Nature, Legislation and Angels

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
As I just explained in a post, I would like to continue in this new one the deviation that was caused in the main post.
The title refers to nature, law and angels. The reason is to answer about.
Wild swarms and their status within beekeeping legislation.
and the angels?
 
Read a few pages..... the most interesting thing was the number of beeks no longer on the forum!
Amongst them are a member who has moved on to BBKA admin, a couple who have passed away most notably Pete Little, some who have given up beekeeping, have given up the forum, some who now are still here but no longer post, some who are banned and the rest…….. who knows? ‘It’s the way of things.
 
Lordy! I was quite prepared to leave it be initially, but now I feel obliged to respond. For those lucky enough not to have read it before, here's the alternative explanation for "ley lines".

They don't exist.

That's it, basically. Actually what was traditionally understood by the term "ley lines" was thoroughly debunked years ago, so they often now appear to be called "energy lines", but the same applies. Some beekeepers claim they must exist because they can be found by dowsing, but under reliable test conditions there's no credible evidence that dowsing works either, and plenty that it doesn't. As I've said before, James Randi offered up to $1million for anyone who could demonstrate any form of "paranormal" ability under test conditions. Dowsing was one of the most (if not the most) commonly claimed abilities as far as I recall, and no-one ever succeeded in showing it worked. Here's an example that was televised:



(I've skipped the early part that isn't about dowsing.) There are quite a few others.

What there is lots of evidence for is how people either as individuals or groups can trick themselves into believing something that isn't true and how the "dowsing response" may come about.

There may be all sorts of reasons why swarms of bees turn up in a given hive and not others, some of which we think we understand and others we probably have no knowledge of. That they repeatedly show a preference for the same location should hardly be a surprise given that one swarm will presumably have very similar preferences to another.

Now, shall we move on whilst I take a break to get my chakras realigned?

James
 
Now, shall we move on whilst I take a break to get my chakras realigned
I sympathise with you - I got them twisted once, slipped and sat on one - brought tears to my eyes I can tell you and walked with a limp for days
 
I sympathise with you - I got them twisted once, slipped and sat on one - brought tears to my eyes I can tell you and walked with a limp for days

I know... Mine got hit by a tennis ball once. I've never been near a tennis court since.

James
 
The link to the complex fishing legal case is not especially useful as it compares ferae naturae and domitae naturae, and I doubt anyone would claim that bees are, or could be, domesticated.
The case was whether the fish in the lakes were property through per industriam and whether this survived a change of ownership. It was decided:

"whether the rights that BDS enjoyed over the fish in the lakes were enjoyed ratione soli or per industriam, they came to an end when the land was sold to CWF. If the rights were enjoyed ratione soli they came to an end because CWF now owns the land and if they were rights per industriam they came to an end because BDS no longer has the right to go onto the land to claim the fish and so is no longer in possession of them."

Interestingly the last paragraph states:

"I would therefore not exclude the possibility of a person enjoying rights per industriam in unusual circumstances where the ownership of the land lay elsewhere."

I would suggest beekeeping could be one such example, but the definition of ratione soli according to Black's Law dictionary is:

"RATIONE SOLI
Lat. On account of the soil; with reference to the soil. Said to be the ground of ownership in bees. 2 Bl. Comm. 393."


Three quid from ABE books is not a lot to pay to find out the views of Solicitor David Frimston & His Honour Judge David Smith QC.
It's over 6 quid with postage! From the contents there doesn't seem much on swarms Beekeeping and the Law:Swarms and Neighbours by David Frimston and David Smith | eBay

Noel Sweeney was a more recent exploration and published by NBB a few years ago. Sweeney was, or is, a practising Barrister (one speciality was animal law) but as I skimmed it at an NBB Honey Show stand Jeremy Burbidge was honest enough to comment that the writing was not good, but that Sweeney was determined to publish unedited. It was a temporary bedtime read, and certainly sent me to sleep quickly.
Thanks another book I had not heard of.
 
The case was whether the fish in the lakes were property through per industriam and whether this survived a change of ownership. It was decided:

"whether the rights that BDS enjoyed over the fish in the lakes were enjoyed ratione soli or per industriam, they came to an end when the land was sold to CWF. If the rights were enjoyed ratione soli they came to an end because CWF now owns the land and if they were rights per industriam they came to an end because BDS no longer has the right to go onto the land to claim the fish and so is no longer in possession of them."

Interestingly the last paragraph states:

"I would therefore not exclude the possibility of a person enjoying rights per industriam in unusual circumstances where the ownership of the land lay elsewhere."

I would suggest beekeeping could be one such example, but the definition of ratione soli according to Black's Law dictionary is:

"RATIONE SOLI
Lat. On account of the soil; with reference to the soil. Said to be the ground of ownership in bees. 2 Bl. Comm. 393."



It's over 6 quid with postage! From the contents there doesn't seem much on swarms Beekeeping and the Law:Swarms and Neighbours by David Frimston and David Smith | eBay


Thanks another book I had not heard of.
It would certainly be included.
The property of the land belongs to the bees, but the rights of its honey production would belong to a third party, specifically the owner of the farm where it settles. This will be the reason why a beekeeper must ask for permission to take the swarm and with it the industry rights (its honey production)
 
If a trait is really useful in Nature it is not likely to be lost. If human, breeder selection produces queens with useful traits, those bees will also need to have all the other traits that make them suited to the environments in which we keep them. If not, we will be in a constant cycle of needing to buy new queens from those special sources. I know that approach already suits many people, but some of us would prefer to be able to sustain our own stocks of bees.

There is room for all of these ways of beekeeping and it's a shame that a few beekeepers on all sides are liable to become so polarised, intransigent and intolerant of the preferences of others. :)
Incorrect. It can be lost- speciation is an example.

As a student I did some research into the immune system of dairy cattle. We compared a breed selected intensively for milk production (Holstein-Friesian) with a less intensively bred breed (Brown Swiss). The immune cells we looked at showed a marked difference in their responses to pathogen antigens, with much better responses in the BS which fits with the broader picture that certain traits are inversely linked and how much mastitis is seen between those two breeds. Intensive selection for production traits generally does lead to a decrease in general 'fitness'.

My proudest part of that project was that the research group switched from using SB as the acronym for the Swiss Brown/Brown Swiss breed so the eventual paper was full of references to BS. :leaving:
 
Sorry but I've never read so much twaddle and unnecessary complication about swarms.
Twaddle? We've gone beyond swarms. I would say the case I quoted is relevant to anybody who takes their hives onto somebody else's land. As i've previously written I think there is an interesting legal case to be had if say there is a disagreement and the farmer blocks access to your hives. Who's bees are they? They can't be yours per industriam because you don't have access so they must now be the farmers.
 
Read a few pages..... the most interesting thing was the number of beeks no longer on the forum!
There's always a churn rate on forums ... what surprised me was that there were so many still posting or at least lurking on here nearly 12 years on from that thread. Four of the posters we know for certain have died sadly. When you look at the current viewing figures ... on a Friday night there are 50 paid up members on line and over 250 guests (non paid up members) ... that's as good or a darned sight better than most specialist forums I've come across .... and 10 times most beekeeping forums ....
 
As i've previously written I think there is an interesting legal case to be had if say there is a disagreement and the farmer blocks access to your hives. Who's bees are they? They can't be yours per industriam because you don't have access so they must now be the farmers.
I presume this is a hypothetical exercise in the absence if having any real bees to play with
 
Lordy! I was quite prepared to leave it be initially, but now I feel obliged to respond. For those lucky enough not to have read it before, here's the alternative explanation for "ley lines".

They don't exist.

That's it, basically. Actually what was traditionally understood by the term "ley lines" was thoroughly debunked years ago, so they often now appear to be called "energy lines", but the same applies. Some beekeepers claim they must exist because they can be found by dowsing, but under reliable test conditions there's no credible evidence that dowsing works either, and plenty that it doesn't. As I've said before, James Randi offered up to $1million for anyone who could demonstrate any form of "paranormal" ability under test conditions. Dowsing was one of the most (if not the most) commonly claimed abilities as far as I recall, and no-one ever succeeded in showing it worked. Here's an example that was televised:



(I've skipped the early part that isn't about dowsing.) There are quite a few others.

What there is lots of evidence for is how people either as individuals or groups can trick themselves into believing something that isn't true and how the "dowsing response" may come about.

There may be all sorts of reasons why swarms of bees turn up in a given hive and not others, some of which we think we understand and others we probably have no knowledge of. That they repeatedly show a preference for the same location should hardly be a surprise given that one swarm will presumably have very similar preferences to another.

Now, shall we move on whilst I take a break to get my chakras realigned?

James


There's none so blind as them what can't see ... I'm not even going to try and pursuade you but I've put rods in the hands of unbelievers who have found lines in my garden without any foreknowledge of where they are .... it's enough for me to see it with my own eyes. I'm not offering miracle cures or claiming I can find lost objects - I've never tried - but there's more to this earth than we know about and I don't need to have every last thing I believe in proven or not by science. Eventually, science often catches up with learned and observed behaviours ...
 
I presume this is a hypothetical exercise in the absence if having any real bees to play with
This thread/blog is entitled legislation. If you are not interested then don't post. There is no forum law that says you have to post on every thread? In fact it gets quite boring reading again and again posts from yourself.
 
There's none so blind as them what can't see ... I'm not even going to try and pursuade you but I've put rods in the hands of unbelievers who have found lines in my garden without any foreknowledge of where they are .... it's enough for me to see it with my own eyes. I'm not offering miracle cures or claiming I can find lost objects - I've never tried - but there's more to this earth than we know about and I don't need to have every last thing I believe in proven or not by science. Eventually, science often catches up with learned and observed behaviours ...
Bit like God then
 
Incorrect. It can be lost- speciation is an example.

As a student I did some research into the immune system of dairy cattle. We compared a breed selected intensively for milk production (Holstein-Friesian) with a less intensively bred breed (Brown Swiss). The immune cells we looked at showed a marked difference in their responses to pathogen antigens, with much better responses in the BS which fits with the broader picture that certain traits are inversely linked and how much mastitis is seen between those two breeds. Intensive selection for production traits generally does lead to a decrease in general 'fitness'.

My proudest part of that project was that the research group switched from using SB as the acronym for the Swiss Brown/Brown Swiss breed so the eventual paper was full of references to BS. :leaving:

"Incorrect. It can be lost,".....I think that the statement, "not likely to be lost" covers that. eventuality. ;)
Your observation "Intensive selection for production traits generally does lead to a decrease in general 'fitness'." is quite interesting in this context, if it can be applied to bees.
 
Twaddle? We've gone beyond swarms. I would say the case I quoted is relevant to anybody who takes their hives onto somebody else's land. As i've previously written I think there is an interesting legal case to be had if say there is a disagreement and the farmer blocks access to your hives. Who's bees are they? They can't be yours per industriam because you don't have access so they must now be the farmers.
A lawyer would teach you differently.

Your logic is possession = ownership.
It is NOT
 
Back
Top