• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

September 23, 2005 File: 0280-30 Ref: 74687 Honourable Rick Thorpe, MLA (Okanagan-Westside) Parliament Buildings Victoria BC V8W 1X4 Dear Minister Thorpe: An e-mail dated May 28, 2005 from Mr. Bill Ruzicka to Kevin Krueger, MLA for Kamloops-North Thompson, was forwarded to the Honourable John van Dongen on May 29, 2005. Mr. Ruzicka operates an apiary in the Glenmore district of Kelowna and has brought the issue of loss of farm land status to our attention. His letter refers to the loss of leased lands for the apiary production but the concern is really that income from pollination is not included for farm status purposes. Honey production is an important part of the British Columbia agriculture industry. Pollination is an important service in which hives are rented to farmers to pollinate a specific crop and it is integral to successful production of many horticultural crops in British Columbia. I would like to discuss the potential for the addition of pollination services to “primary agricultural production” in Schedule A of The Standards for the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation, based on the unique nature of pollination. Sincerely, Pat Bell Minister Pc: Bill Ruzicka Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Honourable Pat Bell Sept 26 05.doc - B Posted on behalf of Bill Ruzicka Kelowna BC Subject: Apiculture and Pollination September 26, 2005 Honourable Pat Bell Minister of Agriculture Cc: Minister of Small Business and Revenue – Hon. Rick Thorpe Dear Sir: I applaud you on your decision to consult Minister Thorpe on the subject of apiculture and pollination adding it to the primary agricultural product list. It may be very helpful and save time in both ministries if you can discuss the rest of the issues that apiculture is facing as described in the Main Issues document attached at the same time. Pollination ranks #3 in importance. The definition of apiculture and agriculture land for apiculture rank #1 and #2. Please do not hesitate to call me if you need detailed explanations. It is also available on our website at www.mitegone.com. Click on the BC Assessment tab on the left of our home page. It includes all of the letters that were written to the authorities by beekeepers and a discussion chat room on the assessment subject. Thanks again for supporting us. Bill Ruzicka Kelowna BC Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Honourable Pat Bell Sept 26 05.doc - B MAIN ISSUES ABSTRACT OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED AT THE SEMI ANNUAL THE MARCH BCHPA 2005 MEETING AND THEIR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THE POSITION OF ASSESSOR AND BEEKEEPERS ISSUE #1 – DEFINITION OF APICULTURE Fact: All of beekeeping is represented in the entire assessment law by only one word “apiculture” in schedule of primary agricultural product. That leaves the issue wide open to any even ridiculous interpretations. The assessor claims: that it is up to him to interpret the rest of the regulation how to be applied to apiculture and at present declares pollinations service, no primary product, and bees not needing land. The assessment appeal board: Chairman Mr. Turnikof in ruling on appeal No. 2004-01-00137 claims that apiculture is not defined, doubts eligibility for development status and rejects the appeal on that base. The beekeeper maintains that apiculture specialize sector of agriculture must be redefined in the introduction of law standards and regulations. The eligibility of development status and forage as land to be added as follows: Apiculture: The act of keeping bees (appis melifera) and include raising and keeping all insects to provide insects to control pests, pollinate or otherwise produce agricultural crops. The products of apiculture classifying as primary agri products are: Products of Hives: Honey, pollen, wax, propolis, royal jelly. Products of bees: • Bees as food • Bee venom • Bees for apitherapy • Bees raised for pollination and pollination fees • Stock of bees for sale • Bulk bees • Queens • Packages and nucleus colonies Provisions of act to clarify: • A minimum buffer zone and forage of 1 – 4 acres of agricultural zone per hive. • Parcels occupied by bee yards must be recognized as agricultural land. • Apiculture qualifies for development status of 1 to 6 years under specifically provided plan of development or expansion. • The apiculturist operating from town without his/her own land must be able to obtain farm status for vehicle use, fuel and SST exemption based on a valid lease of agricultural land. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Honourable Pat Bell Sept 26 05.doc - B ISSUE #2 – AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR APICULTURE – see section 5,6,7,10 in Supporting Evidence to the BCHPA Resolution. The assessor maintains that under the split classification provision of the assessment act only land under the actual bee yard shall be agricultural land. He maintains that there is no agri-production going on in these bee yards and that the bees can be fed so they do not need land to forage on and that forage can not be determined for particular land. The beekeeper maintains that the bees are confined in the small yards only for protection against predators and for the ease of the beekeeper’s work. Honey, bees, and other related bee products produced in these yards are primarily agricultural products. Bees, like any other animal need pasture to provide food for the bees and to produce honey. Any experienced beekeeper can determine the viability of each parcel of land by its plant coverage. Furthermore, bees must be kept on parcels of land providing a sufficient buffer zone away from human activity. A buffer of one acre per hive should be a minimum recognized forage and buffer zone. As most bee yards are located on leased lands, these principles must apply to leased lands also. ISSUE #3 – POLLINATION AS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT – see section #9 The assessor maintains that pollination is a service; therefore, it is not eligible for primary agricultural product classification. Note: There is no specific exclusion named in the act. This is a recent interpretation by the assessor. Until 1997 pollination was considered agri product. The beekeeper maintains that pollination is an integrated part of apiculture involving the raising of bee stock for pollination. As raising bee stock is the primary agricultural product; therefore, pollination is also a primary agricultural product. The act names raising insects for biological control of pests as agricultural product; therefore, raising bees for pollination must be given the same status. Pollination is an integrated part of fruit berry seed production and without it no fruit berry seeds will exist. Therefore it is not a service and cannot be excluded; only services, which do not directly effect food production, should be excluded and defined. The act lacks definition of excluded services. Many beekeepers by definition are not farmers because pollination is their main income. ISSUE #4 – ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS – see section 8, 11 The assessor is using precedents to substantiate the decisions made and claims that the potential future use as residential is better. (See Assessor Evidence Evaluation) The beekeeper maintains that it is the present use, which matters the agriculture and that the precedents are irrelevant and not comparable. Three wrong decisions does not make things right and it is obvious that the Board needs to get informed on the matter of apiculture. The ruling on appeal number 2004-19-00050 was obtained by falsifying the evidence. The local review panel never heard the evidence on the beekeeper’s side of the appeal and Paul van Westendorp’s letter is hearsay evidence, as he never examined the area, forage or operation. The solution: The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Small Business and Revenues should order a stakeholders meeting and define apiculture as a specialized part of agriculture as it was done for aquaculture. ISSUE #5 – DENYING FARM BENEFITS TO FARMERS WITHOUT THEIR OWN LAND ICBC and the Ministry of Provincial Revenue is denying farm plates, farm gas and exemption to SST to farmers who do not have their own land because they do not have assessment notice with Farm Land Classification. The beekeeper that operates on leased or rented land maintains that leased land should be zoned agricultural and with a copy of the proper lease should qualify that farmer for farm benefits. Bill Ruzicka\Bill's Honey Farm\Assessment\Honourable Pat Bell Sept 26 05.doc - B ISSUE #6 – MISUSE OF AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION BY NON FARMERS The assessor claims that if the forage of bees is recognized as farm use land then all of BC can be covered by bees as agricultural land. The beekeepers maintain that denying land to bees cannot solve the problem and an agricultural land study proves the coverage claim is nonsense. The land presently used for farming must be classified as agricultural regardless of who owns it otherwise the great cost of future potential residential land will be passed onto farmers. FACT: It is the word “farm” on the assessment notice, which qualifies the property owner as a farmer and entitles him to all farm benefits regardless if he/she is farming or not. I.e; Leasing or contracting the land. The solution is in preceding or following the land class “farm” on assessment roles by words; owner, operated, farm or leased farm. This can easily be done by the assessor’s in their periodical farm status review. Only the owners of the farm owner operated classification or farmers leasing the leased lands will be entitled to farm benefits as farm truck plates, gas, and social services tax exemption. ISSUE #7 – COST OF BEE YARDS The owner of the land claims that the beekeeper is the sole user of the leased land.

Load more

  5

Copy Link