Asian Hornets

[Wilco]

Absolutely concur. The conditions don't presently exist in the UK for using fipronil custard which is why I am not advocating it's use at present and that includes the legal restriction on release. The point of raising this in conversation is to explore the issues in advance so that beekeepers can be better prepared to deal with velutina should conditions change.

That said, I believe there is enough wriggle room within the WCA 1981 to avoid prosecution. The definition of release requires release from a contained holding (at no point is there a contained holding) and release is into the environment but the animal has not been removed from the environment. There is also a defence of humane killing which allows transport to a place where the animal is killed. In this instance the animal is treated with a poison specifically to kill it at its place of death, i.e. its nest.

The disclaimer here is that this is only an opinion which is being explored as a matter of conversation and that individuals should not act on such opinion without taking proper legal advice. Far better to canvass local MPs to secure specific provisions within the WCA 1981 for dealing with velutina.

Not sure humane is a term I'd apply to use of fipronil. Spastic paralysis is not instantaneous or pleasant- even if the insect isn't sentient it's still capable of responding to noxious/nociceptive stimuli.

Otherwise you raise some interesting points.

 

[Karol]

Not sure humane is a term I'd apply to use of fipronil. Spastic paralysis is not instantaneous or pleasant- even if the insect isn't sentient it's still capable of responding to noxious/nociceptive stimuli.

Otherwise you raise some interesting points.

Humane is a relative term. Compare spastic paralysis with protracted dessication, starvation and drowning in traps and I would suggest it qualifies as a less stressful and quicker demise. Notwithstanding that comparison, use of pesticides in nest eradication remains the primary means of destroying nests and typically the poisons used are full agonists resulting in spasticity. Most of these are topical and take time to cross the cuticle so are arguably slower acting than ingested poisons. Furthermore, treating nests uses vast overkill dosing to ensure sufficient topical exposure which creates significant excess residues that remain a threat ecologically for a considerable period of time afterward. Applying a miniscule amount of short shelf life toxin in a 100% selective manner is far superior ecologically and therefore could be argued to be more humane from a collateral risk perspective. I think the common man test if ever applied in case law would accept that the method is 'humane'.

 

[plain_hunt]

Don't think its the fipronil that's the issue it's the catch and release of an invasive species. You gave an example earlier which is potentially technically within the law but not in the spirit of it (stunned not being caught therefore it's not releasing one if you let it fly off) and I wouldn't advise testing that in court.

Having played in Jersey with AH, you don’t need to trap to mark them, they will happily sit and feed whilst being marked, so I’d assume you could paint them with custard just as easily.

 

[madasafish]

Having played in Jersey with AH, you don’t need to trap to mark them, they will happily sit and feed whilst being marked, so I’d assume you could paint them with custard just as easily.

Well that simplifies things.
I hope we never get to the stage where finding Asian hornets is as easy as that..

 

[Newbeeneil]

Don't think its the fipronil that's the issue it's the catch and release of an invasive species. You gave an example earlier which is potentially technically within the law but not in the spirit of it (stunned not being caught therefore it's not releasing one if you let it fly off) and I wouldn't advise testing that in court.

I've just come from a talk given by one of the guys helping the NBU at Folkestone and I think fibronil IS the problem. The guy said that the were tracking the hornets by painting them with fluorescent paint pens while they fed on bait stations without disurbing the hornets so it would be just as easy to dab them with custard.
However there was a pest control guy there who said the problem was that Fibronil was not licenced for use in the custard formulation so it would be illegal to use it in that form.

 

[Wilco]

Humane is a relative term. Compare spastic paralysis with protracted dessication, starvation and drowning in traps and I would suggest it qualifies as a less stressful and quicker demise. Notwithstanding that comparison, use of pesticides in nest eradication remains the primary means of destroying nests and typically the poisons used are full agonists resulting in spasticity. Most of these are topical and take time to cross the cuticle so are arguably slower acting than ingested poisons. Furthermore, treating nests uses vast overkill dosing to ensure sufficient topical exposure which creates significant excess residues that remain a threat ecologically for a considerable period of time afterward. Applying a miniscule amount of short shelf life toxin in a 100% selective manner is far superior ecologically and therefore could be argued to be more humane from a collateral risk perspective. I think the common man test if ever applied in case law would accept that the method is 'humane'.

Yes and no... A method of slaughter is either humane or it isn't. One might argue that of the inhumane methods, some are more humane than others. However, they are still inhumane.

I agree the fipronil strategy seems like the most effective and appropriate approach should we end up with an endemic issue.

Whilst the fipronil method may be arguably humane for destroying a nest by killing the queen thus meaning reproduction stops and it dies out, rather than killing everything in it outright (as I understand it, that's the aim of this method), it's still not a nice way for any individual hornet to die so could still be considered an inhumane death for the queen and those workers which also succumb to the poison, whilst being humane from the whole nest perspective.

 

[Wilco]

I've just come from a talk given by one of the guys helping the NBU at Folkestone and I think fibronil IS the problem. The guy said that the were tracking the hornets by painting them with fluorescent paint pens while they fed on bait stations without disurbing the hornets so it would be just as easy to dab them with custard.
However there was a pest control guy there who said the problem was that Fibronil was not licenced for use in the custard formulation so it would be illegal to use it in that form.

Pest control guy is incorrect- there's a way to do it.

A vet may prescribe unlicensed medications under a decision pathway known as The Cascade, which is present in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (2013).

For the purposes of bee health, the NBU are sort of vets in the UK although whether they or a MRCVS would do the prescribing would be interesting to know. I suspect it's similar to how they are able to allow tetracyclines in some cases of foulbrood depending on the discretion of the Inspector as my understanding is that these are also off licence in bees.

 

[Newbeeneil]

Pest control guy is incorrect- there's a way to do it.

A vet may prescribe unlicensed medications under a decision pathway known as The Cascade, which is present in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (2013).

For the purposes of bee health, the NBU are sort of vets in the UK although whether they or a MRCVS would do the prescribing would be interesting to know. I suspect it's similar to how they are able to allow tetracyclines in some cases of foulbrood depending on the discretion of the Inspector as my understanding is that these are also off licence in bees.

It beggars the question that if that is the case why are they not trying to eradicate the nests on the cliffs at Folkestone this way?
The guys said he had hornets going in 7 different directions from his bait station but they only found 3 nests.

 

[Wilco]

It beggars the question that if that is the case why are they not trying to eradicate the nests on the cliffs at Folkestone this way?
The guys said he had hornets going in 7 different directions from his bait station but they only found 3 nests.

I'll ping them a message and offer my services

May well be a case of someone deciding there isn't enough data of sufficient standard to trial this method and the risk of failure is considered too great. Peer reviewed studies on the continent would be handy.

 

[Newbeeneil]

I'll ping them a message and offer my services

May well be a case of someone deciding there isn't enough data of sufficient standard to trial this method and the risk of failure is considered too great. Peer reviewed studies on the continent would be handy.

I agree, but they estimate for each nest left there will be 500 queens produced of which approx 15% (75) will survive winter and start a nest in the spring. Surely now is the time to throw everything you can at the problem to try to nip it in the bud.

 

[Ian123]

Pest control guy is incorrect- there's a way to do it.

A vet may prescribe unlicensed medications under a decision pathway known as The Cascade, which is present in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (2013).

For the purposes of bee health, the NBU are sort of vets in the UK although whether they or a MRCVS would do the prescribing would be interesting to know. I suspect it's similar to how they are able to allow tetracyclines in some cases of foulbrood depending on the discretion of the Inspector as my understanding is that these are also off licence in bees.

Cascade would work with an approved product, custard and fripronal is not approved.

 

[Wilco]

Cascade would work with an approved product, custard and fripronal is not approved.

Vets are allowed to make their own formulations so would still be possible.

EDIT: I'll emphasize here that this is something to be done only under direction from the NBU, not by private vets acting on their own initiative.

 

[Wilco]

Cascade would work with an approved product, custard and fripronal is not approved.

See final paragraph although whole Cascade below for reference. Taken from Schedule 4 of the VMR (2013):

Administration under the cascade​

1.—(1) A veterinary surgeon acting under this paragraph who prescribes a veterinary medicinal product may either administer it personally or may direct another person to do so under the responsibility of the veterinary surgeon.

(2) If there is no authorised veterinary medicinal product in the United Kingdom for a condition the veterinary surgeon responsible for the animal may, in particular to avoid unacceptable suffering, treat the animal concerned with the following (“the cascade”), cascaded in the following order—

(a)a veterinary medicinal product authorised in the United Kingdom for use with another animal species, or for another condition in the same species; or

(b)if there is no such product that is suitable, either—

(i)a human medicinal product authorised in the United Kingdom; or

(ii)a veterinary medicinal product not authorised in the United Kingdom but authorised in another member State for use with any animal species (in the case of a food-producing animal, it must be a food-producing species); or

(c)if there is no such product that is suitable, a veterinary medicinal product prepared extemporaneously by a pharmacist, a veterinary surgeon or a person holding a manufacturing authorisation authorising the manufacture of that type of product.

 

[Newbeeneil]

See final paragraph although whole Cascade below for reference. Taken from Schedule 4 of the VMR (2013):

Administration under the cascade​

1.—(1) A veterinary surgeon acting under this paragraph who prescribes a veterinary medicinal product may either administer it personally or may direct another person to do so under the responsibility of the veterinary surgeon.

(2) If there is no authorised veterinary medicinal product in the United Kingdom for a condition the veterinary surgeon responsible for the animal may, in particular to avoid unacceptable suffering, treat the animal concerned with the following (“the cascade”), cascaded in the following order—

(a)a veterinary medicinal product authorised in the United Kingdom for use with another animal species, or for another condition in the same species; or

(b)if there is no such product that is suitable, either—

(i)a human medicinal product authorised in the United Kingdom; or

(ii)a veterinary medicinal product not authorised in the United Kingdom but authorised in another member State for use with any animal species (in the case of a food-producing animal, it must be a food-producing species); or

(c)if there is no such product that is suitable, a veterinary medicinal product prepared extemporaneously by a pharmacist, a veterinary surgeon or a person holding a manufacturing authorisation authorising the manufacture of that type of product.

Mmmmmm interesting!

 

[Karol]

I've just come from a talk given by one of the guys helping the NBU at Folkestone and I think fibronil IS the problem. The guy said that the were tracking the hornets by painting them with fluorescent paint pens while they fed on bait stations without disurbing the hornets so it would be just as easy to dab them with custard.
However there was a pest control guy there who said the problem was that Fibronil was not licenced for use in the custard formulation so it would be illegal to use it in that form.

This is an issue of context as I understand it. It is illegal for the pest controller because they are effectively selling the pesticide and are therefore governed by the biocide directive which controls the sale of pesticides. The biocide directive does not extend to purchasers who are end users. Ergo it would not be unlawful for beekeepers protecting their own hives to use fipronil custard themselves but it would be unlawful for a pest controller to provide those services to the beekeeper.

 

[Karol]

Pest control guy is incorrect- there's a way to do it.

A vet may prescribe unlicensed medications under a decision pathway known as The Cascade, which is present in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (2013).

For the purposes of bee health, the NBU are sort of vets in the UK although whether they or a MRCVS would do the prescribing would be interesting to know. I suspect it's similar to how they are able to allow tetracyclines in some cases of foulbrood depending on the discretion of the Inspector as my understanding is that these are also off licence in bees.

There's no administration to hives or bees so there's no need for a vet to get involved.

 

[Karol]

Yes and no... A method of slaughter is either humane or it isn't. One might argue that of the inhumane methods, some are more humane than others. However, they are still inhumane.

I agree the fipronil strategy seems like the most effective and appropriate approach should we end up with an endemic issue.

Whilst the fipronil method may be arguably humane for destroying a nest by killing the queen thus meaning reproduction stops and it dies out, rather than killing everything in it outright (as I understand it, that's the aim of this method), it's still not a nice way for any individual hornet to die so could still be considered an inhumane death for the queen and those workers which also succumb to the poison, whilst being humane from the whole nest perspective.

Sorry Wilco. What do you consider to be a humane way to kill hornets?

 

[John stockburn]

There's no administration to hives or bees so there's no need for a vet to get involved.

Sorted then , just blitz the anti social little barstewards

 

[Newbeeneil]

Sorted then , just blitz the anti social little barstewards

I agree, blitz them now while the numbers are manageable and before they go nationwide!

 

[fian]

But I understand this form of prescription by a veterinarian to refer to an irreversible disease/process for which in point a there is no approved drug or b and c to euthanize the animal with a product that exists b or with a pharmacological formula upon request.
In my opinion it has the following weak points:
to. Vv is an ecological enemy of a bee and could hardly be classified as a veterinary problem since it would open the way for a systemic application to other species.
b. A nest and an individual are not the same range when it comes to euthanasia despite considering the vv species as an "invasive exotic species"
Curiously, this process could be invoked by a veterinarian for the treatment of varroa with products or formulations not approved in the United Kingdom.