Another bizarre beekeeping rule ?

[frazzledfozzle]

Another thing for him to get angry about

I for one reckon that everyone has a right to express an opinion whether it agrees with mine or not.

I also think people have the right to question the powers that be whether that’s the AFB agency , ApiNZ , the government of the day or any other person or entity.

Its called democracy and freedom of speech and as much as our prime minister would like to see otherwise its still the order of the day for right now.

 

[Alastair]

Well I'll give my opinion then. Even if our Prime Minister would like to see otherwise 😉.

Whole thing is a storm in a teacup and people need to lighten up. Have people not started working bees yet?

I give my personal guarantee that whatever happens with this rights of the bee thing, life will continue

 

[JohnF]

John, This is up for discussion, and so it should be. Most people don't seem to be disputing that there should be a code of practise. It appears to be the wording and the future implications of the wording. I am not against this Code, but my thoughts are that the wording of this Code is critical. It is good that ApiNZ have advertised their code and future webinar meeting.

Recently there was a nationwide Howl of Protest protesting increased government interference, bureaucracy, unjustifiable costs to the rural sector and Significant Natural Areas. I think this was (but I could be wrong here) organised by Fed Farmers. This all needs to be taken into account. Primary producers, including commercial beekeepers, are getting worn out by bureaucracy and the cost, and it would be great if their blue collar opinions at the coalface are taken into account. These blue collar workers/owners are the base of the commercial beekeeping industry.

I agree it should be discussed Maggie and I contributed to that discussion. And I note the watermark across the document and name of it, namely draft. Therefore it would seem that the wording can be amended - but do people agree with the intent? Because if beekeepers can't lead the way, then they end up following - and that typically means following regulations imposed on them.

 

[John B]

Bees do not exhibit distress during or after hives have been moved e.g. by swarming. Quote from draft.
I had no idea that shifting hives could cause swarming in fact I have reasonable grounds to believe that shifting reduces the urge to swarm.
Yes I understand this is just a draft but did anyone with any knowledge of basic bee behaviour read this before it was put out there.

 

[Maggie]

I agree it should be discussed Maggie and I contributed to that discussion. And I note the watermark across the document and name of it, namely draft. Therefore it would seem that the wording can be amended - but do people agree with the intent? Because if beekeepers can't lead the way, then they end up following - and that typically means following regulations imposed on them.

I do have a number of queries:
I read somewhere that the Minister wants beekeeping to come under the Animal Welfare Act. Why?
If honey bees come under the Animal Welfare Act, what are the implications for future research? e.g. will the researcher have to submit evidence on how bees will be killed, maimed, pain inflected in the research? Currently we don't have to do that. This would just be another task in our incredibly bureaucratic world.
My understanding is that humanely refers to animals and humans. Do bees actually feel pain? Although I do know from past practical experience there are happy bees and unhappy bees!
What is the likelihood of MPI or any other government dept adopting the Bee Care Code as enforceable? i.e. are we going to be regulated, fined, whatever if we are found to be not complying. In this draft, we have all be non compliant through no fault of our own.
Is there any way a Bee Care Code could be worded into just several paragraphs? The briefer the better. If it's too long we are going to tie ourselves in knots, also risk readers comatosing before they get to the end of the document.
In NZ, we use UK English, not American or Canadian English. practice = noun. practise = verb. My grammar won't always be perfect, but I think it's a better look in an official quality assurance document to get it correct.

If putting an industry tick on a label of honey helps sell, then yes a draft code is a start.

 

[yesbut]

I read somewhere that the Minister wants beekeeping to come under the Animal Welfare Act. Why?

Dennis answers this in post #5 above.

 

[Alastair]

Do bees actually feel pain?

Yes

Exploitation of bees by humans - Animal Ethics

Huge numbers of bees suffer in a variety of ways from their exploitation by humans to make honey and other products.

www.animal-ethics.org

 

[yesbut]

I don't think that linked article can be translated as bees necessarily feeling what we call pain. There's an awareness of something going on.

 

[John B]

Yes

Exploitation of bees by humans - Animal Ethics

Huge numbers of bees suffer in a variety of ways from their exploitation by humans to make honey and other products.

www.animal-ethics.org

bees have as much or more brainpower as the person who wrote that article but that does not make them sentient.

 

[frazzledfozzle]

i wonder if people were paid to come up with this.

 

[Grant]

i wonder if people were paid to come up with this.

I wasn't. Just saying

 

[Dave Black]

I notice this appear wider afield, on the US-led Bee_L listserver I watch. It will be interesting see what they make of it, and the ensuing messy discussion.

It’s a draft, sure, but the language is tortuous – no plain English Crystal Mark there. I think it shows a particular view of beekeeping (“hives easily accessible by vehicle”!) and, knowingly or unknowingly, follows an ‘older’, agricultural, view of animal welfare (known as The Five Freedoms, FAWEC.org). They go like this:

• The animal is free from hunger, thirst and malnutrition, because it has ready access to drinking water and a suitable diet.
• The animal is free from physical and thermal discomfort, because it has access to shelter from the elements and a comfortable resting area.
• The animal is free from pain, injury and disease, thanks to suitable prevention and/or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
• The animal is able to express most of its normal behavioural patterns, because it has sufficient space, proper facilities and the company of other animals of its kind.
• The animal does not experience fear or distress, because the conditions needed to prevent mental suffering have been ensured.

Arguable how all that applies to bees but nowadays even entomology science papers have ‘ethical’ statements.

So I have misgiving about this draft, but not really about the aim to develop a good COP. A modern view of ethically acceptable animal husbandry rests on three principles

• Organisms and the ecosystems they inhabit have intrinsic value
• Their welfare is thought of in terms of a sustained physiological and behavioural ability to anticipate and respond to environmental change
• That the practice of ‘care’ or husbandry requires certain skills; attentiveness, responsibility, competence and, responsiveness, and the ability discern how to behave.

Practice is embedded in the wider physical, biotic, and human societal environment. It is not (just) a list of rules. In a Kantian world-view “Any action whereby we may torment animals, or let them suffer distress, or otherwise treat them without love, is demeaning to ourselves.” Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He argues that it is demeaning to ourselves because not acting ethically undermines the system of values that ratifies our rational humanity; in a Maori world-view, diminishes our mana.

And that’s exactly why we should have one.

 

[Grant]

Welcome home @Dave Black

 

[yesbut]

I'll have my work cut out convincing er indoors that blowflies have intrinsic value

 

[Dave Black]

Now that I've spent a bit of time on this I see the Bee-L discussion has a slightly different angle - more 'beekeeper's welfare' let's say. Four pages of detail. Has everyone one got too much time on their hands this year?

Here is the link: https://apinz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ApiNZ-Beekeeper-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

 

[Dave Black]

Okay, I looked. I didn't want to, but I did. Here's what I thought. I didn't like it.

Is this a voluntary code?

A code of conduct, a code of practice, or both?

There should be one aim, and SMART objectives.

To ‘Allow...'; really the right word?

Doing it in a way that’s just ‘acceptable’… Meh.

The ‘Definitions’ bit is unnecessary, pretentious, pedantic, and random. And goes at the beginning or the end.

[Numbers refer to the somewhat random number system in the document]

1,2,3. There is no reason to site hives away from the public – except bad management, and what does ‘away’ mean?

5,6. So honey is to be harvested, packed, and marketed according to the law. Surely superfluous.

7. Is this about beekeepers or only members?

8. Must I spend all my time striving?

1.4 What?

1.etc. A lot of ‘reasonable’, ‘appropriate’, ‘responsible’ and other vague wholesomeness.

1.9 Isn’t this the document defining ‘good’ and ‘appropriate’ Practice? Or Conduct.

1.10 See 1.5, and 5,6 as above.

2. Must comply with contracts and the law!

3. Voluntary or a condition of membership? Why is this in the middle of the document?

4, 5. Apart from being repetitive this is both way too prescriptive, and yet not comprehensive enough, interfering with the operation of things like hazard registers and so on.

One page is enough.

 

[Grant]

^^^^ Best feedback ever!

 

[Alastair]

Very fair comment.

All the same, when I read that document, full of PC BS that it is, I none the less feel that I already do most of what is in it.

As such I do not fear it and I could live with it.

However I do suspect it will be modified probably much, it is just a draft discussion document at this time.

 

[John B]

I have been discussing the draft of Apinz's bee welfare code of practice.
Dave Black appears to be discussing Apinz's beekeepers code of conduct.

 

[Dave Black]

I have been discussing the draft of Apinz's bee welfare code of practice.
Dave Black appears to be discussing Apinz's beekeepers code of conduct.

Discussing both John. I think they are or should be intertwined. No52 the former, No56 the later.