1909 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



783 



— those in which the work is done by men 

 employed by the State, and those in which, 

 by a State, Territory, or county law, the 

 county authorities may appoint inspectors 

 for the county only. Of these the work by 

 State officers has proven much more effec- 

 tive. In States where the counties are 

 small, as in the east, countv inspection is of 

 practically no value (e. g., Ohio). In States 

 where the counties are small it is practically 

 impossible to get competent inspectors in 

 every county; and, furtnermore, there is not 

 enough work or enough money available to 

 induce a good man to take the work, unless 

 he is doing it merely for the good of the in- 

 dustry. In the West, whei e some counties 

 are as large as some of the Eastern States, 

 there is more reason for county inspection; 

 but even in these cases the results are, as a 

 rule, not equal to those obtained in States 

 having State inspection. 



The chief weakness in county inspection 

 is the lack of co-operation among the inspec- 

 tors in neighboring counties. There is in 

 most cases not only a lack of co-operation, 

 but too often a jealousy between them which 

 results in a loss of co-ordination in the work. 

 This might be remedied by the appointment 

 of a competent State inspector to whom the 

 county inspectors would be responsible; but 

 county officials would probably object to the 

 appointment of officers over whom they had 

 no direct jurisdiction. A much better plan 

 would be the appointment of enough State 

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

 removing all appointments by county offi- 

 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 

 pay 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 from 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 tear 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 



Eroperty of others by shipping contaminated 

 oney, 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 underdiscussion, 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. Tnis 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 less 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-operation 

 between the various inspectors is a weak 

 point 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 DISEASES 

 AMONG BEES IN BY CREATING THE OFFICE OF IN- 

 SPECTOR OF .\PIARIES, TO DEFINE THE DUTIES 

 THEREOF, AND TO APPROPRIATE MONEY 

 THEREFOR. 



Be it enacted, etc. 



Section l. In addition to the duties heretofore as- 

 signed him, the State Entomologist (or officer in charge 

 of entomological inspection is hereby appointed State 

 Inspector of Apiaries, and he is empowered to appoint 

 one or more assistants as needed, who shall carry on 

 the inspection under his super\'ision. 



Sec. 2. The inspector or his assistant shall, when no- 

 tified in writing by the owner of an apiary, or by any 

 three disinterested tax-payers, examine all reported 

 apiaries, and all others in the same locality not report- 

 ed, and ascertain whether or not the diseases known 

 as American foul brood or European foul brood, or 

 any other disease which is infectious or contagious in 

 its nature, and injurious to honey-bees in their egg, 

 larval, pupal, or adult stages, exists 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 judgment, 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 appliances 

 which would spread disease, without recompense 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 inspector, 

 any diseased bees ibe they queens or workers), colo- 

 nies, 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 



