Illinois illegally seizes bees resistant to Monsanto's Roundup; Kills remaining Queens

After reading this topic and the previous one, in my opinion it sounds like the ag people did the right thing. The man had months of written warnings, and did nothing. The beekeepers on here are the real experts, and they seem in agreement on this as well, so I defer to their informed opinions and analyses.

Sometimes people at the very heart of a problem are the last ones to recognize it, and people with pride in a history of success and expertise are also sometimes loathe to admit that they too can have failures, or make mistakes.

Why take action for farmed hives and not wild ones? I'd assume for the same reason we get most of our honey from farmed bees, and use them so much to pollinate crops: predictable, reliable production on a schedule that makes honey available in every grocery in america, year round. That, and that the density of kept hives in a given area is probably a lot higher than in the wild, so more chance of an "outbreak" scenario. Just a guess.

reply to post by setibuddies


I don't know. To me it just sounds like it went down like this:

They told the guy to pretty much shut down his whole operation. The reason they gave was foulbrood.

He said he knows what it is, has admitted that he's seen it before and knows what it looks like, what its effects are, and is well aware of how to get rid of it. If it's his livelihood, he's probably going to want to protect it.

So he tells them to sod off, he doesn't have it.

(I'm assuming) They took samples prior and had it lab tested. (Did they get photographic evidence of its presence on the scene while they collected it? This would have been so easy to do.) Was all of it consumed in the testing? If, as others have said, it is to be immediately destroyed then I would assume that it was.

If he indeed did not have access to it, what was he to submit? I'm a little sketchy on this - he's supposed to dispute the lab results of some sample yet the sample is no longer available?

Then they up and seize his bees, and subsequently destroy it all.

He tries to seek recourse, but they tell him that since he can't provide any evidence to back up what he's saying he's out of luck.

It just sounds like we rely on the trust factor a bit too much in this whole scenario.

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
So he tells them to sod off, he doesn't have it.

Not exactly.

The way I read it, he said it's not a threat because the bees had sealed off the contaminated area, and they weren't infected with it. But he did admit that they could find it in samples because when officials sampled the hive, they broke into the sealed areas and then could not only find what the bees had sealed off, but their sampling methods had actually caused contamination that had already been addressed by the bees.

I was slightly biased when I started reading about this to believe the officials and to think the beekeeper was in the wrong, but by the time I finished reading all his defenses, it actually sounded coherent and logical and had me wondering if the officials are wrong and the beekeeper might be right....I don't really know, but he made a good enough case to sway my bias against him and wonder what the true facts are.

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
In my 10 years on the force I always made it a habit to destroy any evidence I collected at crime scenes, everyone just took my word for it and that was the end of the matter.

Do they keep the blood drawn in a DUI arrest as evidence of someone being drunk, or do they destroy it and use the lab results as the evidence?

This is the same thing here. You don't keep the contaminated substance, you just keep the lab results.

Additionally, just like a vehicle operators waive certain rights via contract with the DMV, certain industries (especially those dealing with agriculture) waive rights in order to receive a license to operate in that industry as well.

reply to post by defcon5


Usually those tests are drawn by an independent third party - at least, I don't ever remember having to draw blood myself. The staff at the hospital usually did it. If you're talking about, say, a breathalyzer test then that raises an interesting point, although I'm not exactly sure how one would preserve a sample of some drunk guy's nasty beer breath. Those machines are calibrated by an independent party.

For other cases, such as residual fluids found on weapons and stuff, all that is kept and preserved, just a small amount of it is sent off to the lab and if more tests need to be made they can always re-swab.

In all cases though, we usually make it a point to take some sort of video or photographic evidence too - especially if the suspect is being uncooperative. We also wouldn't slit the bottom of a trash bag someone was taking out and then arrest them for littering, that would be a dick move.

You guys all have awesome points, and you are right the procedures and allowances for twig pigs (I say this in a jestfully endearing way) are quite different, and those guys have to re-up their training every year which I hear can be a big pain in the @$$. So I have massive respect for them. I will concede that they indeed do things differently though in this case different may not necessarily mean better.

It just doesn't sit well that they pretty much completely wiped this guy and, I know cops, sometimes when they get confronted or questioned the urge to go overboard is not resisted by all.

Thanks for all your comments defcon5 and everyone else who contributed.

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
Usually those tests are drawn by an independent third party - at least, I don't ever remember having to draw blood myself. The staff at the hospital usually did it.

I'm sure it varies by state, but in mine its done either by medical contract nurses that are part of the DUI roadblock detail (they actually tow a trailer to the site for them), or its done in the jail again by state/county contracted nurses. These nurses are the same type that work in the medical facilities of the jails and prisons. Not exactly a third party though, they do work directly under the law enforcement branch they are supporting (state police, city police, county sheriff, etc).

reply to post by defcon5


Another excellent point. When I worked on a municipal level and the county level, every time someone insisted on a blood test it usually ended up burning the rest of the shift since we had to drag the guy to the nearest hospital and have them take it.

This was back in the 90's, also, so I'm sure there's been a lot of changes and such since.

reply to post by KyrieEleison

This was back in the 90's, also, so I'm sure there's been a lot of changes and such since.

Yah, there has. I won't reveal where I witnessed this but I saw a guy refusing to give a breathalyzer test being held down and sat on as they forced a mask over his mouth. He was struggling in vain on the floor under a dog pile and the whole time the officer sitting on him was saying, "Your doing good, hold your breath as long as you can, thats it".

The point being this guy was going to breathe sooner or later and they would have their sample. What I watched appeared practiced as thought they had done it a lot.

Anyway, about the bees. We poisoned them. Now they are killing them on purpose because they are resistant to pesticides? Isn't that a good thing? Why would they kill the queens that are breeding pesticide resistant bees?