LAW8 RELATING TO BEES. 



299 



LAWS RELATING TO P,EES. 



nj direct jurisdielioii. A much better plan 

 would be the appointment of enough State 

 inspectors to do the work (e. g., New York), 

 removing all appointments by countj' olli- 

 cials from consideration. 



A special tax on colonies to bear the ex- 

 pense of inspection is sometimes made. 

 When this tax applies to every bee- keeper 

 in the State, no objection can be found to it. 

 The plan of requiring each bee-keeper to 

 l)ay for the work of the inspector in the ac- 

 tual inspection of his own apiary is most un- 

 just, however (e. g, Nebraska). Inspection 

 is instituted for the benefit of all bee-keep- 

 ers in the State, and they should pay for it. 

 To compel the bee-keeper who is unfortunate 

 enough to have disease among his bees to 

 pay for work, the object of which is to pro- 

 tect other bee-keepers in the community and 

 State, is unwise, unjust, and shows lack of 

 foresight on the part of the framers of the 

 bill. 



In nearly all the laws now in force, there 

 is a provision that the bee-keeper shall not 

 sell, give away, or barter honey fioni dis- 

 eased colonies. This is a just provision, but 

 seems to be rarely enforced. Inspectors too 

 often hesitate about enforcing it, either 

 from pity for their brother bee-keepers or 

 from fear of pressure being brought to bear 

 which will cause their dismissal, or perhaps 

 bring about a repeal of the law. The result 

 is that both diseases are being spread to new 

 localities, and other bee-keepers suffer be- 

 cause of this neglect of duty. A bee-keeper 

 has no legal or moral right to endanger the 

 property of others by shipping contaminated 

 honey, yet it is being done every year. An 

 inspector who allows this is not only remiss 

 in his duty but becomes party to the crime. 

 Because of this neglect to enforce the pro- 

 vision under discussion, the bee-disease situ- 

 ation in the United States is becoming worse 

 instead of better; and the good done by the 

 inspectors by education seems to be more 

 than nullified by the harm done by this neg- 

 lect. 



Inspectors and bee-keepers are more care- 

 ful about shipping diseased colonies to new 

 localities. This is probably because they 

 can see the harm which will result from this 

 procedure more clearly than in the case of 

 shipping honey from diseased colonies. The 

 danger in such cases, while great, is proba- 

 bly much let^s as a whole than that resulting 

 from the shipping of contaminated honey. 



As was pointed out in the discussion of 

 county inspection, the lack of co-oi)eration 

 between the various inspectors is a weak 



p iiit in our present method of control. 

 While an inspector may now in most cases 

 prohibit the shipping of diseased colonies 

 and contaminated honey to another State, he 

 rarely does so, nor do State inspectors usual- 

 ly report such shipments to each other. If 

 there had been some provision prohibiting 

 interstate shipments of contaminated ma- 

 terial, it is probable that we should not now 

 have European foul brood in twenty States, 

 and American foul brood in practically ev- 

 ery State in the Union in which progressive 

 bee-keeping is found. If there is no more 

 rigid inspection, our future work on disease 

 control can consist only of the educational 

 work of the inspector. Quarantine regula- 

 tions will, of course, be valueless when dis- 

 ease is present practically everywhere. 



A form of law which, if rigidly enforced, 

 would seem to be the most desirable is 

 given. This must be changed to cover local 

 conditions. 



AN ACT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF CONTAGIOUS DIS- 

 EASES AMONG BEES IN BY CREATING THE 



OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF APIARIES, TO 



DEFINE THE DUTIKS THEREOF, AND 



TO APPROPRIATE MONEY 



THEREFOR. 



Be it enacted, etc. 



Section I. In addition to the duties lieretofore 

 assigned to liim, the State Entomolog-ist (or ollicer 

 in charge of entomological inspection) is hereby 

 appointed State Inspector of Apiaries, and lie is 

 empowered to appoint one or more assistants as 

 needed, who shall carry on the inspection under his 

 supervision. 



Sec. 2. The inspector or his assistant shall, when 

 notified in writing by the owner of an apiary, or by 

 any three disinterested tax-payers, examine all le- 

 ported apiaries, and all others in the same locality 

 not reported, and ascertain whether or not the dis- 

 eases known as American foul brood or European 

 foul brood, or any other disease which is infectious 

 or ( ontagious in iis nature, and injurious to honey- 

 bees in their egg, larval, pupal, or adult stages, ex- 

 ists in such apiaries; and if satisfied of the existence 

 of any such diseases he shall give the owners or 

 care takers of the diseased apiaries full instructions 

 how to treat such cases as, in the Inspector's judg- 

 ment, seems best. 



Sec. 3. The inspector or his assistant shall visit all 

 diseased apiaries a second time, after ten days, and, 

 if need be, burn all colonies of bees that he may find 

 not cured of such disease, and all honey and appli- 

 ances which would spread disease, without recom- 

 pense to the owner, lessee, or agent thereof. 



Sec. 4. If the owner of an apiary, honey, or appli- 

 ances, wherein disease exists, shall sell, barter, or 

 give away, or move without the consent of the in- 

 spector, any diseased bees (be they queens or work- 

 ers), colonies, honey, or appliances, or expose other 

 bees to the danger of such disease, or fail to notify 

 the inspector of the existence of such disease, said 

 owner shall, on conviction before a justice of the 

 peace, be liable to a fine of not less than fifty dol- 

 lars nor more than one hundred dollars, or not less 

 than one month's imprisonment in the county jail, 

 nor more than two months' imprisonment. 



