Thursday, May 30, 2013

I'm calling bullshit on the "government stole my bees" story

In the past few days, a story has been circulating about Terrence Ingram, an Illinois beekeeper that had his bees "illegally" taken by Department of Agriculture officials and destroyed. Furthermore, this destroyed his "decades of research" in breeding a "Roundup immune" strain of bees. I'm sorry, but everything I've read about this story just isn't credible.

First of all, there are no sources. Or as Wikipedia would put it, no reliable sources. I've seen a couple of people post links to this article at GlobalResearch, also a 9/11 troofer site. There is exactly one hit on this in Google News, which turns out to be a blog post at SouthMilwaukeeNOW.com, which cites as its original source this article at Packalert Press, which also thinks the recent OK tornado was artificially created by Obama to distract from the IRS scandal. The site that seems to have written the most about it is Prairie Advocate, which could have published a press release written by Ingram and it probably wouldn't have looked any different.

This whole story stinks. This guy claims to have been performing "research" on the effect of Roundup on bees for decades. There's nothing in Google Scholar by this guy; not a single paper. After having done over 10 years of research, no one suddenly comes out with groundbreaking results having published nothing in the meantime. Ingram claims he was about to reveal proof(!) that Roundup, everyone's favorite bugaboo, causes colony collapse disorder. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not like that hasn't occurred to anyone before. The exact cause of colony collapse disorder is unknown, but it's likely a combination of a number of factors, including parasites, viruses, and environmental toxins like pesticides.

What's a lot more likely is that this guy's hives were infected with American foulbrood, a highly contagious and incurable disease that can spread from hive to hive. In fact, that's exactly what the Department of Agriculture found when they inspected his hives and sent samples to a lab. They notified him multiple times of the fact that foulbrood had been detected in his hives and he was ordered to burn them. He continued to refuse and months later, the DoA came in, seized the hives, and (presumably) destroyed them, as they are legally allowed to do.

Ingram is outraged (outraged, I say!) that the DoA even inspected his hives. The Prairie Advocate story quotes Ingram as saying, "The State Department of Agriculture came in and inspected our hives 4 times, 3 times when we were not home, and without due process. I have never received or found a Search Warrant." Furthermore, several of the articles and blog posts on this around the Web claim that these bees were seized "illegally."

Did you know that Illinois has a Bees and Apiaries Act? Neither did I, but yes, Illinois has an entire section of the law on the keeping of bees. 510 ILCS 20/2-4 says, "The Department shall have the power to inspect ... any bees, colonies, items of bee equipment or apiary. For the purpose of inspection, the Director is authorized during reasonable business hours to enter into or upon any property used for the purpose of beekeeping." So the DoA did not need to serve Ingram with a warrant to inspect his bee hives.

Furthermore, they were entirely within their rights to seize and destroy the infected hives. After Ingram had refused multiple times to deal with the infected hives, the DoA has the authority to do it for him (and send him a bill, at that). From 510 ILCS 20/2c, "In carrying out the provisions of this Section or any quarantine, the Director may, at the expense of the owner, when an infestation, infection or nuisance is located, seize or abate bees, colonies, or items of used bee equipment."

So there simply is no story here. There was no violation of the law. There was no illegal seizure of bees or bee hives. But the fact that this guy claims to have been doing "research" into Roundup means this story is going to be flogged by Monsanto-hating activists from one end of the Internet to the other.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Whether this story is real or not is besides the point. The statements you make are far from being accurate.
[[Did you know that Illinois has a Bees and Apiaries Act? Neither did I, but yes, Illinois has an entire section of the law on the keeping of bees. 510 ILCS 20/2-4 says, "The Department shall have the power to inspect ... any bees, colonies, items of bee equipment or apiary. For the purpose of inspection, the Director is authorized during reasonable business hours to enter into or upon any property used for the purpose of beekeeping." So the DoA did not need to serve Ingram with a warrant to inspect his bee hives.]] Government agencies have NO right to enter an individuals property without probable cause of a crime or a warrant, just because they write unconstitutional laws giving themselves those rights. The fourth amendment says, 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.'
So your next statement: [[Furthermore, they were entirely within their rights to seize and destroy the infected hives. After Ingram had refused multiple times to deal with the infected hives, the DoA has the authority to do it for him (and send him a bill, at that). From 510 ILCS 20/2c, "In carrying out the provisions of this Section or any quarantine, the Director may, at the expense of the owner, when an infestation, infection or nuisance is located, seize or abate bees, colonies, or items of used bee equipment."]] is also bullsh*t. If this happened, an individual has every right to take action against the agency and officials who violated his rights.

I know this because I also maintain numerous hives and at one time my county/state agency TRIED to ignore my rights and invade my privacy and property. It didn't go well for them, one lost his job and two were reprimanded, and a "law/regulation" that had been on the books for years is no longer in force.

It's idiots like you that think that the country, city, state, or fed has the right to make these laws and does nothing to help prevent it. 99% of laws and regulations in this country are unconstitutional, but that is what socialism is all about - ignoring and eventually getting rid of the Constitution.

Alex "Rook" Grover said...

I am not trying to defend Terry, but I did find this article published before his bees were taken.

Thank you for posting the relevant parts of the Illinois be code. I have gotten so sick of seeing this story reposted again and again with none of the posters willing to do anything but rewrite a clearly biased article. You have at least done some leg work and have given yourself some basis for you opinion.

Judith Twitchell said...

I, too, questioned the veracity of this story. However, I don't trust that the Illinois officials weren't being dishonest in their accusation of foul

maria concilio said...

Narciblog. All you have to do is call Mr. Ingram. I did so and he told me the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He is a real person who has put years of work into his honeybees and is a remarkable man. Most beekeepers are made of tough material and this is what Mr. Ingram is. He is the REAL DEAL, unlike Monsanto and its covert operations, keeping folks in the dark about its products and then unleashing upon the public. I would not be so fast to call bullshit. Monsanto sends lawyers out to farmers whose crops become contaminated with gmo pollen drift and then sue THEM for using their product!
Call the man yourself, you will be more than satisfied that this is truly a case of monsanto trying to hide the results of a study conducted by Mr. Ingram.

Anonymous said...

Actually, what I find more interesting is that two of his colonies, did not, in fact have foulbrood. Pause for a second there. They were in close proximity to the disease but did not have it.

I find that FAR more interesting and thing some of the larvae should be taken and tested for Foulbrood resistance.

As for the infected ones, yes, by all means... but the uninfected ones... at least check.