5-319-30.B.4
As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb. The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives. I suggest the following language:
“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”
2VAC5-319-30.B.5
The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds). During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive. A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones. When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores. The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey. Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:
“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”
2VAC5-319-30.B.7
The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.” “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate. Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded. I suggest the following language:
“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony. An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”
2VAC5-319-30.E
The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels owned or leased by one (or several) person(s) or with adjacent landowner agreement. There may also be special cases with large tracts of land or rural areas. In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the “property lines” between the parcels containing the apiary. The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by non-authorizing owners. I suggest the following language:
“An apiary operator(s) shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive. An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height. These requirements may be waived with the permission of the adjacent property owner”
2VAC5-319-30.H
The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed. First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary. Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs. This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored. I suggest this section be deleted.
2VAC5-319-30.I.1
The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees. I suggest the following language:
“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”
2VAC5-319-30.I.2
While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers. In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language. The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:
“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted. This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator. The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”
2VAC5-319-30.I.3
Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable. This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies. The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen. I suggest the following language:
“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”
2VAC5-319-30.I.4
As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms. This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them. The
language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits. I suggest the following language:
“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”
2VAC5-319-30.I.5
As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior. The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming). Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry. The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits. I suggest the following language:
“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”
2VAC5-319-30.I.6
Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required. In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure. This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments,
Ken Zlotkowski
4251 Pierce Rd.
Powhatan, VA 23139

I have been keeping bees, first in Seattle and for the past six years in Northern Virginia.  I looked at the proposed bee hive management best practices for Virignia.  I find them to lean far too heavily on manipulation of bees, queens and hives for no reason that links to either public safety or good management of hives.  They seem to be urging manipulation for the sake of manipulation with no clear causal connection to docile bees or healthy bee hives.  For instance, the requirement to replace queens within 30 days for captured or trapped swarms has no relationship to anything without inspection of hives to determine the hive health and general behavior.  If the hive shows characterics of an unsatisfactory queen then yes, one would wish to replace her.  But, if the queen were laying successfully and if her brood seemed health and not aggressive, then there is no reason at all to roll the dice by introducing a new queen with unknown fertilization history.  Similarly, the requirement to replace queens every two years to minimize swarming behaviour has no relationship to swarming, which is much more closely tied to overcrowding than to the age of a queen.  Indeed, since it is the resident queen which goes with the swarm, replacing a queen merely means that queen would leave with a swarm, not that the hive would not swarm.  Hive swarming is best addressed through providing adequate hive space for a growing population within the hive or by splitting a hive into two, so that the hive perceives that it has swarmed already.  A hive that is not growing rapidly would be unlikely to swarm, and indeed, might need to be combined with another hive.  But, once again, one would judge and act on the situation on be basis of what one observes in a hive.  One of the other proposed regulations calls for combining hives in a state of "decline."  Hives have a natural calendar and naturally decline in population during Fall through winter.  A hive with sufficient stores in relationship to the number of bees would not need to be combined, even though declining in population, so long as there was honey enough to last the winter and/or the hive was fed, a common, normal practice.  In connection with that, the regulation that a hive should have 60 lbs of honey stores is meaningless.  Smaller hives (nucleus hives) are a common way of dealing with winters and the smaller hives do not need 60 lbs of honey.  And, once again, the common practice of feeding hives means that what is required is an observant bee keeper who feeds as necessary, not an automatic weight per hive of honey.  I strongly urge that Virginia scrap the current draft of these overly mechanical regulations and adopt something much like those regulations that West Virginia has adopted.  They are simpler, and more geared to responses based on observation and management of a hive rather than following a schedule which has no foundation in practices aimed at public safety and healthy bees. 

.

July 9, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Goochland County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

William Bryant

3990 Cozy Acres Lane

Sandy Hook, VA  23153

Goochland County

The training put on by each individual bee club should be done by certified trainers. This certification should be done by the state apiast and his department. There is a huge disparity between the quality of info given at individual clubs events. The new beekeeper class should be better documented and the steps towards Master Beekeeper should all be part of a unified training program. The state of Virginia should require this new Beekeepers training before ownership of bees. You are expecting Best Management Practices but those practices are not clearly taught in any local program. The clubs do a good job but we could do better.

(Changes to proposed text indicated by ALL CAPS and strikethroughs)

B. An apiary operator shall maintain a healthy populous colony of bees by:

1. Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary. For the purpose of this subdivision, "empty" means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees, EXCEPT EQUIPMENT IN USE AS BAIT HIVES DURING SWARM SEASON.

4. Replacing frames containing old comb with new or cleaned frames containing foundation, OR FRAMES FREE OF FOUNDATION, such that all comb in a hive is replaced every five to seven years;

D. An apiary operator shall practice proper management and control techniques to reduce the likelihood of swarming, OR SHALL PROVIDE SWARM CATCHING SERVICES, OR HAVE INFORMATION REGARDING SWARM CATCHING SERVICES MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE AREA WITHIN A 2 MILE RADIUS OF THE APIARY.

G. An apiary operator shall not ESTABLISH an apiary within 50 feet of any animal that is tethered, kenneled, or otherwise prevented from escaping a possible stinging incident, WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION OF OWNER OF SAID ANIMAL.

I. An apiary operator shall only maintain a colony with EHB or EHB hybrid stock and shall:

1. Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock, or obtain a queen and bees from a local supplier, OR CATCH LOCAL SWARMS

4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms; [DELETE! THIS IS NOT BMP FOR ENCOURAGING LOCAL, NATURAL,  LONG-LIVED, DISEASE-RESISTENT QUEENS AND HIVES OF HEALTHY LOCAL STOCK]

5. Replace queens in all colonies every two years to minimize swarming behavior, OR PROVIDE SWARM CATCHING SERVICES, OR HAVE INFORMATION REGARDING SWARM CATCHING SERVICES MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AREA WITHIN A 2 MILE RADIUS OF THE APIARY; and

6. Mark the thorax or clip a wing of the queens prior to their introduction to splits, swarms, and colonies. [DELETE! THESE PRACTICES SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE FOR THIS LEGISLATION, SINCE NATURAL SUPERCEDURE CAN NULLIFY THEM IMMEDIATELY]

Please consider our club's recomendations on new liability legislation.

 Thank you,

Captian Steven A. Trott

Thanks for allowing feedback on the Best Management Practices.

Recommendation 1) I recommend limiting the document to those practices that will limit operator liability.  For example, the following items would not help limit liability:

I. An apiary operator shall only maintain a colony with EHB or EHB hybrid stock and shall:

1. Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock, or obtain a queen and bees from a local supplier;(A supplier could provide africanized stock so the provision does not help limit liability.  A beekeeper could also produce their own new queen without going through a supplier.)

2. Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers within 100 miles from known Africanized honey bee populations; (Does not guarantee that africanized stock will not be provided by a supplier)

3. Introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies; (General statement which does not limit liability)

4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms; (Step does not limit liability.  The existing queen may be adequate.)

6. Mark the thorax or clip a wing of the queens prior to their introduction to splits, swarms, and colonies.(This step will not limit liability)

Points B1, B2, B3, B4 and B7 will also not limit liability so should be eliminated from the document.

Recommendation 2: To receive limited liability a person is required to comply with the Best Management Practices provisions.  What type of documentation is going to be required to demonstrate compliance with the provisions and how long does it need to be maintained?  This needs to be defined in the document so beekeepers will know the requirements.  I recommend that the document state that that the beekeeper is not required to maintain compliance documentation to receive limited liability.

Recommendation 3: How is a beekeeper expected to "Prevent disturbance or injury to bee colony or hive by vertebrate pests"?  Are we expected to kill all the racoons, possums and other vertebrates in the woods to prevent injury to a bee colony?  This point should be dropped as it is impractical and does not limit liability.

Thanks,

Bill Sandel

July 13, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Goochland County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Jay Redd

3605 Tabscott Road

Columbia, VA 23038

July 13, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Bobbie Stiltner

P.O. Box 612

Powhatan, Va. 23139

July 12, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

·         promoting new beekeepers in our area through:

•          education,
•          technical support, and
•          long term viability

·         exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;

·         being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;

·         supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and

·         having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Terry L. Blankenship

1420 Morewood Drive

Powhatan, VA  23139

July 12, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

·         promoting new beekeepers in our area through:

•          education,
•          technical support, and
•          long term viability

·         exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;

·         being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;

·         supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and

·         having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Sandra I. Blankenship

1420 Morewood Drive

Powhatan, VA  23139

July 13, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Chesterfield County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Robert Austin

13340 Enclave Creek Lane

Midlothian, VA 23114

The following are my comments on the suggested Virginia Best Practices. I think overall that these represent great progress!

I suggest that B. 5  read - maintain 20 lbs of honey or feed.

B.7, first sentence, is unenforceable as no two people agree on what is a treatment threshold; also, not all beekeepers treat. I suggest deleting the second part of the first sentence ("to ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded") but retaining the testing and monitoring requirements along with the general management requirement.

C. is excessively onerous and does not reference or appear to permit top-bar hives.   It should be left to the judgment of the beekeeper when, how,  how much and what kind of feed should be left on a colony given local forage and weather conditions and individual colony conditions.  Beekeepers who do not feed their colonies will probably lose them over winter; and beekeepers should provide sufficient feed in a dearth to minimize the possibility of robbing (but some bees will rob anyway and it is not reasonable to hold a beekeeper accountable for all robbing behavior).

H.  Is vague as to "operating machinery" and "participating in outside activities." This should be clarified, e.g., "excluding transitory passage of persons or vehicles through the area."

I. The queen replacement procedures are onerous.  Limiting queen sources may further reduce genetic diversity and local queens are not available at all times.  Requiring queen replacement of queens in captured swarms regardless of source or temperament and requiring requeening according to a strict timetable is irrational and should not be required: only colonies exhibiting heightened defensiveness should be requeened. Swarming behavior can be managed. Clipping queens is not considered a good practice in my understanding as it induces supersedure.

Finally, there are no restrictions on harvesting practices such as honey removal or replacement of supers, or on open feeding.  These should be done so that honey, feed and wet supers are enclosed and  not left exposed to attract robbing, other insects and pests.

Thanks for considering these comments.

Thank you for your consideration

B1 - does not account for bait boxes, and is hard to see how this could lead to personal injury or property damage.

B2 - "state of decline" is too vague, since a decline can be part of the natural cycle. Maybe replace with "failing". Also, provision should indicate that positive measures are being taken to remedy the failing colony, not limiting the beekeeper to two options of removal or combining.

B3 - delete "old", too subjective. Replace "worn, or defective" with "functionally defective".  Worn isn't necessarily a problem and a beekeeper should not be subject to liability if the equipment is functional, but not in a new, pretty state.

B4 - Instead of specifying specific time periods to replace comb, change it to replace comb when the cells become too narrow for effective brood rearing.  If comb is stored properly and not used for a few years, age has less relevance.  Also, honey super comb can be viable for longer if not used for brood.

B5 - Too arbitrary to specify amounts like "20 pounds" of honey, especially when store levels are expected to vary throughout the year. The proper amount varies with population, time of year, hive type (10 frame, 8 frame, nuc, top bar, etc). Also doesn't account for newly installed packages or nucs.  Better to reword this to more generally state that the beekeeper should maintain a hive with adequate stores and/or feed available based on the current state of the hive.

B6 - You can't 100% prevent disturbance by vertebrates.  A bear may find the hive, and an electric fence is not always practical.  Mice can squeeze through a hole the size of a pinky.  Perhaps reword to state "Reasonable measures to prevent disturbance..."

B7 - There are no specified thresholds to exceed with disease and pest levels, except perhaps AFB where the threshold is any number > 0.  I suggest deleting the entire first line "Monitoring disease and pest levels to ensure that treatment thresholds are not exceeded." and leaving the rest

C - Delete in its entirety.  Having sufficient stores (not defined by arbitrary amounts) will help you overwinter your bees successfully, but not having sufficient stores will cause the colony to collapse, not cause property damage or bodily injury.  Not relevant to liability.

E - Reword to state that an apiary operator shall orient hives to prevent individuals in neighboring properties from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive, without listing specific distance/barrier/height requirements.  They are too onerous for urban beekeepers and the current language does not account for hive orientation.  Let local jurisdictions write their own requirements best suited to their circumstances if they feel the state BMPs are too vague.

F - Too onerous for operators with outyards, especially in rural areas.  Perhaps modifiy this requirement to only require a maintained water source if there is a reasonable expectation for the apiary presence to disturb others in the hive's quest for water.

G - Reword to prevent an operator from establishing an apiary under these conditions unless permission is obtained from the guardian of the constrained animals.  The BMP should not force an existing operator to close down because of how someone else treats their animals.

H - Not possible in urban areas and even some suburban.  This would in turn prevent proper management and violate other BMPs.  Let local jurisdictions decide what is proper for their areas

I - I would suggest changing "EHB or EHB hybrid stock" to "non-African or non-Africanized stock"

I2 - Good suggestion in another comment to require an inspection certificate from a supplier in Africanized areas declaring their supply to be free of Africanized genetics, rather than outright banning those suppliers.  Most packages sold in VA are coming from southern states that are in areas with some known Africanized colonies.

I3 - Delete.  Not relevant to property damage or personal injury.

I4 - reword to "Replace queens in captured or trapped swarms which exhibit aggressive behavior or undesirable traits".  If I happen to catch a swarm from a healty feral colony that overwintered without management, I WANT those traits in a queen.  It would be a travesty to kill her off to meet an arbitrary requirement.

I5 - Delete.  Not relevant to property damage or personal injury.  Swarms occur due to reasons other than the age of a queen.

I6 - Delete.  Provides no significant benefit, except to age a queen, and has no relevance to property damage or personal injury.

Please consider language for paragraph 5 & 7c as recommendations rather than set standards.  Please also consider paragraph 7,I.,2.  It is my understanding that Georgia and most southern states have Africanized bees but the the federal interstate regulations require any sales of EHB be certified as clean of any Africanized bees.  I believe it prudent to work with the federal interstate regulations encouraging responsible queen & package sales from the south as these sales are likely to continue anyway.  Paragraph 7,I. 4 & 5 seems to be over management for BMP. A suggestion or consideration but not a standard practice.  Thank you for considering my thoughts.

July 13, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE: Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to

Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Chesterfield County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers

Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers

from Amelia, Chesterfield, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the

auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website

(huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

? promoting new beekeepers in our area through:

? education,

? technical support, and

? long term viability

? exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;

? being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;

? supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters;

and

? having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as

more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code

amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the

proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management

methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the

standpoint of healthy husbandry practices. The current language will likely result in a

limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be

contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319- 30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive. With proper

management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not. A failed colony

may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs. Therefore, the language in

this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of

bees by:”

2VAC5-319- 30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or

bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere. I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary. For the purpose

of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials

attractive to bees. This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the

purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319- 30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to

managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony. However,

other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the

decline. A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of

bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other

colonies. The language in this section should be revised to allow other management

approaches. I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary,

combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-

queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319- 30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared

for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and

to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment. I suggest the following

language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment

as needed;”

2VAC5-319- 30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of

foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb. The

language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice –

removing aged comb from hives. I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven

years;”

2VAC5-319- 30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific

amount of honey (20 pounds). During the growing season, hives are in transition,

starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a

package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive. A package

consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones. When

that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores. The

bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup

mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey. Because of

the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a

hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood

production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319- 30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term

“treatment.” “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there

are other management techniques available that may be appropriate. Also, monitoring

may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment

thresholds are not exceeded. I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony. An apiary operator shall

manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319- 30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries

comprised of multiple parcels. In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply

to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary. The proposed setbacks

should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary

and owned by different owners. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines

between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different

owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive. An

apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line

between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different

owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319- 30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be

addressed. First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities

or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary. Second, strict application

of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in

which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a

result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of

noncompliance with the BMPs. This could be the case even when all appropriate

setbacks are honored. I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319- 30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as

an acceptable method of obtaining bees. I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from

suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or

obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319- 30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread

of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively

eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers. In lieu of specifying a

distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain

evidence of official inspections from the supplier. The Virginia Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official”

map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language. The

United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map

(http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the

following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey

Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the

stock has been conducted. This documentation must be maintained by the apiary

operator. The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing

known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of

this section.”

2VAC5-319- 30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an

established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable. This is

contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate

desirable genes and traits from the original colonies. The language in this section

should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen. I suggest the

following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of

established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with

desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319- 30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-

queening of swarms. This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial

“survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to

an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them. The

language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the

colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits. I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits

aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319- 30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional

replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained

as a means to minimize swarming behavior. The regulations acknowledge there are

other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§

2VAC5-319- 30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).

Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production,

brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry. The language in

this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits

undesirable traits. I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319- 30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither

this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required. In fact, there are numerous studies

that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure. This BMP should either be

deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Robert Lindsay

720 Old Hundred Rd.

Chesterfield County, VA, 23114

Ms. Martin,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability; I appreciate the opportunity. I am a past president of the Virginia State Beekeepers Association, a nonprofit organization of approximately 2400 beekeepers from across Virginia.  I am also a founding member and past president of the Beekeepers Guild of Southeast Virginia, a nonprofit organization of 290 beekeepers.  I have kept between 50 to 60 honey bee colonies in both rural and suburban settings for several decades in Southeastern Coastal Virginia.  The following are my suggestions for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-10. Definitions.

"Bee" means the honey bee, Apis mellifera and genetic variations thereof, at any living stage and may include other hymenopterous insects that depend on pollen and nectar for food.

Strike “and may include other hymenopterous insects that depend on pollen and nectar for food”.  There is no requeening, swarm control or frame rotation as detailed below required for Osmia, Megachilidae, Bombus or other hymenoptera managed for pollination.  Management of bees other than honey bees (Apis mellifera) requires specific and different BMPs; they should not be included in apiary best management practices.

2VAC5-319-30. Best management practices.

2VAC5-319-30.B.1 Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary. For the purpose of this subdivision, "empty" means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees;

This would appear to preclude bait hives, a service offered by beekeepers to catch swarms from both feral or managed colonies after they have issued but before they alight on a non-beekeepers property. Please consider adding language allowing bait hives.

2VAC5-319-30.B.2. Removing all colonies in a state of decline or combining such colonies with other colonies;

Does not allow for requeening, often a very effective method of reversing initial colony decline. Please consider allowing the beekeeper to make other management decisions to reverse colony decline.

2VAC5-319-30.B.3. Repairing or replacing old, worn, or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment;

The term “old” is not synonymous with equipment in disrepair.  Suggest a term more descriptive of what you are trying to convey such as “Repairing or replacing equipment which is functionally obsolete”.

Not sure what the state of one’s equipment has to do with limiting liability.

2VAC5-319-30.B.5. Maintaining a minimum of 20 pounds of honey in a hive with the equivalent of one frame of pollen stores for brood production during the growing season;

Does not take into consideration new splits or packages; suggest adding an exception for those colonies actively being fed by the beekeeper to increase stores.

Again, although this is good beekeeping practice, not sure how it relates to limiting liability.

2VAC5-319-30.B.6. Preventing disturbance or injury to bee colony or hive by vertebrate pests; and

This is the goal of all apiary operators but nobody can stop a bear, not even with an electric fence.  This provision adds insult to injury by blaming the beekeeper for losing colonies to bears.  Please consider revising.

2VAC5-319-30.E. An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive. An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height and is located between the colony and the property line. Barriers should be of sufficient density, length, and height to establish bee flyways six feet or higher above ground level.

Language should specify that a local municipality’s zoning code has precedence over state BMPs. Suggest also including language about facing hive entrances toward the beekeeper’s property to avoid flight paths over neighbor’s property or public rights-of-way.

2VAC5-319-30.F. An apiary operator shall maintain a water source within 50 feet of a colony or less than one-half the distance to the nearest unnatural water source, whichever is closest. An unnatural water source includes a swimming pool, bird bath, and pet or livestock watering receptacle.

Language should specify that a local municipality’s zoning code has precedence over state BMPs. Suggest including language on beekeeper water sources being maintained so as not become mosquito harborage which may be more of a nuisance than bees.

2VAC5-319-30.G. An apiary operator shall not maintain an apiary within 50 feet of any animal that is tethered, kenneled, or otherwise prevented from escaping a possible stinging incident.

Language should specify that a local municipality’s zoning code has precedence over state BMPs.  A 50-foot buffer may not be possible in urban environments.  A 50-foot buffer may not be possible for beekeeper to verify in high density areas with multiple fenced/screened properties.  Suggest this apply only to establishing new apiaries.  An established apiary should be grandfathered should somebody move into a neighborhood and begin tethering or kenneling animals nearby; this provision could be used punitively by disgruntled neighbors to prevent beekeeping.

2VAC5-319-30.H. An apiary operator shall avoid opening or disturbing a colony when another person is participating in outside non-beekeeping activities or using machinery within 150 feet of the apiary.

No basis in fact:  Bees “hear” sounds by detecting air-particle movements with their antennae; they are capable of near-field sound perception from centimeters to a meter or two, not 150 feet or 45 meters. Please consider striking.

2VAC5-319-30.I. An apiary operator shall only maintain a colony with EHB or EHB hybrid stock and shall:

Strike “EHB hybrid”; the term implies EHB X AHB (which is an EHB hybrid) is acceptable.  Please state desired goal concisely, such as, “An apiary operation shall only maintain a colony free of AHB stock or AHB genetics”.

2VAC5-319-30.I 4. Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms within 30 days of capturing or trapping swarms;

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture identified the “Need for Increased Genetic Diversity in Bee Colonies” as one of only five key findings arising from the 2007 NAS report “Status of Pollinators in North America” and the 2013 USDA-EPA joint report, “National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health”. We should not be contributing to a decrease in genetic diversity in honey bee colonies with arbitrary BMPs.  Some beekeepers’ best stock is from captured swarms and they should be allowed to propagate those bees with desirable traits.  Please include language which allows beekeepers to evaluate captured swarms for defensiveness prior to making the decision to requeen.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment; I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

Pamela Fisher

Chesapeake, Virginia

July 13, 2016

Ms. Debra Martin

Program Manager, Office of Plant Industry Services

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P. O. Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia

RE:     Proposed Best Management Practices for the Operation of Apiaries in Order to Limit Operator Liability

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am a resident of Powhatan County and a member of the Huguenot Beekeepers Association (HBA). The HBA is a non-profit group of approximately 200 beekeepers from Amelia, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Goochland, Louisa, and Powhatan operating under the auspices of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. As stated on our website (huguenotbeekeepers.org), our association’s goals are:

• promoting new beekeepers in our area through:
• education,
• technical support, and
• long term viability
• exchanging beekeeping best management practices to enhance all apiaries;
• being a source of the latest technical advice from experts;
• supporting the Virginia Beekeepers Association for legislative and other matters; and
• having fun.

HBA’s members include many enthusiastic new “beeks” as well as beekeepers with as more than 25 years of experience keeping bees.

While I am in favor of the limited liability benefits associated with the recent code amendments and promoting BMPs for the husbandry of bees, I am concerned that the proposed language is too restrictive and precludes the use of certain management methods that have proven to be successful and are considered desirable from the standpoint of healthy husbandry practices.  The current language will likely result in a limited application of the new protections created for beekeepers which would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.

I offer the following for your consideration:

2VAC5-319-30.B

At some point, every apiary operator experiences a distressed hive.  With proper management, some of these colonies may recover while others will not.  A failed colony may occur even when the apiarist complies with the BMPs.  Therefore, the language in this section should be revised to reflect this reality. I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall manage an apiary to promote healthy, populous colonies of bees by:”

2VAC5-319-30.B.1

The language in this section should be revised to allow for the use of swarm traps or bait hives within an apiary or elsewhere.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing or securely sealing any empty bee equipment in an apiary.  For the purpose of this subdivision, “empty” means without bees but containing comb or other materials attractive to bees.  This provision does not apply to empty bee equipment used for the purpose of attracting swarms;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.2

The proposed language in this section only provides two acceptable approaches to managing a declining colony – removing the colony or combining the colony.  However, other management methods may be appropriate depending on the reason for the decline.  A colony suffering due to the lack of a queen or lack of stores or lack of bees/brood can be managed by re-queening or by sharing resources from other colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow other management approaches.  I suggest the following language:

“Managing all colonies in a state of decline by removing the colony from the apiary, combining the colony with other colonies, providing resources from other colonies, re-queening, or otherwise correcting the state of decline;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.3

Since “old” beekeeping equipment can be useful for many years if maintained and cared for, the language in this section should be revised to eliminate the reference to “old” and to limit this BMP to worn and/or defective bee equipment.  I suggest the following language:

“Repairing or replacing worn or defective hive boxes, frames, and other bee equipment as needed;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.4

As currently drafted, this section requires the use of foundation and precludes the use of foundationless frames or manufactured products that simulate drawn comb.  The language should be revised to more clearly express the intent of the practice – removing aged comb from hives.  I suggest the following language:

“Removing old comb from a hive such that all comb is replaced every five to seven years;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.5

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate reference to a specific amount of honey (20 pounds).  During the growing season, hives are in transition, starting as an existing hive from the previous year or a new hive created from a package, a nucleus colony or a split or swarm from an existing hive.  A package consists of one queen and traditionally 2-4 pounds of worker bees and drones.  When that package is put into a hive, there are no honey stores and no pollen stores.  The bees will start to gather nectar and pollen while the beekeeper also feeds a sugar syrup mix to help them build comb and start to store nectar that turns into honey.  Because of the transition that hives go through during the growing season and the various sizes a hive may be during that time, I suggest the following language:

“Maintaining an adequate amount of honey and pollen stores in a hive for brood production during the growing season;”

2VAC5-319-30.B.7

The language in this section should be revised to eliminate the restrictive term “treatment.”  “Treatment” could be interpreted to mean chemical application when there are other management techniques available that may be appropriate.  Also, monitoring may identify if treatment thresholds are exceeded but it does not ensure treatment thresholds are not exceeded.  I suggest the following language:

“Monitoring for diseases and pest levels within a colony.  An apiary operator shall manage the colony to address…”

2VAC5-319-30.E

The language in this section should be revised to address the scenario of apiaries comprised of multiple parcels.  In these cases, the proposed setbacks should not apply to the property lines between the parcels containing the apiary.  The proposed setbacks should only apply at property lines between the apiary and parcels outside the apiary and owned by different owners.  I suggest the following language:

“An apiary operator shall maintain all colonies at least 10 feet away from property lines between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners to prevent an individual from impeding normal bee flight activity from a hive.  An apiary operator shall place all colonies that are less than 40 feet from a property line between the parcel(s) containing the apiary and occupied adjacent parcels with different owners behind a barrier that is no less than six feet in height…”

2VAC5-319-30.H

The proposed language in this section raises a couple of issues that must be addressed.  First, hive inspections should not be affected by “non-beekeeping” activities or the use of machinery on the parcels containing the apiary.  Second, strict application of the 150 feet measure specified in this proposed BMP could lead to a situation in which the apiary operator is prevented from conducting necessary inspections as a result of one or more disgruntled neighbors, resulting in additional claims of noncompliance with the BMPs.  This could be the case even when all appropriate setbacks are honored.  I suggest this section be deleted.

2VAC5-319-30.I.1

The language in this section should be revised to include the capture of local swarms as an acceptable method of obtaining bees.  I suggest the following language:

“Obtain queens, packaged bees, nucleus colonies, and/or established hives from suppliers providing EHB stock; obtain queens and/or bees from a local supplier; and/or obtain queens and/or bees by capturing swarms.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.2

While I agree with the intent behind the language in this section (preventing the spread of the Africanized Honey Bee into Virginia), the proposed language will effectively eliminate markets of quality bees produced by reputable dealers.  In lieu of specifying a distance, the BMP should require prospective purchasers to require and maintain evidence of official inspections from the supplier.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services should also develop and/or reference an “official” map of “known Africanized honey bee populations” in the proposed language.  The United States Department of Agriculture maintains such a map (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6). I suggest the following language:

“Not obtain queens or bees from suppliers from states with known Africanized Honey Bees populations without requiring documentation that appropriate inspections of the stock has been conducted.  This documentation must be maintained by the apiary operator.  The map maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture showing  known Africanized Honey Bee populations is considered the authority for purposes of this section.”

2VAC5-319-30.I.3

Based on the proposed language in this section, allowing a division or split of an established colony to develop its own queen would be deemed unacceptable.  This is contrary to a widely accepted and successful practice that is often used to propagate desirable genes and traits from the original colonies.  The language in this section should be revised to allow a division or split to develop its own queen.  I suggest the following language:

“Either introduce queens from healthy stock when making divisions or splits of established colonies, or allow the divisions or splits of established colonies with desirable traits to develop their own queen;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.4

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional re-queening of swarms.  This effectively eliminates the opportunity to add beneficial “survivor traits” exhibited by feral colonies (overwintering ability, mite resistance, etc.) to an apiary – traits that should be promoted by these BMPs, not prohibited by them.  The language in this section should be revised to require re-queening of swarms only if the colony exhibits aggressive or other undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in all captured or trapped swarms if the swarm or colony exhibits aggressive behavior or other undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.5

As currently proposed, the language in this section requires the unconditional replacement of queens in all colonies every two years and the requirement is explained as a means to minimize swarming behavior.  The regulations acknowledge there are other management measures that can be used to minimize swarming behavior (§ 2VAC5-319-30.D requires management to reduce the likelihood of swarming).  Replacing a prolific queen that exhibits desirable traits (gentleness, honey production, brood pattern, etc.) is counterproductive to effective bee husbandry.  The language in this section should be revised to recommend replacing queens when the colony exhibits undesirable traits.  I suggest the following language:

“Replace queens in colonies that exhibit undesirable traits;”

2VAC5-319-30.I.6

Although marking introduced queens makes identification of the queen easier, neither this nor clipping a queen’s wing should be required.  In fact, there are numerous studies that indicate clipped wings may lead to supercedure.  This BMP should either be deleted or a compelling reason for the requirement should be provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,

Rebecca Johnson

3602 Branch Lake Ct.

Powhatan, Va. 23139

I have one final comment regarding the proposed Best Management Practices, and that is the intent of the law.  It is my belief the beekeeper limit of liability legislation was written with the intention to protect beekeepers from frivolous lawsuits that may arise as a result of their activities, and to promote a friendly environment for new beekeepers to establish hives and increase our pollinators without fear of lawsuits.  I believe the intention is to help increase the number of beekeepers and apiaries.

Limiting liability is a huge step.  However, if it comes with a mandate to follow a long list of requirements in order to be protected by the limited liability, especially detailed, onerous requirements, I believe we will see the exact opposite of the law's intent by providing any lawyer a laundry list of "gotchas" to look for to hammer a beekeeper with a lawsuit.  To say that a beekeeper is protected from liability only if they follow a predetermined list of management practices is to implicitly state that a beekeeper is subject to liability if they intentionally or unintentionally miss the mark on a mere single item within those practices.

I applaud the intent to codify a "best management practices" to help guide beekeepers to be responsible stewards, but when codified within the scope of liability legislation, the entire contents of these practices implicitly become requirements, even if the practice listed could not conceivably have any possible effect on the health, well-being and property of others.

At the very least, the language of the law should make clear that beekeepers will enjoy this limit of liability at all times unless it can be proven that the beekeeper is grossly negligent in the management of his/her hives.

Further, the burden of proof of this gross negligence for a claim of liability should be on the accuser.  The burden of proof of innocence should not be upon the beekeeper.  This law, as written, gives no clear protection in this regard.  No mention is made of documentation that a beekeeper may be required to keep.  Personally, I do not think this should be a requirement at all and the law should state so.

The entire "best management practices" should be offered as suggestion for successful beekeeping, not a requirement to limit liability.  There are many ways to manage bees, and the "best" way will always be subjective.  New information and technologies can also change what is "best" and as written, this legislation does not account for that.  The conditions for limitation of liability should be very simple: a beekeeper must make a reasonable effort to manage their hives to maintain good colony health and minimize risk to other persons and property.  Nothing more is required.