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