23

Recently had an issue with a honeybee hive and a beekeeper said to me "It's illegal to kill honeybees". Not completely believing this at face value, I did a little digging.

My research seems to show that honeybees are protected against certain types of pesticide use. To me, the laws surrounding the bees seem primarily directed at farms/orchards and more "commercial" methods of eliminating bee populations, not private individuals. I am aware that I may be incorrect in that interpretation.

If an individual private home owner were to spray a honeybee hive, clearly on their property, with an EPA approved, over-the-counter, general, pesticide - one not specifically engineered for bee killing - what legal ramifications might there be, if any?

Scott
  • 1,664
  • 1
  • 17
  • 25
  • The bees native to north America are the bumble bees, they don't produce honey. The honey bees you find in na are of euroasain descent. They tend to take over and compete with bumblebee for pollen and depending on who you ask can be considered an invasive specie – Neil Meyer Apr 10 '20 at 15:06
  • 6
    I'm not sure about Oregon specifically, but honeybees are considered livestock in many states. They would need to be owned and worked by someone. IANAL but if you had a swarm in your garage (when a hive splits after a new queen is born) split off a commercial hive and you sprayed the swarm with approved pesticides as it tried to make a hive in your garage, you would not get in trouble. That being said, please follow the advice given and call someone to remove the bees instead of killing them! – L0j1k Apr 10 '20 at 15:06
  • 6
    @NeilMeyer: there are roughly 4000 species of bees which are native to North America. Here's a reference – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Apr 10 '20 at 22:24
  • 1
    @vsz you can use any pesticide labeled for bee-killing. I am told they exist. I would expect them to be sold pre-mixed in 6-ounce cans, and decidedly not 42-gallon drums of concentrate, because such products are appropriate for a garden shed and not appropriate for use 2000 gallons at a time (after dilution). – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 12 '20 at 03:27
  • 2
    It's not an answer to this question since it doesn't exclude the possibility of other laws banning use of pesticides against honeybees, but I asked (and self-answered) a separate question to clarify the issue of whether 7 USC 136j prohibits this (short version: it doesn't.) – reirab Apr 13 '20 at 08:20

3 Answers3

70

I believe you are correct. It doesn't seem illegal for a private individual to use a bee pesticide (following label instructions) to remove a beehive from property that you own. There are federal laws regarding the commercial use of pesticides which are regulated under the EPA (not the FDA). People are encouraged to report bees being killed to the EPA from commercial operations.

However, if you do have a problem with a honey bee nest on your property I would highly recommend that you contact the local beekeepers association first. Usually they can have somebody out the same day to remove and relocate the nest. Removing and relocating bees is actually not that hard (for a trained individual). Honey bees don't pose a risk unless somebody is allergic, and they are not aggressive.

My neighbor usually has four or five hives on his property, and we see the bees all the time. My kids enjoy watching them climb into flowers or buzz around the garden. They really are a natural resource that should at least be attempted to be preserved if at all possible.

Ron Beyer
  • 9,235
  • 1
  • 30
  • 37
  • 2
    Yes. I've since learned that calling, 911 actually, is the best course of action. Thanks! (Edited FDA/EPA) – Scott Apr 09 '20 at 18:31
  • Are we speaking of nests (presumably a physical construction) or swarms here? Anyway indeed bee keepers know how to handle them and queens are quite valuable as well. – NikoNyrh Apr 09 '20 at 22:53
  • 5
    @Scott There are bee police now? Or does 911 give you a choice of emergency services? – CJ Dennis Apr 10 '20 at 00:15
  • 39
    It's worth noting that you usually shouldn't call 911 for non-emergencies, you can call the police at a local number if you want to and not tie up emergency lines. – Jason Goemaat Apr 10 '20 at 01:15
  • 6
    ...actually although not an emergency, 911 can contact the correct response (bee keeper) in the case of honey bees. It's like calling 911 and they send out Animal Control basically. Yes, I thought 911 was odd as well, but it seems correct, at least where I'm located. This is a small area, not a major metropolitan city.. so that surely plays some role. I agree that not tying up 911 lines is a good course of action in large cities. – Scott Apr 10 '20 at 07:02
  • 9
    On the subject of calling 911 for non-emergencies, it depends on the municipality. In San Diego for example, they want you to call 911 even for non-emergencies. I had to call the police for something really lame and reluctantly dialed 911 for my total non-emergency as instructed. The dispatcher was basically an operator. – L0j1k Apr 10 '20 at 15:13
  • 2
    Honey bees don't pose a risk unless somebody is allergic, they are not aggressive. Africanized bees are aggressive and sting many more times leading to deaths of people that are not allergic. – AbraCadaver Apr 10 '20 at 18:11
  • Africanized bee - "... a hybrid of the western honey bee species ..., produced originally by cross-breeding of the East African lowland honey bee ... with various European honey bees such as the Italian honey bee ... and the Iberian honey bee" – Peter Mortensen Apr 11 '20 at 11:00
  • 1
    "doesn't seem" illegal??? Could you please provide a legal citation for that? "Seem" is not the standard on this site. While I respect your wisdom in the second half of your answer, you've built up a false notion, which is causing problems for my well-researched and backed up answer. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 22:04
  • @L0j1k Yeah, it varies a lot from place to place. I live in a relatively small city and calling 911 for non-emergencies here in strongly discouraged. They want you to just call the local police number for non-emergency situations so that you don't tie up the 911 operators. – reirab Apr 12 '20 at 02:00
  • 1
    @Harper-ReinstateMonica It's difficult to prove a negative, but what I can say is that for non-commercial pesticides in the United States, there is no ban on home-use pesticides that kill bees, even honey bees. In fact Sevin, a popular insecticide, lists "Bee Families such as..." on the label, so both my and your argument holds up. – Ron Beyer Apr 12 '20 at 02:33
  • Right, I'm sure there are chemicals labeled for killing bees. That is fine. However the way you wrote is is spreading a misconception that consumers have a blanket exemption to use anyhting on anything, and I'm getting shelled with DVs because they read my answer next. I'd be really grateful if you'd tweak the wording. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 12 '20 at 03:22
  • African killer bees or as they are known in Africa... Bees. Actually was one of the more minor benign mass hysterias in the USA. – Neil Meyer Sep 03 '22 at 10:51
7

I had a neighbor who was a licensed exterminator. We had bees move into our eaves and was talking to him about choices. He said a licensed exterminator isn't allowed to kill them but has to move them. A homeowner though can do anything they want.

Micah Montoya
  • 171
  • 1
  • 1
    "anything they want" doesn't include things which are otherwise illegal, such as irradiation, gun discharge in gun-control areas, or use of pesticides off-label. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 22:06
  • 2
    @Harper-ReinstateMonica LOL! The idea of irradiating or shooting bees to get rid of them is hilarious but honestly I'm sure somewhere out there is at least one person that needs this warning stated to them explicitly. – L0j1k Apr 12 '20 at 01:48
  • 1
    @Harper-ReinstateMonica It turns out that federal law explicitly defines what it means to "use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" and that definition expressly excludes the situation of using the pesticide against a pest not mentioned on the label unless the label expressly prohibits such use. – reirab Apr 12 '20 at 02:27
  • 1
    @Harper-ReinstateUkraine: What would actually make it illegal to kill bees via irradiation? – Vikki May 23 '22 at 04:21
  • 1
    @Vicki probably possession of radioactive materials without a license. – Harper - Reinstate Monica May 23 '22 at 05:48
5

Certified applicator here.

You can use pesticides labeled for killing bees. But that's all.

It is illegal to use pesticides contrary to their labeling.

Stop stop stop. Before you arch your back, go over and read this bountied, well-voted Skeptics answer from a 116k rated mod.

This type of labeling is present on every pesticide in Home Depot, Lowes, Farmer Exchange, or direct from Monstanto.

enter image description here Spectricide item pdf

Aside from Federal law and regs and state law, the label itself is a third body of law which you must follow.

Keep in mind, a legal mandate to obey product labeling and instructions is nothing new or unusual. If you install a proper UL-listed smart switch, you interact with a network of laws: State law invokes NEC 2017 as law. NEC 2017 says products must be approved by the AHJ; AHJs defer to UL (and other NRTLs). NEC also says it must be installed consistent with labeling, because those are the conditions in which UL tested and approved the device.

Note the "conditions in which tested" factor; that'll be a reason for what happens next.

The label allows, not forbids.

Take the example product above. The instructions plainly state that the product is listed for use with Wasps, Hornets, Yellow Jackets. They also list "other pests" which they enumerate as "Tent Caterpillars, Scorpions and Ants". Honeybees are not on the label.

Is this a permissive label? Everything not forbidden is allowed? Let's logick that out.

Uh oh: There is no "forbidden list". But notice each authorized pest has specific instructions on exactly how to attack that particular pest. There are no instructions on attacking spiders, for instance.

Now look at this certified-only herbicide, top of page 1: "For control of undesirable vegetation growing within specified aquatic sites, forestry sites, pasture/rangeland, and nonagricultural lands" - an example of being very un-specific, because in fact that is appropriate for that chemical (noting those weasel-words which call out more detail in the instructions). That tells you, Labels are as broad as possible. When they're specific, it's for a reason.

All of this makes it pretty clear that "inconsistent with its labeling" means any use not enumerated by the instructions/labeling.

Of course, as others are saying, honeybees are our friends. Actually, there's a serious crisis with pollinators, which are essential to our food supply. So you don't kill them, you get people to take them away and get them better work :)

Laws

Federal

FIFRA 7 USC 136j (a) (2) It shall be unlawful for any person --
(G) to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling

7 USC 136.
(s) Person
The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, or any organized group of persons whether incorporated or not.

40 CFR 170.9 Violations of this part.
(a) Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) (FIFRA) section 12(a)(2)(G) it is unlawful for any person “to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” When this part is referenced on a label, users must comply with all of its requirements except those that are inconsistent with product-specific instructions on the labeling.
(b) A person who has a duty under this part, as referenced on the pesticide product label, and who fails to perform that duty, violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) and is subject to a civil penalty under section 14. A person who knowingly violates section 12(a)(2)(G) is subject to section 14 criminal sanctions..

That misconstrued exception

Now let's talk about an exception that people are trying to turn into more than it is. Let's imagine you're spraying your lawn with 2,4-D to suppress dandelions. Fair enough. Some eco-nut sees you spraying it, and sees a mole track in your yard. And reports you for using 2,4-D on moles, which is obviously not legal.

Now let's look at that exception. "except the term shall not inclde applying a pesticide against any target pest (the moles) not specified on the labeling (of 2,4-D) if the application is to the crop (lawn), animal, or site specified on the labeling (of the 2,4-D).

It is only, and precisely, about collateral damage to species you weren't trying to affect. However this only works if you are using the pesticide lawfully to treat something else.

It is a violation of Federal law to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. And that's all there is to it!

More labels

enter image description here Real Kill item pdf

enter image description here random-ass pre-diluted spray bottle of consumer 2,4-D (which never harmed a fly) item pdf

enter image description here Unregulated farmer-grade, full-strength 2,4-D which would only harm a fly because it's a strong acid at this concentration. item pdf

enter image description here Aresenal herbicide: you need a cert to buy pdf

Notice how, even though we're into the hard stuff at this point, the label wording has not changed at all.

Community
  • 1
Harper - Reinstate Monica
  • 19,563
  • 2
  • 27
  • 81
  • 4
    Oregon law does not mandate "follow the label" for pesticides, it does so for restricted use pesticides which require a license. – user6726 Apr 11 '20 at 16:50
  • 1
    @user6726 Maybe so, I'll drop the state claim, but what does that buy you? Since EPA does require that. Are you saying Oregon residents can just disregard product labeling or that Federal law does not apply to Oregon? – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 16:59
  • 4
    You have to show that there is a federal regulation applicable to consumers. Something in CFR; something that does not refer to restricted pesticides, which require a license. – user6726 Apr 11 '20 at 17:25
  • 1
    @user6726 So in fact, your contention is that "consumers can disregard product labeling". I'm sorry, I don't need to support that claim; you do. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 18:17
  • 1
    My contention is there is no such labeling on consumer-applicable products. – user6726 Apr 11 '20 at 18:46
  • 4
    I kind of agree with @user6726 here. You have to prove the positive since it's never possible to prove a negative. All I read stated that pesticides "designed to kill bees" were illegal to use. And all the federal laws I read were clearly applicable to mass application, not individuals - much like prosecuting an individual for swatting and killing a honeybee on their arm would not be "in the spirit" of the laws. This equated to me tearing that tag off my mattress. Yes there are regulations, but they aren't applicable to an individual. They are or may be to a "certified applicator" though. – Scott Apr 11 '20 at 19:30
  • @user6726 Contention debunked. *These are literally the first 3 products I checked* - I did not cherry-pick! The reason I feel the burden of proof is on your end that this identical statement is on literally every pesticide/herbicide on any shelf in any store in America. It is common knowledge. Is this genuine news to you, or are you just making me jump through hoops? – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 20:47
  • @Scott Well, that's incorrect. Notwithstanding whether there are any laws against killing a honeybee with your shoe, there positively are laws against using pesticides to kill honeybees, implemented precisely as I describe. See edits. . And yeah, they apply to consumers, which is why those warnings are all over consumer products. Those products are for you; commercial applicators don't use em (we can get better chemicals in high concentration, why pay for shipping water?) – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 21:21
  • 1
    Okay. So label reads "Kills insects and pests" Where's the violation for a consumer??? As posted in the question, unless the pesticide specifically states it kills bees, I see no violation. And I realize you can get stronger chemicals, that's kind of the point everyone else is making.. that the laws are geared toward use of those stronger chemicals, not consumer products. – Scott Apr 11 '20 at 21:34
  • @Scott I edited significantly. You need to give that "only applies to professionals" thing up. My top 3 examples are of consumer products found in home stores used by people like you. They all say the same thing: "Read the ENTIRE label before using". Why is that labeling there? Why would it say that? And the only "everyone else" is user6726, and I debunked that. Roundly. So now that I have made my proofs, I think it's your turn... – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 22:00
  • 1
    I think we read things differently. Because Honeybees are not specifically listed as the target of a pesticide, I see use of that pesticide as not violating any regulations. A violation would be if Honeybees were listed on the label as a target of the pesticide. – Scott Apr 11 '20 at 22:05
  • @Scott Yes, I agree. We each have a high regard for our own opinion, but then, I am a licensed applicator in 5 states. Here's the thing. The safety agencies which test and approve pesticides (or smart switches) cannot test every possible use. Therefore they can't approve everything except a list that is forbidden. They must necessarily forbid all, then permit certain things (which have proven safe in testing). This is axiomatic to how pesticide regulation works; if you don't accept that, then I don't know what to tell you. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 22:34
  • @user6726 As far as your first comment (which accompanied a DV), you are incorrect. Both Federal and Oregon law prohibit it. I have added a "Laws" section including all the gory details. Please visit this section and revisit any DV. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '20 at 23:53
  • 3
    The Oregon provision specifically defines "pesticide operator" as being an employee of a professional "pesticide operator" (634.006(9)(b)), so, no that provision does not apply to an individual on their own property. (13) does not apply because it specifically only applies to "restricted-use" and "highly toxic" pesticides. – reirab Apr 12 '20 at 02:15
  • 3
    The federal provision also does not apply here if the product is labeled for home use and does not explicitly disallow use against the specific pest. 7 USC 136(ee) defines "use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" as expressly excluding "applying a pesticide against any target pest not specified on the labeling if the application is to the crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling" unless the Administrator (of the EPA) has required the labeling to expressly prohibit such use. – reirab Apr 12 '20 at 02:20
  • @reirab I'll let you have the Oregon matter but you are way off base on the Federal matter. It does not say anything like that. It says if you're applying Roundup to your GMO cornfield and hit a cicada by mistake, it doesn't matter that Roundup isn't labeled for cicadas because you're not spraying for cicadas, you have Another primary purpose that is legit. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 12 '20 at 02:44
  • 4
    @Harper-ReinstateMonica I literally quoted the US Code. It says exactly that. The exemption is for if you're "applying against a target pest not specified on the labeling." It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're a pro or not. Using, for example, roach spray (or wasp spray, etc.) to kill a spider is expressly not illegal as long as you're using it in/on the "crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling." This is not to say that there's not possibly some other provision protecting bees, but this one doesn't apply. – reirab Apr 12 '20 at 02:45
  • @reirab Except you quoted 7 USC 136(ee) out of context. "applying a pesticide against any target pest not specified on the labeling if the application is to the crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling".** My previous comment describes the reason for the rule. I read all the exceptions there, as part of my diligence on this question, but I knew it before (because cert/experience), so I recognized what the clause was saying. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 12 '20 at 15:25
  • 1
    I think the "licensed applicator in 5 states" perhaps is highly motivated to advocate for an inference that it's against the law for individual homeowners to use a can of pesticide they bought at the hardware store to get rid of pests in their own home. But I'm pretty sure that's something that will never have its day in court. – L0j1k Apr 12 '20 at 15:29
  • @L0j1k I do large facility and RoW. You're perfectly competent to spray your own wasps if you can read a label. I don't think that's asking a lot. And I fight the good fight on diy.se; we get jackasses going "hire a professional" and I scold them for that. What I do have is knowledge, experience and qualification. You should rely on it. That is the whole point of SE. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 12 '20 at 16:33
  • 1
    @Harper-ReinstateMonica No, I didn't quote it out of context. I quoted the portion of it that you bolded. Your previous comment said it was an exception for if you accidentally hit another pest, but that's not what the exception says. It says that it's not illegal to target a pest that is not mentioned on the label as long as 1) you're applying the pesticide to a "crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling" and 2) the EPA administrator hasn't required that particular pesticide to explicitly proscribe such uses on its label. – reirab Apr 13 '20 at 05:15
  • 4
    To be more specific, the meaning of the "if the application is to the crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling" is that you can't use a product that's intended to treat, say, tomato plants against aphids to treat your house (or anything other than tomato plants) against, say, spiders. Using a product labeled for use against roaches in your house against a spider in your house, however, does fall within the exception as long as the label doesn't specifically say not to do that, since you're applying it "to a site specified on the labeling." – reirab Apr 13 '20 at 05:27
  • 4
    By the way, in case you still doubt my interpretation, Senator Talmadge described it on the Senate floor as follows when the final version of the 1978 bill that added (ee) was being considered for passage, "Third, the new definition will permit farmers to use pesticides that are already registered for a crop or site for pests not listed on the labeling. It is rather foolish to tell farmers that they can put a pesticide on a crop for one bug, but that they cannot apply it to the same crop for another bug." – reirab Apr 13 '20 at 07:10
  • @reirab not impressed by your conclusion, very impressed by your research. Still some lingering problems: a) it contradicts my training. b) what you're overlooking is the site is a beehive. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Apr 13 '20 at 07:25
  • 1
    @Harper-ReinstateMonica "what you're overlooking is the site is a beehive" This is absurd. The site is obviously your garage or whatever, and not some by-product of the pest's lifecycle. – L0j1k Apr 14 '20 at 04:24
  • 1
    But it would still be legal to douse the bees in alcohol and just burn them down, right? – JonathanReez Jun 08 '21 at 23:02