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