93* 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



shod, any-old-way class, as can be 

 found the world over. 



Could I get together the many 

 crude and varied methods with which 

 I come in contact during my rounds or 

 inspecting, I could install a veritable 

 curiosity shop. From the accurately 

 cut factory hive, to any old box, with 

 no frames, or, possibly, frames (as per 

 Ernest Root, in Gleanings) cut with 

 a hatchet. I find apiaries that are 

 models of convenience, and equipped 

 with the most modern appliances, and 

 others that bear the impress of a cast- 

 off rubish pile. Tlieir owners never 

 saw a bee book or periodical, and the 

 limit of tlieir knowledge is to rob the 

 bees, when the opportune time comes. 



IGNORANT PEOPLE OUGHT NOT TO BE 



AI.I,OWED TO KEEP BEES, ON ACCOUNT 



Olf FOUI. BROOD. BEE KEEPERS 



SHOUI^D BE WCENSED. 



Of course this is a free country; and 

 It is said, that "Where ignorance is 

 bliss it is folly to be wise," but it 

 does seem to me that this class of 

 would-be-bee-keepers are a menace to 

 the pursuit, and that by some means 

 there should be attached to it educa- 

 tional features which a person must 

 acquire, ere he can enlist in its ranks; 

 especially here in California, where 

 the climate is so well adapted to the 

 propagation of disease germs, chief 

 among which is that of foul brood. 



Having had several years experience 

 in the treatment and cure of this dis- 

 ease, I think I am correct in making 

 the statement that, wherever it ex- 

 ists to any extent, it is simply the off- 

 spring of ignorance; and no one that 

 is not familiar with the nature and 

 care of this and kindred diseases 

 should be allowed to keep bees. 



It would not be so much consequence 

 if the mischief wrought were confined 

 to the untutored individual alone, but 

 unfortunately, in many instances 

 they are the source of others' misfor- 



tunes. One instance I will mention: 

 A certain Mr. A. purchased, in an ad- 

 joining county, an apiary consisting 

 of over 100 colonies of bees. Soon af- 

 ter their delivery the purchaser dis- 

 covered that they were diseased, and, 

 in the course of a year or so, many 

 died. In the fall of the following year 

 a widow (Mrs. B.) moved twenty-three 

 colonies within a quarter of a mile of 

 this diseased apiary. 



During the winter and spring fol- 

 lowing, Mr. A's bees died very rapidly, 

 and their hives proved an excellent 

 decoy or death trap for the innocent 

 widow's bees. When I arrived, six 

 months from the time they were mov- 

 ed in, 19 colonies out of the 23 were 

 in all stages of foul brood. Mr. A's 

 r^ees had dwindled to 35 live colonies, 

 33 of which were found diseased, 

 many being simply rotten. I also 

 found neighboi'ing apiaries, within 

 two or three miles, more or less af- 

 flicted, and so it is in every instance 

 where this disease is allowed uninter- 

 rupted sway through an ignorant or 

 careless bee-keeper. California's foul 

 brood law, however, makes it a mis- 

 demeanor for a bee-keeper to main- 

 tain a foul brood apiary. When noti- 

 fied by an inspector to abate the nuis- 

 ance he is obliged, under penalty of 

 the law, or destruction of his bees, 

 or both, to abate the same; but, if we 

 l;ad a (lualification feature in our law, 

 tluu-e would be little or no use for in- 

 spectors and stringent laws. 



It is evident to an obseiwant mind 

 that co-operation is the order of 

 the day, &nd we are asking, is the idea 

 feasible? Have we sufficient greiv- 

 ances to justify co-operation as a de- 

 fence to our pursuit? Can we main- 

 tain a central organization, for appro- 

 priate distribution, and obtain indi- 

 vidual benefits sufficient to justify the 

 same? I think we can. The honey 

 producers by the very nature of their 

 environments have been at the mer- 



