February, '21] taxquary: foulbrood legislation 123 



a man who is actually interested in the welfare of the beekeepers. He 

 should have abundant tact to get along with all sorts and conditions of 

 men, and courage to face squarely unpleasant situations. I cannot 

 emphasize too strongly the importance of the right qualifications in the 

 men who are sent out as bee inspectors, because upon them will depend 

 the success or failure of any method that is used. 



Organization for Foulbrood Control 



A discussion of the qualifications of a bee inspector brings up the point 

 of the entire organization for foulbrood control work. Here again I 

 find, through a perusal of the foulbrood laws of most of the states that 

 have such laws, that there are in general two methods, that of county 

 organization and that of state organization. For example, in a nimiber 

 of states the county commissioners of a county may, upon request of a 

 certain ntmiber of beekeepers within the county, appoint an inspector 

 and deputies to inspect the bees in that county. In one state such 

 inspector is supposed to inspect all colonies of bees in that county be- 

 tween May 1 and June 15 of each year and is to receive no compensation 

 except such as may be contributed by interested persons. Such a con- 

 dition of affairs of course reduces the matter of bee inspection and disease 

 control to a farce. There are a ntmiber of reasons why county organiza- 

 tion alone is lmsatisfactor3^ For one, in probably at least nine cases 

 out of ten the county commissioners would not be able to judge of the 

 qualifications necessary in a bee inspector; for another, such an arrange- 

 ment hopelessly ties up the matter of bee inspection with county politics, 

 for another in many counties a man suitably qualified for the position 

 would not be available, for another there would be no uniformity of 

 procedure among the counties of the state, and for still another there 

 would probably always be counties in which there would be no inspector 

 appointed, but which would contain foulbrood and consequently always 

 be a menace to the beekeeping industry in the rest of the state. 



Taking into consideration the above statements, the conclusion is 

 drawn that county organization is bound to be ineffective and unsatis- 

 factory. 



State organization is more desirable for the following reasons: 



1. The work can be handled more uniformly, more effectively and 

 more economicalh-. 



2. The work is put beyond the influence of local politics. 



3 . The position of inspector is made a much more important one and 

 consequently men with better qualifications are attracted to it. 



4. The work of the inspector can be more definitely correlated with 

 educational work along beekeeping lines being done in the state. 



