Bees and Horses

[thorn]

As I was suggesting and Thorn has developed upon, problems arise when there is negligence on the part of the beekeeper. That can include negligence in the siting of an apiary, the number of stocks in an apiary and management techniques. .

I disagree with your suggestion as to what may constitute negligence. The only thing that I believe might come under that head is handling the bees in such a way that you anger them, for example by carelessly knocking the hive over. Mere clumsiness in inspecting them would probably not be negligent even though it might set them off. You would have to do something rather more extreme. I cannot see how an apiary can be negligently sited, and overstocking would not give rise to a negligence action, although fellow beekeepers might agree that the beek was negligent in doing so. Words mean different things in life and in law.

However, there is , as you say, the possibility of a nuisance action, and also the possibility of the local magistrates imposing an ASBO if your bees are getting out of hand.

All that being said, my experience is in the law as it applies to England and Wales. What happens in Northern Ireland and Scotland is a mystery to me. "Far away places of which I know little".

 

[Teemore]

I am not a practicising solicitor so can only be guided by what I have been advised might constitute negligence and or nuisance. Members of the legal profession earn their fees by debating whether a course of action is or is not negligent.... I comment here to allow others to make an informed decison about how and where they manage colonies of bees. As the old saying goes, forewarned is forearmed!
The following link highlights points that have been brought to my attention on a number of occasions and so i consider them worthy of repetition: http://nbba.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/bees-and-the-law-whose-fault-is-it/

 

[DanBee]

I disagree with your suggestion as to what may constitute negligence. The only thing that I believe might come under that head is handling the bees in such a way that you anger them, for example by carelessly knocking the hive over. Mere clumsiness in inspecting them would probably not be negligent even though it might set them off. You would have to do something rather more extreme. I cannot see how an apiary can be negligently sited, and overstocking would not give rise to a negligence action, although fellow beekeepers might agree that the beek was negligent in doing so. Words mean different things in life and in law.

I think the thing you're trying to differentiate is incompetence vs. negligence - e.g. incompetent handling, which I agree is a better definition in lay and legal terms. One could argue, however, that inspecting bees in a garden whilst neighbours were having a barbeque could constitute negligence for failing to take proper precautions before opening the colonies.

It is possible to be negligent in the siting of apiaries, e.g. introducing a quantity of colonies where their routine inspection will cause problems for others. However, just like the classic (anecdotal?!) "townies who move to the country and complain about the smell or the church bells", there is an issue of precedence. Hence if the site was suitable for bees when established as an apiary, and at a later date a third party introduced an incompatible activity adjacent to or close to that apiary, then I would not say the apiary was negligently sited, even if the result was problemmatic, because the apiary was there first.

If that sounds convoluted, think of the situation of an apiary of many years standing near the boundary of a site, and a neighbour constructing new stables immediately over the boundary. Who is to blame if the livestock and their keepers are bothered by the bees? I wouldn't blame the beekeeper!

 

[thorn]

I think the thing you're trying to differentiate is incompetence vs. negligence - e.g. incompetent handling, which I agree is a better definition in lay and legal terms. One could argue, however, that inspecting bees in a garden whilst neighbours were having a barbeque could constitute negligence for failing to take proper precautions before opening the colonies.

It is possible to be negligent in the siting of apiaries, e.g. introducing a quantity of colonies where their routine inspection will cause problems for others. However, just like the classic (anecdotal?!) "townies who move to the country and complain about the smell or the church bells", there is an issue of precedence. Hence if the site was suitable for bees when established as an apiary, and at a later date a third party introduced an incompatible activity adjacent to or close to that apiary, then I would not say the apiary was negligently sited, even if the result was problemmatic, because the apiary was there first.

If that sounds convoluted, think of the situation of an apiary of many years standing near the boundary of a site, and a neighbour constructing new stables immediately over the boundary. Who is to blame if the livestock and their keepers are bothered by the bees? I wouldn't blame the beekeeper!

You're confusing negligence and nuisance, two entirely different legal actions, though both come under the heading of tort. Siting may give rise to an action in nuisance, but not in negligence.

 

[corhob]

+my wifes horse is black and in the same field as my hive with just a fence about 10ft from the hive ,( just so the horse can't get to the hive ) in the next field are pigs . No problems from the bees.

 

[Luminos]

+my wifes horse is black and in the same field as my hive with just a fence about 10ft from the hive ,( just so the horse can't get to the hive ) in the next field are pigs . No problems from the bees.

i'm more surprised that your horse doesn't have a problem with the pigs - horses can't normally stand pigs!

 

[corhob]

i'm more surprised that your horse doesn't have a problem with the pigs - horses can't normally stand pigs!

He stands at the fence and licks the backs of the pigs they sometimes look has if they are just passing the time of day with each other

 

[BBG]

I'm feeling bored so thought I'd comment on the 'negligent siting' of an apiary.

Cite:
Townie buys building plot alongside pig farm - builds bungalow - moves in - mucking out time makes things a bit ripe (cor makes yer hair curl ).

Townie goes to Court and pig farm is shut down - shame.

Where ? Not far from Maiden Newton Dorset.

Negligence - it's your house/rest of your life to pay the compensation, solicitor, barrister et al, the QC fees off (including "refreshers")

So in the words of Dirty Harry (with the legal profession rubbing their hands with glee) 'go ahead beekeeper, make our day!

Of course you could move them, live in peace and let the people who buy the latest rescue horseboxful going to France, for steak and cheeps, keep overpopulating our green and pleasant land with nags.

 

[Luminos]

He stands at the fence and licks the backs of the pigs they sometimes look has if they are just passing the time of day with each other

 

[BBG]

Something odd there!

 

[chrismcd]

Horses do not like the sound of buzzing

Getting back to the original question. I suspect that the real culprit is the horse fly and the horses response to it.

Horses are not too bright, but once they have been bitten a few times they can clearly work out that a buzzing insect may well be a horse fly.

So, not surprisingly, when they hear a lot of buzzing they get very jumpy, and over-excited horses can be aggressive.

I have heard anecdotal stories of horses kicking over hives because they were freaked out by the buzzing of the bees - with all the chaos that then results (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread).

So, best to keep horses out of earshot of bee hives and make very sure that they cannot get to them and kick them over.

 

[Luminos]

I'm almost certain that horseflies don't buzz