THE APIARIES ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21264, 19 February 1931, Page 5

THE APIARIES ACT.

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir, —Will you kindly allow me space to make a, few remarks on a judgment at a recent prosecution conducted .by the apiary inspector in Central Otago against an offender under the Apiaries Act. The prosecution was for neglecting to treat foulbrood and exposing infected material. The maximum fine for this offence was in the last amendment of the Apiaries Act increased from £2O to £SO. That in itself points out the seriousness of the offence. Now-, is it helping the industry if a man convicted of this offence against tlie Act gets off with a paltry fine of 10 shillings and 10 shillings costs —and that after time and warning given by the inspector to treat the bees and hives. The offence constitutes a menace to beekeepers who comply with the provisions of the Act and keep their bees clean. A careless beekeeper, knowing that the inspector cannot, on account of having too big a district to cover, and because, also, of economising in his department, come as often as would be necessary to follow up cases such as this, is tempted to neglect to carry out instructions to treat his hives, and it is only a salutary fine that will make him take notice and that will act as a warning of the consequences of disregarding the law r . Very often beekeepers are put to considerable expense and work in treating their hives after in-’ fection from a careless neighbour’s bees. The cost of this is often considerably more than the fine that was imposed-last week. Beekeeping is one of the primary growing industries. New Zealand has admittedly the best Apiaries Act in the world, and employs competent inspectors, but all goes for nothing, and Government money is wasted if the magistrates do not appreciate the seriousness of cases brought before them and fail adequately to enforce the law.— l am, etc.. Apis.