Jump to content
Dennis Crowley

Boundary Riding Beekeeping

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Shem said:

Corporates external to the community would muscle in with beekeeping merely an extractive industry.

@Shem, you may have missed something! The above as quoted is exactly the reality of the now!

Not solely corporates, there are also the larger (very in some instances) operators/partnerships that are well entrenched in pillaging most all districts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Shem said:

 

Quota? Details please:  is it by number of hives? yield of honey? quota for species floral source? overlapping quota areas? or a set  geographic area? pollination quotas? number of queens  raised quota? amateur quota? How does it all fit together? How is it going to account for land use change?

 

I'm tending to side with the concept of beekeeping as a symbiotic  activity:  a humble  service for the well-being of agricultural communities. There should be protection of local communities.

 

Skin in the industry through a quota done wrongly will lead to a sense of entitlement, and an enclosure of the floral commons, and eventual corporatisation  of bee space by outsiders. Knowing how government and local government think, it would be a mess. Corporates external to the community would muscle in with beekeeping merely an extractive industry.

 

There should be rules; around apiary isolation distances; hive numbers per cadastre or at least per apiary; allowance outside these rules for crop pollination services at flowering only, for short time period flowering crops, eg avocado, kiwifruit; mandatory notification of hive movements before movement, and mandatory disease inspection of hives before movement.

 

Its a commercial idea for commercial discussion.

As a recreational fisho I had no part in quota discussions as my rights are represented otherwise

Edited by Philbee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Philbee said:

IMO such a system would transform the industry over night

in a good way, or in a bad way?

would be interesting to list all the pros and cons we can come up with. My knee-jerk reaction is that it would be a negative, but i'm aware that's a reaction without any analysis done

1 hour ago, Philbee said:

Its a commercial idea for commercial discussion.

As a recreational fisho I had no part in quota discussions as my rights are represented otherwise

would the proposed quota idea preclude hobby hives in some areas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

 

My summation is negative to the extreme. Take a look at the Crayfish industry?

A few multi millionaires and very few others with even a look in.

For those who would directly benefit I can easily see the attraction! The rest of us can just fade away, go broke etc.................

The few selling out the birthright of many for selfish gain?

Edited by Ali
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tommy dave said:

in a good way, or in a bad way?

would be interesting to list all the pros and cons we can come up with. My knee-jerk reaction is that it would be a negative, but i'm aware that's a reaction without any analysis done

Structure creates security and stability.

A quota system would obviously be hurdle for new entrants which on one hand may  sounds like a protectionist attitude but on the other hand, a lack of such hurdles has contributed to the current situation.
I think its short sighted to suggest that we  will never again experience such pressure on sites as we have experienced recently because we just dont know whats around the corner or 10yrs down the track.

IMO we have two choices 

Introduce some structure or remain in the wild west

Everyone wins or everyone loses

 

 

The Grandparenting data for a Quota system is all in place


 

12 minutes ago, Ali said:

The rest of us can just fade away, go broke etc

Please explain 

  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wild west is far preferable to any quota arrangements.

The well established beekeeper may possibly benefit (most probably) by receiving high value tradeable quota which will very rapidly become a very high cost commodity.

If a small operator wants to expand he/she will have to buy additional quota that will be beyond the capacity of the ordinary beek. Worse still they will most probably have to lease that quota from an already incredibly wealthy quota holder.

It is nothing but a thinly disguised get richer scheme for the already established larger operator.

It is no wonder some are interested. No money for honey currently, lets grab it another way!

However, if the established larger beek had to bid for and buy their quota there would be an outcry would there not @Philbee.

There are better fairer ways!

No Quota, no elite priviledges.

Just now, Ali said:

The wild west is far preferable to any quota arrangements.

The well established beekeeper may possibly benefit (most probably) by receiving high value tradeable quota which will very rapidly become a very high cost commodity.

If a small operator wants to expand he/she will have to buy additional quota that will be beyond the capacity of the ordinary beek. Worse still they will most probably have to lease that quota from an already incredibly wealthy quota holder.

It is nothing but a thinly disguised get richer scheme for the already established larger operator.

It is no wonder some are interested. No money for honey currently, lets grab it another way!

However, if the established larger beek had to bid for and buy their quota there would be an outcry would there not @Philbee.

There are better fairer ways without creating a closed shop and another priviledged class.

No Quota, no elite priviledges.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fishing is not beekeeping.

 

Fish quotas are needed to prevent species being exterminated.

 

How does that relate to beekeeping?

Edited by Alastair
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fish quotas are required to stop fish going extinct but it could have been done a lot differently with controls in place to stop corporatisation and encourage individual ownership. I feel the same way about farms and houses and to some extent beekeeping..

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ali said:

It is nothing but a thinly disguised get richer scheme for the already established larger operator.

You're wrong @Ali 😁.In context of this thread,  a quota is simply one of the options put forward in reply to the OP.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So. Quotas are assigned.

 

A beekeepers hive numbers have slowly increased, and he finds he is now right on his quota.

 

He goes to his apiary and finds 5 swarms hanging in nearby trees. He finds other hives about to swarm and the only way to prevent that now is to split them. But he is at his quota. 

 

What does he do?

Edited by Alastair
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is the scenario, a quota doesn't have an allowance for losses.  A lot of oufits know what their per centage of hive losses will be, and carry top splits or nucs over winter.  What happens if things are rosy with no hive or nuc losses.  Come spring, the outfit could well be over their quota.

 

Who on earth is going to police all this?  No doubt the cost would be passed onto the beekeeper. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quota is a disaster proposal in my opinion, to be avoided utterly and completely. I think I have said this in one way or the other already.

A code of practice with penalties for non compliance is probably called for to bring sense to the industry. There certainly needs to be a sort out.

Alternatives need to be explored to achieve a workable platform that encourages the industry without creating a repeat of past mistakes.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Philbee said:

Its a commercial idea for commercial discussion.

As a recreational fisho I had no part in quota discussions as my rights are represented otherwise

 

Ouch! I'm a beginner not a hobby beek.

 

14 hours ago, Philbee said:

The Grandparenting data for a Quota system is all in place

 

So Philbee's quota idea is number of hives in a particular area.

The quota isn't the number of fishing boats (hives or trucks) nor the number of fisherwomen or nets (bees or apiarists in a business), rather, it's the quantity of fish ( nectar pollen propalis ). The resource is on both public and private land. Some agricultural businesses ( farms, orchards) see beekeeping as an extractive industry from which the farmer clips the ticket; others pay for a pollination service and presently decide who they engage to do that job.As land use changes so may the need for pollination services. Does someone want the government to decide who provides pollination services to my specialised crop? If deciding on how quota is to be set up is  a commercial idea for commercial discussion, then  growers of all shades and owners of patented plant material should be included in  this discussion. @Dennis Crowley those who require specialist pollination services or have protected plant material should be  consulted on apiary rules anyway because we have thoughts that can help make the whole thing  work.

46 minutes ago, Ali said:

A code of practice with penalties for non compliance is probably called for to bring sense to the industry. There certainly needs to be a sort out.

Alternatives need to be explored to achieve a workable platform that encourages the industry without creating a repeat of past mistakes.

 

There is a code of practice at https://apinz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ApiNZ-Beekeeper-Code-of-Conduct.pdf 

You could go through it and sort things out.

The past mistakes were to get rid of the rules. Anybody old enough who still remembers what we used to have (of that which was good)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shem said:

So Philbee's quota idea is number of hives in a particular area.

No, it's a cap on national hive numbers.

Regional densities are a second tier consideration.

As for who decides who pollinates your crop, that would be decided by you of course, and your choice would be from a pool of Beeks who have the required Hive numbers to do your job.
 

In some countries, If the train is full you climb onto the roof

In New Zealand if the train was full then you would wait for another train.

5 hours ago, john berry said:

Fish quotas are required to stop fish going extinct

In the modern world in general terms, no one gives a hoot about a species that goes extinct, unless of course the threatened happens to be a valuable commodity.

 

So on this basis, fishing quotas are not about saving a species, they are about saving a resource.

Bees are a resource in that they are pollinators so rules to protect them are vital.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Philbee said:

Bees are a resource in that they are pollinators so rules to protect them are vital.

 

Bees are not about to go extinct so rules are not needed to protect them. The problem is too many not too few.

Edited by Alastair
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alastair said:

 

Bees are not about to go extinct so rules are not needed to protect them. The problem is too many not too few.

Put that in terms of sustainability.

Its likely we will see a substantial drop in Hive numbers over the next 2 years and not only a drop in numbers but a substantial change in Hive distribution.

For many farmers this will represent a shortage of pollinators

So in my mind the lack of structure allows or facilitates a perpetual cycle of swinging from one form of unsustainability  to another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things worked back when there were 200,000 hives in NZ, rather than the million or so we have now.

 

Rather than a perpetual cycle of swings from one form of unsustainability to another, there has only been one unsustainable swing in NZ bee numbers. The one we are in now.

 

It will be resolved by economic reality and it will be back to the way things worked the last 150 years.

 

Perhaps in another 150 years there will be another bee industry swing of some kind, however i suspect there will be a lot of other things to worry about by then.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Things worked back when there were 200,000 hives in NZ, rather than the million or so we have now.

 

Rather than a perpetual cycle of swings from one form of unsustainability to another, there has only been one unsustainable swing in NZ bee numbers. The one we are in now.

 

It will be resolved by economic reality and it will be back to the way things worked the last 150 years.

 

Perhaps in another 150 years there will be another bee industry swing of some kind, however i suspect there will be a lot of other things to worry about by then.

I very much doubt that there are any current economic models that would use anything near a 150 year cycle.

7-10yrs is far more realistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point. No such 7 - 10 year cycle has occurred or can be demonstrated in the beekeeping industry. There is no 7 - 10 year cycle lurching from one form of unsustainability to another, and there is no need to draft laws to protect us from something that does not actually exist.

.

There has been a once in 150 year event.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Alastair said:

My point. No such 7 - 10 year cycle has occurred or can be demonstrated in the beekeeping industry. There is no 7 - 10 year cycle lurching from one form of unsustainability to another, and there is no need to draft laws to protect us from something that does not actually exist.

.

There has been a once in 150 year event.

What you are probably not considering is the existing marketing machine that is right now working to reinstate the Honey market. 

Like Bees rebuilding broken Comb

Manuka  created a precedent, its created infrastructure and knowledge, confidence and opportunity.
Its caused unprecedented proliferation.

To suggest that  we are about to step back 150 years is to drastically underestimate Human nature and the world we live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some areas overstocking occurred well before the manuka boom. Kiwifruit pollination caused a major increase in hive numbers and a proliferation of beekeepers along with hive theft and AFB. Our current problems are just on a bigger scale.

On the subject of older beekeepers I think I would prefer to be called a prime beekeeper  and perhaps the new beekeepers could be sub-primes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or in some cases, sub alphas. 😄

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/07/2019 at 5:54 PM, Dennis Crowley said:

Me and a few others have been asked to meet with a local council next week to discuss boundary riding beekeeping, their issue is around freshly planted manuka blocks.

Im coming from the point that all beekeeping sites should be included.

I know this is a hot topic is fraught with anxiety, anger, frustration, fear etc etc.

What I would like to hear from you is your thoughts as to how you may see a way around this issue, but you also have to have a plan as to how to implement it.

For example, if you say " we should just have 400000 beehives in NZ", then how do you propose for that to happen. 

Put your thinking caps on please.

 

 

It's a local council. Try the Treaty of Waitangi  principles in the LGA and the RMA. The affected parties will let you know their viewpoint. And it's not just the beekeepers.

We don't know that lowering hive numbers is necessary; it may just be laziness on the part of beeks not spacing apiaries to manage the resource fairly. @Goran 's post on Alternatives to quotas https://www.nzbees.net/forums/topic/13389-alternative-to-any-hive-quotarights-system/?do=findComment&comment=219463

is an indication of the legislative approach there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Alastair said:

My point. No such 7 - 10 year cycle has occurred or can be demonstrated in the beekeeping industry. There is no 7 - 10 year cycle lurching from one form of unsustainability to another, and there is no need to draft laws to protect us from something that does not actually exist.

.

There has been a once in 150 year event.

I think you correct in this @Alastair, it has been a drawn out event with big changes within the industry and now considerable repercussions for many. The current aftermath event/period we are now in amongst seems to be presumed by many to entail a drastic reduction in hive numbers.

I seriously believe this will not be the case.

While some will choose to leave the business I believe the large and largest will continue and fill the gaps with vigour thus perpetuating the overstocking (in some areas) we have now. 

There are issues that need to be addressed to push back against the current behaviours/conduct of the larger aggressive operators who will continue to damage the futures of the others and the diversity of the industry. 

5 hours ago, Philbee said:

What you are probably not considering is the existing marketing machine that is right now working to reinstate the Honey market. 

Like Bees rebuilding broken Comb

Manuka  created a precedent, its created infrastructure and knowledge, confidence and opportunity.
Its caused unprecedented proliferation.

To suggest that  we are about to step back 150 years is to drastically underestimate Human nature and the world we live in.

I fully agree @Philbee. There has been massive investment by some who will continue, I believe with ultimate success in considerable profitability.

I don't believe these folk will reduce hive numbers but will fill the gaps created by the current low price for non Manuka honey. 

A recovery of non Manuka prices will be seen when/after a considerable number of the smaller holdings have been pushed from the scene. 

The few largest ( and the large) will prevail if left unchecked to continue what is currently being done by way of overstocking and manipulation of the industry.

To ensure the survival of the midsize and small operators their is a need for an enforcable code of practice in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

While that is logical, in fact it is not a downsizing that will cause the rise of large players and corporates. That was caused by the manuka boom and the resultant upsizing, and some  corporates with different ethics to the traditional family owned businesses practise of buying up or squeezing out small players.

 

The claim that the manuka boom has created infrastructure and knowledge, is true, in part. The money has certainly enabled the creation of infrastructure. Knowledge I'm not so sure, a feature of the last couple of decades has been the entry of players with very little knowledge, but they have been able to survive due to the exhorbitant prices their small per hive crops have generated. With prices moving back towards international norms, some of those people will find it tough, and they will be the ones possibly swallowed by larger players, however some of the larger players also suffer from lack of knowledge and are busy downsizing right now, and may end up on the scrap heap also.

 

A problem for even skilled beekeepers working the profitable manuka honey feilds, is the exhorbitant site rents that landowners have come to expect, severely affecting profitability for the beekeeper. As long as there is fierce competition and sites go to the highest bidder / risk taker, the issue will continue. A common feature of human nature is that most people like to think they are just that little bit smarter than the next guy, and overestimate their own ability to outcompete.

Edited by Alastair
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...