Then you're screwed. But that link that you're citing isn't the current state law either. It's being proposed but not currently the rules to be followed.
Not sure if the new 3 hive rules is because of houses all around each other (1 on each side and one behind) or because the state figures there isn't much places for the bees to go for food or just the amount of hives a backyard?
Last edited by trance; 04-16-2013 at 07:16 PM.
As with all rules there will be exceptions i am sure.
Just have your land declared agricultural use.
Also there is that " intragal to the beekeeping operation" loophole which may allow the state to help you out. The inspectors in Florida are very helpful and beneficial to the Florida Beekeepers. At least that has always been my experience and anyone else I have talked with's experience. And I have talked with a lot of folks.
I'm seldom a fan of increasing government oversight. The rules are already in place. So you have a few choices, ignore and possibly suffer enforcement, lobby to change the laws or learn what they are how they apply to you and comply.
I can see from the replies that some don't understand the EHB requirement of BMP. I'll explain as I understand it. In order for me to raise queens to sell or requeen my own stock I needed to call my apiary inspected and have them come out. She asked which stock I was grafting from and took bees from each line and sent them to be tested for AHB. We had a conversation about BMP and my Drone source. I paid a fee of $25.00 ( I think ) and received an Okay from the state a short while later.
You do not have to bring in Magic bees from a far away place! Your inspector my caution against some specific out of state breeders.
I have one yard that every other time a hive supersedes and a queen flys out and open mates I get a hive of snotty bees. I could have this yard tested tomorrow and I'm confident every hive would test AHB negative. I just keep an eye on those hives and re queen with mated queens from my home yard. It's not a good local drone pool and I know it.
I'm sure that professional breeders struggle with unwanted genetics and other problems that would put them out off business if they didn't work through them. The good ones have their genetics in nearly every state in the country. It's not because they stop at the bare requirements of BMP.
As kind and gentle as I can say it ....Your statement in the quote above is a distortion of the truth and a little bit over the top.
Sorry guys. i cannot comment on a rule that has been in discussion and use (in various changes) for years, and is still getting revised for some time to come.
Anyone in Florida can raise queens under the BMP by paying the $25 and getting a Queen Certificate. If you sell bees or queens in Florida, you are supposed to have a Queen Certificate anyway.
You can tell if your queen is or has been superceded as supercedure queens are not born clipped or marked.
There is indeed an exception provision that many may take advantage of with the OP's situation.
Apiary Inspection will never become "Bee Cops" even if we had the manpower.
I have several beekeepers I personally inspected that spread their hives over several neighbors. This has the side benefit of getting more people interested and knowlegable about bees.
We also have beekeepers in deed restricted communities that have fairly effectively made their case and are still keeping bees. The secret seems to be positive friendly dialog, instead of whining.
Thanks for the reply americanbeekeeper.
If the point of this regulation is to prevent Africanized genetic material from getting a foothold in your apiary, how does a supercedure queen fit in? If she frolics with Africanized drones on her mating flight, then you have the very situation the regulation is supposed to prevent. And you won't know it until the bees are tested. Do you think all bees should be tested?5. Queen honey bee colony divisions or splits with production queens or queen cells from an EHB certified queen breeder, or from queens/queen cells acquired from outside the range of Africanized honey bees.
I have no objection to regulating those who sell queens (even though most queens are open mated.) I don't see the utility of requiring this level of regulation for a hobbyist who wants to have a spare nuc in case he needs to replace a colony. As I read the regulation, it would not be legal to let that nuc make their own queen.
Then there's this:
I suppose there's loophole there for supercedure queens. You could say "I know the source of that queen. She came from right here in this hive." But how is that any different functionally from letting a nuc raise its own queen?6. Requeen collected swarms, new colonies and maintain colonies with queens from EHB queen producers immediately if the queen source is unknown.
Remember, this is a draft. That means that the system you described will change if these regulations are adopted.
I'd love to be reassured that my concerns are groundless. But all I have to go on is the language in the draft, which is not reassuring. Since the system of treatment free beekeeping that I find most plausible involves brood breaks and replacement nucs, I fear that these new regulations will prevent me from pursuing this endeavor as I see fit. Maybe that would be okay if I thought the regulations would accomplish their intended purpose, but I can't see how they will prevent Africanized genes, given the fact that you have limited control over the genetics of supercedure queens.
"Dude! Don't over think this! We're just cookin' hot dogs here...". Mark Berninghausen
Thank you for your interest and voicing your concerns over Chapter 586, Florida Administrative Code, Rule 5B-54, specifically the Best Management Requirements (BMR), and the recommended revisions which are under consideration for adoption.
Under the currently revised draft of the Beekeeper Compliance Agreement-Best Management Requirements for Maintaining European Honey Bee Colonies, there is a diversity of lot sizes and honey bee colony densities:
A. One quarter acre or less tract size - 3 colonies.
B. More than one-quarter acre, but less than one-half acre tract size - 6 colonies.
C. More than one-half acre, but less than one acre tract size - 10 colonies.
D. One acre or larger tract size - 15 colonies or more.
E. On tracts of one or more acres, where all hives are situated at least 150 feet in any direction from all property lines of the tract on which the apiary is situated, there shall be no limit to the number of colonies.
F. Regardless of tract size, so long as all property other than the tract upon which the hives are situated, that is within a radius of at least 150 feet from any hive, remains undeveloped property, there shall be no limit to the number of colonies.
If you are not able to meet the standard requirements, then you have the ability to request an exception “special permit” that could be used for already established beekeepers (grandfathered in). Because of the possibility of extenuating circumstances (public safety), FDACS cannot allow blanket coverage for all beekeeping operations. If requested a location(s) can be reviewed case by case, and possibly may obtain special permitting as stated in the BMRs:
The honeybee colony requirements/densities may not be exceeded except under a special permit
letter issued by the Director of the Division of Plant Industry.
We trust that we have addressed your concerns. If we may be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The Law is in effect as of July 2012, we have to make changes in our Regulation 5B-54 which require approximately 90 days from the day they publish the changes before they can adopted the new rules.
Here’s the guideline we follow:
Directions and General Guidance
The following sets forth the Department’s internal administrative rulemaking policy as approved by the Commissioner’s Office. The purpose of this form is to standardize the format in which the divisions communicate with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and the Commissioner’s Office and is to be used by all divisions throughout the rulemaking process.
Approval Required: The Commissioner is required by statute to approve the Notice of Proposed Rule and Rule Adoption packages. The Commissioner has delegated approval for all other steps in the rulemaking process to the Assistant Commissioner. See §120.54(1)(k), F.S.
Statutory Authority and Department of State Rules: Rulemaking is governed by Chapter 120, F.S. and Chapter 1B-30, F.A.C.
E-Rulemaking System: All notices must be submitted electronically using the Department of State’s E-rulemaking system. The OGC is the administrator of this system for the Department. Each division director has designated at least one employee to be responsible for submitting notices on behalf of their division. Each division should notify the OGC to update employees which should have access to the system as frequently as necessary.
Rule Development begins when:
· A new legislative act requires implementation by Departmental rule. The rule must be adopted within 180 days of the effective date of the act or as otherwise provided in the act. See §120.54(1)(b), F.S. Implementation of a statute cannot be delayed pending adoption of rules unless the statute so provides. See §120.54(1)(c), F.S.
· The Division administering existing statutory authority determines a program requires a new policy of general application or begins to develop a general policy which has not been adopted as a rule.
The statutory definition of a rule includes “any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule.” See §120.52(16), F.S. Department forms which meet this definition must be incorporated by reference into a rule and when any substantive changes are made to the form the rule reference must be updated through rulemaking.
Notice of Rule Development (NRD):
· The NRD package must include for approval: a copy of the Department’s Rule Transmittal Memo and the draft NRD. The proposed rule text is not required for a NRD, but if a draft has been prepared the proposed rule text should be included in the rule package along with any incorporated materials such as forms. A NRD is not required to repeal an entire rule, but is required to repeal only a portion of a rule.
· Approval by the Assistant Commissioner authorizes the Division to submit the NRD for publication and to schedule a workshop, if necessary. Workshops may be held before NRD is published. However, a Notice of a Rule Workshop will not replace the NRD.
Combined Request for Notice of Proposed Rule Development (NRD) and for Notice of Proposed Rule (NPR):
If the proposed rule amendments are prepared and the Division does not foresee a request for a rule workshop by an affected party, the Division may request approval to publish the NRD and NPR in the first request for approval.
Rule Development Workshops and Rule Hearings: A rule development workshop or rule hearing should be scheduled only if the Division believes that a workshop is appropriate under the circumstances OR if one is requested by an affected person. When preparing a NRD or NPR, the OGC recommends that the Division specify in the notice that “if requested a [workshop or hearing] will be held” on date and time identified in the notice. The agenda for the rule workshop or hearing must be posted on the Department’s website at least seven days before the event. See §120.525, F.S.
Notice of Proposed Rule (NPR):
· A NPR should be published within one calendar year from the date of publication of the NRD. The NPR package must include for approval: 1) the Department’s Rule Transmittal Memo; 2) the draft NPR (including proposed rule text); 3) incorporated materials (if any); 4) a draft letter to SBRAC and OTTED regarding the impact on small business, See §120.54(3)(b), F.S.; 5) a draft letter to JAPC transmitting the “Initial Proposed Rule Review File.”
· The JAPC “Initial Proposed Rule Review File” must include: 1) the Notice of Proposed Rule with proposed rule text, 2) a Summary Sheet with Statement of Justification, Rule Summary, Federal Standards Statement (if applicable), a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (if applicable), and 3) Copies of any Incorporated Documents. See §120.54(3)(a)4., F.S.
· Each rule in the proposed NPR must be followed by the appropriate legal citations (consisting of the “Rulemaking Authority” and “Law Implemented”) and “History Notes.” See §120.54(3), F.S. and 1B-30.004, F.A.C.
· After a NPR is approved by the Commissioner, the Division is authorized to submit the NPR for publication, to transmit the “Initial Review File” to JAPC, to transmit the letters to SBRAC and OTTED, and to schedule and hold a rule hearing, if necessary. The Division is also responsible for electronically submitting any incorporated documents to the Department of State. See 1B-30.005, F.A.C.
· Publication of the NPR begins the ninety day statutory timeframe for rule adoption. See §120.54(3)(e)2., F.S.
· The Division must forward a copy of any hearing requests and comments from JAPC to the OGC.
· Technical changes are defined as non-substantive changes, errors in punctuation, misspellings, corrections of tense, changes of address or telephone number, or similar changes that do not affect the construction or meaning of the rule. See 1B-30.002(10), F.A.C.
· Technical changes not affecting the substance of the rule or incorporated materials may be accomplished by writing a letter to the Department of State’s Administrative Code and Weekly Section. The Division must confer with the OGC before submitting a letter requesting technical changes.
Notice of Change:
· Any change other than a technical change must be supported by at least one of the following: 1) the record of any rule hearing; 2) written material submitted to the Department as part of any rule hearing; or 3) comments from JAPC regarding the proposed rule.
· If a change to the proposed rule is required, the Division must prepare a Notice of Change package which must include: 1) a copy of the Department’s Rule Transmittal Memo with an explanation of the need for substantive revisions; 2) the Notice of Change with the changes to the proposed rule published in the NPR; 3) any incorporated materials with the changes indicated; and 4) a draft of the proposed letter to JAPC containing an explanation of the reasons for the Notice of Change.
Notice of Withdrawal: If the Division decides to withdraw the proposed rule package after NPR and before adoption, the Division must prepare a Notice of Withdrawal which must include the following: a copy of the Rule Transmittal Memo with an explanation of the need to withdraw the rulemaking and the Notice of Withdrawal.
· The Rule Adoption package must include the following: 1) a copy of the Rule Transmittal Memo; 2) a draft letter to JAPC (“7-day letter”) advising that no changes have been made to the proposed rule and that the agency intends to file the rule for adoption; 3) a cover letter to the Department of State with the contact information for the Division’s rule coordinator; 4) a Rule Certification for the Commissioner’s signature; 5) the final coded proposed rule text including legal citations and history notes; 6) a compact disk with the coded rule text (do not send to OGC); 7) A Summary Sheet with Rule Summary, Statement of Justification, and Hearings Summary of any hearings held. See 1B-30.002(1), F.A.C.
· If any materials are incorporated by reference, the Division must also include a Certification of Materials Incorporated by Reference for the Commissioner’s signature. All non-copyrighted materials must be filed electronically with the Department of State no later than three business days prior to the rule adoption. See 1B-30.005, F.A.C. The Division must include a copy of the email confirmation of filing of incorporated materials with the Certification of Materials Incorporated by Reference. See 1B-30.002(1)(a)3., F.A.C.
· Rule File: The Division is responsible for maintaining a permanent file for each rule containing the entire rulemaking record. See §120.54(8), F.S. At the conclusion of rulemaking, the OGC will return its documentation pertaining to the rulemaking to the Division for inclusion in the rulemaking file.