Suitable Garden?

[PBee]

A truly angry colony of bees is an awesome force.

I think the responsibility is not to keep angry bees. If you do then they need to be well away from any possibility of public contact. Docile bees kept properly are no threat to anyone.

 

[BeeJayBee]

We have, currently, four colonies in our garden, which is surrounded by very tall deciduous hedges.

One neighbouring property has both children and pets, they also have two colonies of feral bees that have been there for a good number of years - predating the current occupiers and possibly us as well, which is why we're never quite sure how long they've been there.

The neighbour's children, when playing in their garden, are closer to their own bees than they are to ours.

 

[Andy Duff]

Accidents happen in all areas of life. Just because it happened to you does not make it a common occurrence. I risked flying to Italy last week despite having heard about plane crashes. And only today I crossed the road, even though I heard that someone got knocked down on that stretch of road just last week.

It's fine making glib remarks about accidents happening, but when your bees put somebody in hospital with anaphylactic shock (like mine did) you might take things a little more seriously. Then again some people consider it is their right to keep bees regardless of the consequences to others!

 

[itma]

Legally, keeping bees in a responsible manner is accepted as a perfectly reasonable use of one's garden.

The is spelled out in the casebook entitled "Beekeeping and the Law" published by Bee Books New & Old. The two authors (Frimston and Smith) are a solicitor (who is also an NDB) and a QC.
In the absence of later caselaw, I think it can be taken to illustrate the field definitively.

The point recurs repeatedly that the mere keeping of insects which fly around and can sting is not on its own unreasonable "for beekeeping was not an unreasonable use of land".

However, nowadays if you fail to keep the bees in a responsible manner - specifically if you are negligent (for example doing nothing about known-fierce bees) - you may get an 'abatement notice' under the Environment Protection Act 1990 forcing you to remove some or all of the bees.
The illustrative 1991 case involved 40 hives in a 105 square metre (pretty tiny) garden, adjacent to a public footpath, and ... he deserved it.

But as for legal liability for stings, it seems that under English Law, in practice, there's very little chance of an action succeeding.

 

[Andy Duff]

Legally, keeping bees in a responsible manner is accepted as a perfectly reasonable use of one's garden.

The is spelled out in the casebook entitled "Beekeeping and the Law" published by Bee Books New & Old. The two authors (Frimston and Smith) are a solicitor (who is also an NDB) and a QC.
In the absence of later caselaw, I think it can be taken to illustrate the field definitively.

The point recurs repeatedly that the mere keeping of insects which fly around and can sting is not on its own unreasonable "for beekeeping was not an unreasonable use of land".

However, nowadays if you fail to keep the bees in a responsible manner - specifically if you are negligent (for example doing nothing about known-fierce bees) - you may get an 'abatement notice' under the Environment Protection Act 1990 forcing you to remove some or all of the bees.
The illustrative 1991 case involved 40 hives in a 105 square metre (pretty tiny) garden, adjacent to a public footpath, and ... he deserved it.

But as for legal liability for stings, it seems that under English Law, in practice, there's very little chance of an action succeeding.

Sorry itma, it's not about what is legal, it's about respecting the rights of others to enjoy their gardens and live their lives without bees causing them a problem. I love keeping bees, but I will not do it again until I can keep them where they will not be a problem or potential problem.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

It's fine making glib remarks about accidents happening, but when your bees put somebody in hospital with anaphylactic shock (like mine did) you might take things a little more seriously. Then again some people consider it is their right to keep bees regardless of the consequences to others!

Sorry, Andy, but this is unwarranted.

There are plenty of people who undertake activities with an element of risk, who weigh up the risks, take what precautions are relevant - and act responsibly.
And if things do go wrong, they shoulder the responsibility.

But before you say anything, I've done that in at least two spheres of activities where the risks are enormous. And, yes, I have experienced it going drastically wrong. I took from it what learning I could - but didn't withdraw.

I'm sorry you had a rough experience. But your response to that does not have the force of universality. You have set for yourself a virtually unattainable standard of safety in a world which is inherently risky. People who choose a different attitude to risk are not acting unethically. Being passionate is not the same as being right.

I really do hope you find a place to keep bees. It is evident how much the craft means to you and how painful the loss of it is.

Dusty.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Sorry, Andy, but this is unwarranted.

There are plenty of people who undertake activities with an element of risk, who weigh up the risks, take what precautions are relevant - and act responsibly.
And if things do go wrong, they shoulder the responsibility.

But before you say anything, I've done that in at least two spheres of activities where the risks are enormous. And, yes, I have experienced it going drastically wrong. I took from it what learning I could - but didn't withdraw.

I'm sorry you had a rough experience. But your response to that does not have the force of universality. You have set for yourself a virtually unattainable standard of safety in a world which is inherently risky. People who choose a different attitude to risk are not acting unethically. Being passionate is not the same as being right.

I really do hope you find a place to keep bees. It is evident how much the craft means to you and how painful the loss of it is.

Dusty.

Well said Dusty and I understand and sympathise with Andy but there has to be an element of risk in life and we can't avoid everything 'just in case' I went shooting yesterday - should i be worried in case the wind blew a piece of lead shot into the neighbouring village to rest in someone's herb garden with the possibility of slightly poisoning someone in a hundred years time?it seems to be that nowadays we are afraid to fart in case we blow someone's candle out in the next county.
We have to assess the risk and if it is not too great carry on but have a contingency plan just in case

 

[oliver90owner]

The fact remains that if totally inexperienced, and ignoring advice to include that in any 'risk assessment', is negligence in it's own right.

That (the advice) has clearly been given on this thread, so it is well documented evidence, should something go wrong and the beekeeper does not have the back-up of an alternative apiary or does not have a clue as to how to rectify any (even impending) situation.

 

[PBee]

I went shooting yesterday - should i be worried in case the wind blew a piece of lead shot into the neighbouring village to rest in someone's herb garden with the possibility of slightly poisoning someone in a hundred years time?it seems to be that nowadays we are afraid to fart in case we blow someone's candle out in the next county.

Why not use steel shot or one of the other safer alternatives from an environmental point of view? The evidence on its toxicity to waterfowl and human ingesters of same is fairly strong. The only scenario where lead alternatives are inferior is the use of slugs for hunting bayer .... but this applies only to a North American woodland setting although ther is some evidence of isolated pockets elsewhere.

The wind problem I can't help you with, just one of those things as you get older ......... change of diet possibly?

 

[smithhive]

To undertake a "risky"activity where you are the one at risk is one thing, to then involve unwary others is a different matter.

 

[Luminos]

Well said Dusty and I understand and sympathise with Andy but there has to be an element of risk in life and we can't avoid everything 'just in case' I went shooting yesterday - should i be worried in case the wind blew a piece of lead shot into the neighbouring village to rest in someone's herb garden with the possibility of slightly poisoning someone in a hundred years time?it seems to be that nowadays we are afraid to fart in case we blow someone's candle out in the next county.
We have to assess the risk and if it is not too great carry on but have a contingency plan just in case

Remembering my older brothers' childhood experiments, I think it's more likely to make the candle burn brighter than blow it out...

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Why not use steel shot or one of the other safer alternatives from an environmental point of view? The evidence on its toxicity to waterfowl and human ingesters of same is fairly strong. The only scenario where lead alternatives are inferior is the use of slugs for hunting bayer .... but this applies only to a North American woodland setting although ther is some evidence of isolated pockets elsewhere.

The wind problem I can't help you with, just one of those things as you get older ......... change of diet possibly?

Can't use steel in a gun built in 1873.
As for the effect on humans I admit my grandfather who had eaten shot game all his life (existed on it during the war.) showed some signs - he tended to ramble a bit in his 91st year
The evidence of toxicity is not at all strong, in fact it's very weak and founded on surmise and predjudice - there is no hard evidence of toxicity to humans or waterfowl - it's just people at the wildfowl trust etc being constructive with the little evidence they have scraped together to try and make a story.
I think with the stuff in the news this week they were very selective with the scientific date ; they didn't mention the fact that you had to eat something like a thousand pheasant a year before there was any indication of a rise in the lead levels in your body.

 

[PBee]

Can't use steel in a gun built in 1873.
As for the effect on humans I admit my grandfather who had eaten shot game all his life (existed on it during the war.) showed some signs - he tended to ramble a bit in his 91st year
The evidence of toxicity is not at all strong, in fact it's very weak and founded on surmise and predjudice - there is no hard evidence of toxicity to humans or waterfowl - it's just people at the wildfowl trust etc being constructive with the little evidence they have scraped together to try and make a story.
I think with the stuff in the news this week they were very selective with the scientific date ; they didn't mention the fact that you had to eat something like a thousand pheasant a year before there was any indication of a rise in the lead levels in your body.

You could use Bismuth. Lead shot may not be a big problem to non game eating humans but it does accumulate in the food chain causing problems.

Be careful out there!

 

[itma]

Sorry itma, it's not about what is legal ...

Andy, I'll leave you to continue the morality question with Dusty.
I've already said that I believe bees can be kept with due regard (no need UNDUE regard) for good-neighbourliness.

I was actually addressing the specific legal point that was raised by someone other than yourself ---

Several years ago I was working bees on OSR and a colony went "beserk" on me. A few days later I learnt that a couple walking up a country lane about a 100 yards away had to flee as this was happening. They each took some stings and decided to take legal advice. Luckily for me the legal man they approached knew me personally and the matter was resolved with an apology and a few jars of honey.

If this had gone to court I do not know how I would have fared. Could they have proved it was my bees that had been involved? What penalties could I have faced?.....

And I hope that, if Smithhive doesn't take my word for the legal position, he will obtain and read the book I indicated. Perhaps he might direct the attention of that legal man he knows towards it.

As long as you are keeping a reasonable number of bees in a reasonable place and are not negligent in your management of them, the law protects your right to use your land as you wish.
With amazing good sense, the law regards the occasional sting as a normal part of life. And I would add particularly so, as in smithhive's example, in the countryside.
Legal responsibility for stings is extremely hard to establish.
However, more than the occasional sting (a pattern of behaviour) and there's a definite risk that your bees would be declared a statutory nuisance, and you'd get an order to remove them. So, as I have previously stated, you need to be demonstrably pro-active (and in no way negligent) in keeping your bees responsibly.

 

[Swarm]

Unfortunately, in these times, everything seems to boil down to legality and being sued. However this should not distract us from the point of being both responsible and considerate.
Personally, I'm not really interested in whether I'd be sued or could this or that be proven. Far more important should be, will my actions cause undue negative effect on others.
This could also apply to a multitude of other anti social activities, you either have these values or you don't.

 

[thorn]

Unfortunately, in these times, everything seems to boil down to legality and being sued. However this should not distract us from the point of being both responsible and considerate.
Personally, I'm not really interested in whether I'd be sued or could this or that be proven. Far more important should be, will my actions cause undue negative effect on others.
This could also apply to a multitude of other anti social activities, you either have these values or you don't.

You've obviously not read my posts on other threads about the likelihood of anyone succeeding in an action against a beekeeper for stings. There has to be negligence on the part of the beek. Keeping bees that sting someone is not negligent per se. It needs the beek to have done something, such as carelessly knocking the hive over with his car. That said, I'm awaiting the details, and the outcome, of the case in Northern Ireland mentioned by Teemore.

I spend my professional life assessing the foreseeability of actions and incidents that have lead to injury. The risk of a hive becoming angered and attacking all in the vicinity is low on the scale, although, as those posters who've suffered have pointed out, it can happen. Site the hive so that the bees' flight path does not cross your or your neighbours' areas of activity. Try to ensure that the bees fly up as soon as they leave the hive. And as RAB says, consider the risk of the hive becoming angry, and have a contingency plan.

Wherever the hive is situated, be it in a garden, on an allotment or in the country, there is always some degree of risk to someone. There were threads earlier this year about hives that were moved to fields of osr attacking passing cyclists and ramblers.

You know your garden and your neighbourhood. You, and the members of the local association, are best placed to make a decision on whether your garden is suitable.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

You could use Bismuth. Lead shot may not be a big problem to non game eating humans but it does accumulate in the food chain causing problems.

Allegedly!

I eat game thus it's my business - no proof of lead from shooting causing a problem in the food chain - it's just scare mongering by the bunny huggers to try and curtail our sport.
PERIOD
ps Bismuth is prohibitively expensive and bismuth and steel aren't effective giving a lot more wounded game

 

[itma]

Unfortunately, in these times, everything seems to boil down to legality and being sued. However this should not distract us from the point of being both responsible and considerate.
Personally, I'm not really interested in whether I'd be sued or could this or that be proven. Far more important should be, will my actions cause undue negative effect on others.
... you either have these values or you don't.

And I agree with you.

The great thing is that the law is there as a backstop. It can act both to enforce the abatement of nuisance, and to protect the right to enjoy one's hobby.
But its only a backstop. Goodneighbourliness should come into play long before any resort to the law.

 

[Poly Hive]

The risk is a lot higher than many of you realise.

PH

 

[PBee]

Allegedly!

I eat game thus it's my business - no proof of lead from shooting causing a problem in the food chain - it's just scare mongering by the bunny huggers to try and curtail our sport.
PERIOD
ps Bismuth is prohibitively expensive and bismuth and steel aren't effective giving a lot more wounded game

Wildlife and the environment in general is a common resource and not just for the shooting fraternity. You may not do much damage individually but the cumulative effects of the widespread use of lead shot does cause mortality (through ingestion by the survivors obviously) of waterfowl and subsequent accumulation in predators.Where there is a safer alternative it would seem prudent to do all to preserve the object of the excercise.