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.