like Facebook follow Twitter watch YouTube subscribe RSS Feed
Archive | News RSS feed for this section

Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators

Presidential Memorandum – Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators

June 20, 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators

Pollinators contribute substantially to the economy of the United States and are vital to keeping fruits, nuts, and vegetables in our diets. Honey bee pollination alone adds more than $15 billion in value to agricultural crops each year in the United States. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant loss of pollinators, including honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies, from the environment. The problem is serious and requires immediate attention to ensure the sustainability of our food production systems, avoid additional economic impact on the agricultural sector, and protect the health of the environment.

Pollinator losses have been severe. The number of migrating Monarch butterflies sank to the lowest recorded population level in 2013-14, and there is an imminent risk of failed migration. The continued loss of commercial honey bee colonies poses a threat to the economic stability of commercial beekeeping and pollination operations in the United States, which could have profound implications for agriculture and food. Severe yearly declines create concern that bee colony losses could reach a point from which the commercial pollination industry would not be able to adequately recover. The loss of native bees, which also play a key role in pollination of crops, is much less studied, but many native bee species are believed to be in decline. Scientists believe that bee losses are likely caused by a combination of stressors, including poor bee nutrition, loss of forage lands, parasites, pathogens, lack of genetic diversity, and exposure to pesticides.

Given the breadth, severity, and persistence of pollinator losses, it is critical to expand Federal efforts and take new steps to reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels. These steps should include the development of new public-private partnerships and increased citizen engagement. Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Establishing the Pollinator Health Task Force. There is hereby established the Pollinator Health Task Force (Task Force), to be co-chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall also include the heads, or their designated representatives, from: ???

(a) the Department of State;

(b) the Department of Defense;

(c) the Department of the Interior;

(d) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(e) the Department of Transportation;

(f) the Department of Energy;

(g) the Department of Education;

(h) the Council on Environmental Quality;

(i) the Domestic Policy Council;

(j) the General Services Administration;

(k) the National Science Foundation;

(l) the National Security Council Staff;

(m) the Office of Management and Budget;

(n) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and

(o) such executive departments, agencies, and offices as the Co-Chairs may designate.

Sec. 2. Mission and Function of the Task Force. Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Task Force shall develop a National Pollinator Health Strategy (Strategy), which shall include explicit goals, milestones, and metrics to measure progress. The Strategy shall include the following components:

(a) Pollinator Research Action Plan. The Strategy shall include an Action Plan (Plan) to focus Federal efforts on understanding, preventing, and recovering from pollinator losses. The Plan shall be informed by research on relevant topics and include:

(i) studies of the health of managed honey bees and native bees, including longitudinal studies, to determine the relative contributions of, and mitigation strategies for, different stressors leading to species declines and colony collapse disorder, including exposure to pesticides, poor nutrition, parasites and other pests, toxins, loss of habitat and reduced natural forage, pathogens, and unsustainable management practices;

(ii) plans for expanded collection and sharing of data related to pollinator losses, technologies for continuous monitoring of honey bee hive health, and use of public-private partnerships, as appropriate, to provide information on the status and trends of managed hive losses;

(iii) assessments of the status of native pollinators, including the Monarch butterfly and bees, and modeling of native pollinator populations and habitats; ???

(iv) strategies for developing affordable seed mixes, including native pollinator-friendly plants, for maintenance of honey bees and other pollinators, and guidelines for and evaluations of the effectiveness of using pollinator-friendly seed mixes for restoration and reclamation projects;

(v) identification of existing and new methods and best practices to reduce pollinator exposure to pesticides, and new cost-effective ways to control bee pests and diseases; and

(vi) strategies for targeting resources toward areas of high risk and restoration potential and prioritizing plans for restoration of pollinator habitat, based on those areas that will yield the greatest expected net benefits.

(b) Public Education Plan. The Strategy shall include plans for expanding and coordinating public education programs outlining steps individuals and businesses can take to help address the loss of pollinators. It shall also include recommendations for a coordinated public education campaign aimed at individuals, corporations, small businesses, schools, libraries, and museums to significantly increase public awareness of the importance of pollinators and the steps that can be taken to protect them.

(c) Public-Private Partnerships. The Strategy shall include recommendations for developing public-private partnerships to build on Federal efforts to encourage the protection of pollinators and increase the quality and amount of habitat and forage for pollinators. In developing this part of the Strategy, the Task Force shall consult with external stakeholders, including State, tribal, and local governments, farmers, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations.

(d) Task Force member agencies shall report regularly to the Task Force on their efforts to implement section 3 of this memorandum.

Sec. 3. Increasing and Improving Pollinator Habitat. Unless otherwise specified, within 180 days of the date of this memorandum:

(a) Task Force member agencies shall develop and provide to the Task Force plans to enhance pollinator habitat, and subsequently implement, as appropriate, such plans on their managed lands and facilities, consistent with their missions and public safety. These plans may include: facility landscaping, including easements; land management; policies with respect to road and other rights-of-way; educational gardens; use of integrated vegetation and pest management; increased native vegetation; and application of pollinator-friendly best management practices and seed mixes. Task Force member agencies shall also review any new or renewing land management contracts and grants for the opportunity to include requirements for enhancing pollinator habitat. ?????

(b) Task Force member agencies shall evaluate permit and management practices on power line, pipeline, utility, and other rights-of-way and easements, and, consistent with applicable law, make any necessary and appropriate changes to enhance pollinator habitat on Federal lands through the use of integrated vegetation and pest management and pollinator-friendly best management practices, and by supplementing existing agreements and memoranda of understanding with rights-of-way holders, where appropriate, to establish and improve pollinator habitat.

(c) Task Force member agencies shall incorporate pollinator health as a component of all future restoration and reclamation projects, as appropriate, including all annual restoration plans.

(d) The Council on Environmental Quality and the General Services Administration shall, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, revise their respective guidance documents for designed landscapes and public buildings to incorporate, as appropriate, pollinator-friendly practices into site landscape performance requirements to create and maintain high quality habitats for pollinators. Future landscaping projects at all Federal facilities shall, to the maximum extent appropriate, use plants beneficial to pollinators.

(e) The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior shall, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, develop best management practices for executive departments and agencies to enhance pollinator habitat on Federal lands.

(f) The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior shall establish a reserve of native seed mixes, including pollinator-friendly plants, for use on post-fire rehabilitation projects and other restoration activities.

(g) The Department of Agriculture shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, substantially increase both the acreage and forage value of pollinator habitat in the Department’s conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, and provide technical assistance, through collaboration with the land-grant university-based cooperative extension services, to executive departments and agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, and other entities and individuals, including farmers and ranchers, in planting the most suitable pollinator-friendly habitats.

(h) The Department of the Interior shall assist States and State wildlife organizations, as appropriate, in identifying and implementing projects to conserve pollinators at risk of endangerment and further pollinator conservation through the revision and implementation of individual State Wildlife Action Plans. The Department of the Interior shall, upon request, provide technical support for these efforts, and keep the Task Force apprised of such collaborations.

(i) The Department of Transportation shall evaluate its current guidance for grantees and informational resources to identify opportunities to increase pollinator habitat along roadways and implement improvements, as appropriate. The Department of Transportation shall work with State Departments of Transportation and transportation associations to promote pollinator-friendly practices and corridors. The Department of Transportation shall evaluate opportunities to make railways, pipelines, and transportation facilities that are privately owned and operated aware of the need to increase pollinator habitat.

(j) The Department of Defense shall, consistent with law and the availability of appropriations, support habitat restoration projects for pollinators, and shall direct military service installations to use, when possible, pollinator-friendly native landscaping and minimize use of pesticides harmful to pollinators through integrated vegetation and pest management practices.

(k) The Army Corps of Engineers shall incorporate conservation practices for pollinator habitat improvement on the 12 million acres of lands and waters at resource development projects across the country, as appropriate.

(l) The Environmental Protection Agency shall assess the effect of pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bee and other pollinator health and take action, as appropriate, to protect pollinators; engage State and tribal environmental, agricultural, and wildlife agencies in the development of State and tribal pollinator protection plans; encourage the incorporation of pollinator protection and habitat planting activities into green infrastructure and Superfund projects; and expedite review of registration applications for new products targeting pests harmful to pollinators.

(m) Executive departments and agencies shall, as appropriate, take immediate measures to support pollinators during the 2014 growing season and thereafter. These measures may include planting pollinator-friendly vegetation and increasing flower diversity in plantings, limiting mowing practices, and avoiding the use of pesticides in sensitive pollinator habitats through integrated vegetation and pest management practices.

Sec. 4. General Provisions.

(a) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to any agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to require the disclosure of confidential business information or trade secrets, classified information, law enforcement sensitive information, or other information that must be protected in the interest of national security or public safety.

(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. ???

(e) The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b

Read full story · Posted in News

Boulder neighborhood state’s first to be declared ‘bee-safe’

Melody-Catalpa volunteers secure pledges to shun pesticides
By Charlie Brennan 

The Melody-Catalpa neighborhood of Boulder is proudly wearing the mantle of the first “bee-safe” locality in Colorado.

It may not be a title for which there was fierce competition, but those in the roughly 200 households of the north Boulder neighborhood who signed a pledge not to use neonicotinoids or similar systemic pesticides are buzzing with excitement over earning the distinction.

Three neighborhood residents earlier this year banded together to sign on about 20 volunteers to go door to door. And, faster than they’d dared hope, they convinced more than half of the area’s 389 households to sign a pledge not to use neuroactive chemicals that many believe are contributing to the colony collapse phenomenon reported in global honeybee populations.

Those doing so were awarded green flags, signifying their commitment, to plant in their front lawns. Some homes there have not yet been contacted by the volunteers, but will be.

“We felt really good about it,” said Anne Bliss, one of the three organizers and a resident of the 3500 block of Catalpa Way. “We thought we would finish this by the end of May, and we more than had our goal really quickly. It took us a couple weeks.”

Molly Greacen, another of the drivers behind the Melody-Catalpa bee-safe initiative, said, “The real concern is that if we can get lots of other people to get excited about this idea, then all of Boulder can become bee-safe.”

[view full article via dailycamera.com]

Read full story · Posted in News

PODCAST: Michael Bush on Treatment Free Beekeeping

Podcast via kiwimana

Michael Bush
Treatment Free Beekeeper / Author and Speaker from Nebraska
WEBSITE: http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm
BOOK: “The Practical Beekeeper: Beekeeping Naturally” http://goo.gl/1l747d

Want more? Watch the HoneyLove video interviews with Michael Bush below!

AND! Please click below to subscribe to HoneyLove on YouTube!!
youtube subscribe

Read full story · Posted in News, Yay Bees

How LA homes lost their hives

via Mark Vallianatos
historyofbeesinamerica
The decision by the Los Angeles City Council to consider legalizing bee-keeping on single family properties raises the question: why were backyard bees banned in the first place? While researching some zoning and building code changes, I came across a council file from the 1940s that contained dueling petitions on beekeeping in the west San Fernando Valley. This sparked my interest in how Los Angeles has regulated bees over the years, especially through the zoning code. Zoning is a tool that local jurisdictions utilize to regulate land use. The zoning of residential properties, and what agricultural uses were allowed on single family homes, changed as Los Angeles transformed from the nation’s leading farming region to a suburban and industrial powerhouse.  I’ve tracked down a partial history of the regulation of bee-keeping in the city of LA.  These controls on (and controversies about) bees represent competing visions of the city and how we should live in it. I hope reflecting on when and why LA homes “lost their hives” can provide context that will be useful as the City re-legalizes urban bee-keeping.

J.P. McIntyre and his bees, circa 1880 | California Historical Society

Bee-keeping grew alongside Agriculture in Southern California and the benefits of bees to farmers and the economy were widely recognized.  The keeping of bees was, however, banned within the city limits of Los Angeles on June 10th 1879. A decade later, in 1889, when the city adopted its first home-rule city charter, the power to restrict bees was enshrined in a list of nuisances. The Charter authorized Los Angeles “to suppress and prohibit … the keeping of bees within the city limits, and any and all obnoxious, offensive, immoral, indecent or disreputable places of business or practice.”  (Charter of the City of Los Angeles as Adopted, January 1889).
Was bee-keeping really considered to be that bad? Some of the other activities on the charter’s list of problematic businesses, like bawdy-houses and gambling dens, were regulated out of moral concerns. Others, such as laundries and cattle yards, were considered to be types of businesses that should be limited to certain areas because of the risks (fire, odors, etc) associated with their operations. Bee-keeping fell into this latter type of activity. I was surprised to see, in news accounts from the late 19th century, that the biggest perceived threat from bee hives wasn’t people getting stung by bees. It was the belief that bees threatened the fruit crop fruit by eating and stinging pieces of fruit. Proponents of banning bee-keeping in LA also cited the danger posed to horses by swarms of bees.

This law didn’t stop all bee-keeping in residential areas. As the City grew by annexing surrounding land, exceptions to the bee ordinance were made for newly added districts that were primarily agricultural. In 1915,  the San Fernando Valley was exempted from the bee-keeping ban when it was annexed to LA. The ban itself didn’t seem to be widely enforced in parts of the city where it did apply.  A 1917 Los Angeles Times article on the benefits of back-yard bee-keeping, for example, dismissed the law against bees as “an ancient and still-unrepealed city ordinance.” (‘Back-Yard Bee Keeping Cuts Living Cost Here.’ Los Angeles Times, Jan 28, 1917.)

The legality of the ‘ancient’ ordinance was eventually tested at the California Supreme Court. In 1936, Mrs. Edna Ellis was accused of violating the LA city ordinance by keeping five hives of bees at a residential property on the 4000 block of Sequoia St. The Deputy City Attorney prosecuting the case called bees “a nuisance” and “vicious.” “They are stinging people all over the neighborhood,” he claimed. “Children go outside and get stung. They can’t even pick flowers.” In her defense, Mrs. Ellis told the court: “I love bees. To me, they’re pets… Like cats and dogs to some people. My father kept bees before me and I have been keeping them myself for twenty-five years.” (‘Court Hears Bee Defense: Woman Accused of Keeping Apiary in Violation of City Ordinance.’ Los Angeles Times. June 27, 1936.) Ellis was convicted and appealed the decision, arguing that the ban was unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court accepted her statements about “the benefits to the residents in her community resulting from the cross-pollination of the fruit blossoms and flowers in addition to the commercial value of the bees” but still found that there is “a reasonable basis for the exercise of the police power in prohibiting beekeeping within the city limits,” upholding the law and Ellis’ conviction.  (In re Ellis, 11 cal.2d 571, 1938.)

As World War II drew to a close, LA planners tried to balance the San Fernando’s Valley’s agricultural heritage with pent-up demand for space for housing and industry. It was on this shifting terrain that arguments about bees started to define what types of residential properties were suitable for keeping hives. In April 1945, 13 residents of Canoga Park sent a petition to the Los Angeles City Council requesting a law “prohibiting stands of bees in the west end of the San Fernando Valley. Bees in this locality are not only a nuisance and danger, but they cause a great deal of damage to crops such as peaches, grapes and others. .. As they ripen, the bees sting the fruit and cause them to rot. It is dangerous to try to gather fruit with so many bees around. At present, people who live in the city, but who own vacant acres, are putting in bees just to annoy those of us who really make our homes out here.” (Council File 19744, April 23, 1945).

Los Angeles City staff and the Council’s Public Health and Welfare Committee considered this request. They concluded that it was unreasonable to outlaw bee keeping in agricultural parts of the valley and that “expert testimony does not support the contention that bees really damage fruit.”  (May 5, 1945 letter from Chas Senn, Director of Sanitation to George M. Uhl, MD, Health Officer). In early April, 1946, the City Council, did direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to prohibit keeping bees in congested parts of the San Fernando Valley. This move prompted another group of Canoga Park residents to send a competing petition to Council: “we the undersigned residents of said district, ask that the keeping of bees in the west San Fernando Valley should not be outlawed for the following reasons: Said district is sparsely settled and is mostly devoted to agriculture and bees do not constitute a nuisance. The bees render a great service to agriculture, trees and flowers by pollination, which fact is well known and the plaintiffs could not suggest a better substitute. However, there are also wild bees, which could not be outlawed. It is well know that bees do not spoil fruit. First fruit must be pecked by birds before a bee could feed on it.  We the undersigned are convinced that the bees are harmless and useful and therefore we ask that no ordinance against keeping bees should be enacted.” (Council File 23159, April 23, 1946.)

The LA City Council soon passed an ordinance, effective June 1, 1946, that split the difference between the anti-bee and pro-bee petitions. The City’s anti-beekeeping law was amended to forbid the keeping of bees on any premises within 300 feet of another dwelling or within 100 feet of an exterior boundary. This would allow bees to be kept at a single family house only if it had a huge lot. Agricultural zones and the Residential Agriculture zone were exempted, allowing bee-keeping to continue in parts of the Valley with rural zoning.

By shifting the law from a blanket prohibition on bee-keeping (with an exception for the San Fernando Valley) to a zoning-based system, planners could allow different animal and agriculture-related uses in different residential zones. In 1950, for example, a new Residential Suburban zone was created to be a hybrid between the R1 and RA zones. Residents of RA or RS zoned homes could raise “poultry, fowl, bees, rabbits, chinchillas, fish, or frogs;” but if you lived in a house zoned R1 (the most common single family zone) you were limited to poultry, rabbits and chinchillas, plus goats, horses and cows if your lot was at least 20,000 square feet. (Ordinance 97359, 1950).

At some point between 1950 and 1980, bee-keeping was eliminated as a legal use in the RA and RS zones. I haven’t yet run across the ordinance that made this change. Today, bee-keeping is only allowed in the City of Los Angeles in agricultural zone and in most manufacturing zones. Hopefully this will change soon, and hives of bees, governed by sensible regulations, will be permitted in backyards throughout the City for the first time in 135 years.


Mark Vallianatos works and teaches at Occidental College and is on the Zoning Advisory Committee for the City’s re:code LA process to revise Los Angeles’ zoning code. Mark can be reached at mvalli@oxy.edu 


LEGALIZE URBAN BEEKEEPING IN LOS ANGELES!!

Sign the petition | Email a letter of support to City Council Council File: 12-0785 Beekeeping

Legalize Urban Beekeeping
Read full story · Posted in News, Yay Bees

KCET: How Bees Came Buzzing to Los Angeles

By Jaime Henderson

On February 12, 2014 a group of Los Angeles backyard beekeepers gathered together to urge the Los Angeles City Council to consider making the practice of beekeeping in Los Angeles residential zones legal. These guerilla beekeepers outlined their reasons for cultivating bees and their hives, describing their commitment to locavore living and urban farming and their personal belief in the health benefits of locally derived honey. On a larger scale, they pointed out, their work prevents colony collapse disorder, a significant problem in which pollinating honeybees desert their hives, leaving at risk important agricultural crops such as almonds, avocados and blueberries. The beekeepers argue that the urban environment’s diverse vegetation and lack of agricultural pesticides discourage such abandonment of hives. Fortunately the city council agreed to review the laws against backyard beekeeping.

Perhaps the city council members should consider that beekeeping is not new to Los Angeles and has, in fact, long been a part of the county’s agricultural history.

J.P. McIntyre and his bees, circa 1880 | Courtesy California Historical Society

J.P. McIntyre and his bees, circa 1880 | Courtesy California Historical Society

Like many of the early beekeepers themselves, bees made their way to California from the Eastern United States by ship — migration to the Western states by land was made nearly impossible by the arid mid-western plains. Typically setting off from New York, the bees and their hives made their way through the hot and humid Isthmus of Panama, landing in San Francisco wharfs, crowded and dazed upon disembarking the steamer, much like their human shipmates. The July 1, 1852 issue of the Daily Alta California reported the first importation of bees to California by Mr. W.A. Buckley and Lady of Newburgh, New York. This eccentric sounding couple arrived in San Francisco on June 28 on the steamship New Orleans, carrying the one last remaining beehive of the three they had in their possession when they left New York. Although the Daily Alta reported the hive to have arrived “with its industrious inmates in healthy working condition,” Lee H. Watkins, in his 1968 article “California’s First Honey Bees,” refutes this notion. Watkins notes that because of the bees’ long term confinement, Buckley’s admittance that he knew very little of caring for bees, and Watkins’ inability to unearth any record of W.A. Buckley or his last remaining hive, make it highly unlikely Buckley’s bees were as the Daily Alta described.

Most histories on beekeeping in California credit Christopher A. Shelton as being the first to import healthy, living hives, in 1853. After arriving by ship in San Francisco, Shelton settled in Santa Clara County with his hives — these colonies being the earliest California ancestors of the honeybee. While one of Shelton’s wayward bees might have made its way southward from Santa Clara County to Los Angeles County, historical records indicate that it is O.W. Childs who first brought a beehive into the Southland on September 4, 1854. Childs purchased his hive in San Francisco for $150, from a ship carrying many hives that had originated in New York. It is unknown where Childs settled in Los Angeles County with his hive, although the Los Angeles County foothills became a popular spot for bee ranches, or apiaries.

A Bee Ranch - San Antonio Canon, Los Angeles County, 1902 | Courtesy California Historical Society

A Bee Ranch – San Antonio Canon, Los Angeles County, 1902 | Courtesy California Historical Society

According to Thompson and West’s “History of Los Angeles County, California,” by 1860 many county residents were beekeeping, with one particular party in the county harvesting twenty-five colonies, and “several others in the same business, all doing well.” Cary McWilliams, in “Southern California: an Island on the Land,” noted that “bee-ranching became a type of bonanza farming by 1870. On a foothill homestead, the bee rancher would start with a swarm of 100 stands in October, quickly increase the swarm to 400 stands, and ship 40,000 pounds of the finest comb-honey by July.”

Most honey was shipped to San Francisco for sale, where it sold for a good profit. W. McPherson recorded that San Francisco buyers of “Los Angeles Mountain Honey” were told that “it is the purest and most delicate-flavored honey that ever comes to this market, and commands the highest price.” In fact, according to “The Surveyor General’s Report for 1871,” Los Angeles County is recorded as the greatest producer of honey of the five honey-producing Southern California counties, including Kern, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Santa Barbara, bringing in 168,000 pounds of honey at a net worth of $11,760. According to McPherson, “there [was] no easier way to make money than that of ‘Bee-Ranching,’ in Los Angeles County.”

Miller Box Manufacturing Company, Bee Keepers' Supplies, 1919 | Courtesy California Historical Society

Miller Box Manufacturing Company, Bee Keepers’ Supplies, 1919 | Courtesy California Historical Society

The growing apiary industry created the need for manufacturers of beekeeping supplies. Miller Box Manufacturing Company, located right next to the Los Angeles River at 201-233 North Avenue 18 at Pasadena Avenue, offered their customers hives, honey extractors, swarm catchers, smokers and veils for both lady and gentlemen apiarists.

Bee Keepers' Short Course, Riverside, Dec. 1919 | Courtesy California Historical Society

Bee Keepers’ Short Course, Riverside, Dec. 1919 | Courtesy California Historical Society

The popularity of beekeeping continued to grow in Los Angeles County and surrounding counties. At its first meeting in El Monte on August 18, 1873, the nine members of the Bee Keepers Association of Los Angeles gathered to adopt the organization’s constitution and by-laws. By 1880 the organization had, at its peak, 56 members. The organization continues today as the Los Angeles County Beekeepers Association, promoting educational outreach on all things bee related, and supporting bee friendly legislation.

Beekeeping has enjoyed a long history in Los Angeles County. While initially practiced primarily for profit, it has of late grown into an environmental choice, reflecting the beekeepers’ belief in the health benefits of local honey and an advocacy of local farming practices and the proliferation healthy bees and their colonies.
Resources

McPherson, W. Homes in Los Angeles city and county. Los Angeles: Mirror Book and Job Printing Establishment, 1873.

McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: an island on the land, 9th edition. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 1980.

Reproduction of Thompson and West’s History of Los Angeles County, California, 1880. Berkeley: Howell-North, 1959.

Watkins, Lee H. California’s first honey bees. American Bee Journal, Vol. 108 (5): 190-191.

[view the original article on KCET.org]

Read full story · Posted in News

CBS NEWS: Urban beekeeping flourishes: Inside the L.A. push to legalize backyard hives

Bee colonies are vital to our food supply, but they have been dying off for nearly a decade. CBS News’ Ben Tracy reports on the rise of urban beekeeping, and the push in Los Angeles for a “pro-bee” ordinance to officially allow beekeeping.

CBS This Morning

Read full story · Posted in HoneyLove Buzz, News

LA TIMES: “We need bees. We want more bees. So legalize beekeeping, L.A.”

LAtimes2013

Rob McFarland holds a beehive at a Culver City residence in 2012. He and his wife have led an effort to make beekeeping legal in LA.

We need bees. We want more bees. So legalize beekeeping, L.A.
Other cities have done it without major problems.

By The Times editorial board—December 27, 2013 

Los Angeles is honeybee heaven. The warm Southern California climate and long growing seasons provide year-round food for bees. The city’s trees, flowers and flora are largely free of pesticides. It’s the perfect place for backyard beekeeping — except that beekeeping is not legal here.

That could soon change. A group of bee advocates and neighborhood councils has been lobbying the City Council to expressly allow beekeeping on single-family residential lots. Current law permits it only in areas zoned for agriculture. Next month, the City Council will decide whether to move forward with legalized beekeeping.

There’s a good reason to allow it. Commercially raised bees used to pollinate crops are disappearing in big numbers because of what’s known as colony collapse disorder, but nobody knows what’s causing the problem. Urban honeybees may end up replenishing the diminishing supply, or providing disease-resistant genes that can be introduced in the commercial bee lines.

Los Angeles should follow the lead of other major cities and draft rules that allow residents to keep bees, while providing some common-sense protections for neighbors. There’s already an established backyard beekeeping community in Los Angeles despite the fact that it is not legal. The growing urban agriculture movement has spurred more interest in homegrown hives (in part because the bees are needed to pollinate the new urban crops) and more confusion over what is and isn’t allowed.

New York City allowed illicit apiarists to come out of the shadows in 2010, and since then hobbyists have established hives on building roofs and in backyards. The city set basic rules: Colonies must be in well-maintained, movable frame hives with a constant water source, in a location that doesn’t pose a nuisance. Beekeepers file a one-page hive registration form with the city health department each year.

Santa Monica permitted beekeeping in 2011 with similar requirements. Residents are allowed two hives per backyard, and the hives must be at least five feet from the property lines. Apiarists who don’t follow the rules or who let their hives become a nuisance to neighbors face fines or misdemeanor charges.

Both cities said they’ve had no major problems; beekeepers have largely followed the rules or moved their hives in response to complaints. And city officials said there’s been a benefit: a larger network of amateur beekeepers to call upon to remove swarms rather than exterminate them.

There will understandably be some concern and fear from neighbors — a swarm of feral honeybees can look like something out of a horror movie. Beekeeping experts say there are already lots of naturally occurring, unmanaged hives in the region. A managed hive in which bees have adequate food and space is less likely to produce a swarm.

We need bees. We want more bees. It’s time to legalize beekeeping.

[view original article via latimes.com]

Read full story · Posted in News

City Council Looks into Urban Beekeeping Ordinance

The Planning and Land Use Management Committee directed city staff to study the idea and report back in two months.
[Posted by Alexander Nguyen on Patch.com]

Sean Gallup / Getty Images

Sean Gallup / Getty Images

A City Council committee Tuesday took the first steps toward allowing residents to keep beehives in their yards for the production of honey and wax and to pollinate their gardens.

The Planning and Land Use Management Committee directed city staff to report back in two months on the best ways to allow “beekeeping” activity in single-family residential areas.

Council members who last year proposed overturning the city’s prohibition on beekeeping in those areas said promoting the practice will “foster a healthier bee population.”

The bee population has been reported to be “in steep decline,” prompting concerns that the local economy and the state’s agricultural industry would be negatively affected, according to a related motion introduced Tuesday by Councilman Jose Huizar.

His motion calls for city staff to come up with “humane and non-lethal” ways to relocate or remove unwanted bee hives to serve as alternatives to existing methods used by government agencies, “given the usefulness of bees to California’s agricultural industry and the growing popularity of urban beekeeping.” — City News Service

[view original post via Patch.com]

Read full story · Posted in News, Yay Bees

SAVE THE DATE: 12/10 @ 2:30pm – LA City PLUM Committee BEE VOTE!!

RSVP: Meetup | Facebook
Tuesday, December 10, 2:30PM
@ City Hall (3rd Floor – Public Works Board Meeting Room)
Please come out and show your support for urban beekeeping in Los Angeles!
And if you haven’t done so already, please sign our petition and send a quick email of support!!

Sanctuary Group Jump 2013

Read full story · Posted in News, Yay Bees

List of Foods We Will Lose if We Don’t Save the Bees

By: Christina Sarich, Natural Society.

800px-Bee-apis-300x200

Many pesticides have been found to cause grave danger to our bees, and with the recent colony collapses in Oregonit’s time to take a hard look at what we would be missing without bee pollination.

In just the last ten years, over 40% of the bee colonies in the US have suffered Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Bees either become so disoriented they can’t find their way back to their hives and die away from home, or fly back poison-drunk and die at the foot of their queen. There are many arguments as to what is causing CCD, but the most logical and likely culprit is the increased usage of pesticides by the likes of Monsanto and others.

A study by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has labeled one pesticide, called clothianidin, as completely unacceptable for use, and banned it from use entirely. Meanwhile, the U.S. uses the same pesticide on more than a third of its crops – nearly 143 million acres. Two more pesticides linked to bee death are imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam. These are also used extensively in the US, while elsewhere, they have been taken out of circulation.

Recently, the FDA also seized Terrence Ingram’s bees, a naturalist who had been studying bees for over 30 years, and had a  colony that was resistant to Monsanto’s Round Up. Ingram’s prized hives, along with their queens, were destroyed by the FDA, and Ingram was given no warning that his bees would be demolished.

List of Crop Plants Pollinated by Bees

While we don’t need bees to pollinate every single crop, here is just a brief list of some of the foods we would lose if all our bees continue to perish:

  • Apples
  • Mangos
  • Rambutan
  • Kiwi Fruit
  • Plums
  • Peaches
  • Nectarines
  • Guava
  • Rose Hips
  • Pomegranites
  • Pears
  • Black and Red Currants
  • Alfalfa
  • Okra
  • Strawberries
  • Onions
  • Cashews
  • Cactus
  • Prickly Pear
  • Apricots
  • Allspice
  • Avocados
  • Passion Fruit
  • Lima Beans
  • Kidney Beans
  • Adzuki Beans
  • Green Beans
  • Orchid Plants
  • Custard Apples
  • Cherries
  • Celery
  • Coffee
  • Walnut
  • Cotton
  • Lychee
  • Flax
  • Acerola – used in Vitamin C supplements
  • Macadamia Nuts
  • Sunflower Oil
  • Goa beans
  • Lemons
  • Buckwheat
  • Figs
  • Fennel
  • Limes
  • Quince
  • Carrots
  • Persimmons
  • Palm Oil
  • Loquat
  • Durian
  • Cucumber
  • Hazelnut
  • Cantaloupe
  • Tangelos
  • Coriander
  • Caraway
  • Chestnut
  • Watermelon
  • Star Apples
  • Coconut
  • Tangerines
  • Boysenberries
  • Starfruit
  • Brazil Nuts
  •  Beets
  • Mustard Seed
  • Rapeseed
  • Broccoli
  • Cauliflower
  • Cabbage
  • Brussels Sprouts
  • Bok Choy (Chinese Cabbage)
  • Turnips
  • Congo Beans
  • Sword beans
  • Chili peppers, red peppers, bell peppers, green peppers
  • Papaya
  • Safflower
  • Sesame
  • Eggplant
  • Raspberries
  • Elderberries
  • Blackberries
  • Clover
  • Tamarind
  • Cocoa
  • Black Eyed Peas
  • Vanilla
  • Cranberries
  • Tomatoes
  • Grapes

If one of your favorites is on this list, you should consider becoming a bee activist.

[read original post via realnews24.com]

Read full story · Posted in News