Surfing the web I came across a vegan reference that stated they can't eat honey.
Yeah, sounds odd, so I looked it up, and low and behold, it's seen as abusive, along the grounds of slavery.
I can appreciate ones views on not wanting to abuse any form of life, but it's the ignorance of this issue that comes off as glaring.
Here's a quote from the vegan page. 

The simplest reason why honey isn't vegan is by definition. The term vegan was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 and was defined as follows:
Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals (Stepaniak).
People who follow a vegan diet for health or environmental reasons, please take note.
We don't, however, need to go back to 1944 to define honey as not vegan. Any definition of veganism would talk about not exploiting animals, and honeybees (Apis mellifera) Click for a picture of a honeybee. are, without a doubt, animals. Honeybees are in the phylum Arthropoda--the same as lobsters and crabs. So in addition to crustaceans, if honeybees don't merit respect, that would also leave earthworms vulnerable to dissection in biology classes. Similarly, iscallops, snails, and oysters would be fair game--they are not as "high up" on the evolutionary scale as bees. James and Carol Gould (respectively, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton and a full-time science writer) point out that "Honey bees are at the top of their part of the evolutionary tree, whereas humans are the most highly evolves species on our branch. To look at honeybees, then, is to see one of the two most elegant solutions to the challenges of life on our planet. More interesting, perhaps, than the many differences are the countless eerie parallels--convergent evolutionary answers to similar problems" (Gould, x). Of course, all this talk of higher and lower is fiction. Even Darwin reminded himself to "Never use the words higher and lower" (Dunayer, 13).
So much more.
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

Now here's my take on this idiocy.
Truth is, man is the slave here. We are slaves to plants, we must propagate the specie in order to survive, for without the bee, we'd starve from low plant production.
If we ever leave this planet, we'll be forced to bring plants with us, without bees, we'll be forced to hand pollinate each and every bloom.

My point is, it is man that slaves to see that the bee survives and thrives, we physically move them from farm to farm, we struggle to protect them from invaders, whether it's bears, or mites, we assure their survival.
In drought years, we actually feed bees to insure their survival, so is it really stealing an over abundance of honey as payment?
Because if one takes too much, the hive fails, so essentially taking the excess guarantees a healthy hive in keeping invaders away.

Chickens are another, chickens lay eggs regardless, leaving the eggs in excess attracts other critters, in turn attracting predators that live on these critters, which attracts yet even larger predators like Fox, coons etc, pretty much guaranteeing the chickens will be somethings dinner.

Point is, if I have chickens running around my yard, it becomes my responsibility to protect them.
If the chicken leaves infertile eggs , it's my job to dispose of them to insure the chickens safety, and not wanting to waste a food source, it would be incumbent upon me to make use of them as a caretaker.