Asian Hornets

[Skinfaxi]

Y

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.

You are right by the letter of the law. I hold a pa9 spray ticket or powered knapsack. The law in the uk is quite in detailed but the reality is that no body but a few bother with it. The reaity is that corporate agri spray toxins into water ways over areas where dogs and peaple walk and over workers. The farmer agent orange around my house just sprayed weed killer on his grain crop a few days before harvest. What about hortiulture workers ending up in ICU with bad pestidcide poisoning from work.
Or the average joe who just mixes up some chem and sprays away.

 

[fian]

Hence why, under the VMR, specifically the Cascade, a vet could lawfully prescribe it... So if you want to do it lawfully, that is the way to do it.

@roche completely agree. However, what I'm trying to suggest is that this looks like a way to do it lawfully. Using products off licence is unlawful.

I think you still haven't understood the difference between varroa/flea and velutina/wolf versus bee/sheep.
1. Varroa and fleas are parasites that live with bees/sheep and can transmit diseases.
2. The velutina and the wolf are predators that feed on bees/sheep. Nor are they exclusive predators of these species and under certain prevention measures their incidence can be reduced.
3. What he is proposing is to exterminate the wolves so that the sheep can live freely in the British countryside.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

they have wolves in Kent as well!!!

 

[Wilco]

I think you still haven't understood the difference between varroa/flea and velutina/wolf versus bee/sheep.
1. Varroa and fleas are parasites that live with bees/sheep and can transmit diseases.
2. The velutina and the wolf are predators that feed on bees/sheep. Nor are they exclusive predators of these species and under certain prevention measures their incidence can be reduced.
3. What he is proposing is to exterminate the wolves so that the sheep can live freely in the British countryside.

By using an authorised veterinary medicinal product for an off licence use.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I think you still haven't understood the difference between varroa/flea and velutina/wolf versus bee/sheep.

this must be one of the most surreal posts I've seen here for a long time
Although a six legged sheep would be a winner for big families at Easter time

 

[fian]

this must be one of the most surreal posts I've seen here for a long time
Although a six legged sheep would be a winner for big families at Easter time

More surreal is using a regulation aimed at the protection/euthanasia of an animal to decimate an invasive exotic species.

 

[madasafish]

This reminds me of the medieval debates about how many angels could dance on a pinhead.

 

[rolande]

this must be one of the most surreal posts I've seen here for a long time
Although a six legged sheep would be a winner for big families at Easter time

He's sounding more like Mike B by the day. Not that that's 'necessarily a bad thing... just so long as we don't have to go down the 'bees will adapt' route.

 

[John stockburn]

And while everyone stands around chewing the fat the march continues
we have the formula so just do the job and say nothing ,

 

[roche]

It's being used to protect bees by killing a pest of them. Unfortunately bees are covered by the VMR.

So if a non-beekeeper uses custard, it obviously not being used to protect bees, so the problem goes away.

 

[North End Bees]

What I can share is the method that Mazzamazda perfected back in 2017 and deployed with success in Portugal.
[...]
Moderator addition - I don't think anyone without the necessary knowledge or experience to administer Fipronil Custard would consider making or using this stuff ... it's here for interest only NOT a suggestion for use.

I'm beginning to wonder about some people using this post for interest only rather than for action.

 

[Wilco]

So if a non-beekeeper uses custard, it obviously not being used to protect bees, so the problem goes away.

Not really. There's still the issue of an authorised veterinary medicinal product being used off licence, which is illegal unless done under veterinary prescription.

If there's a non veterinary version of fipronil then it might come under different legislation and there be wiggle room but that's outside my area of expertise.

 

[The Poot]

I don’t know quite why, but this thread reminded me of these Strawbs lyrics….(abridged)

I drew the blade across my wrist
To see how it would feel…….

Round and round we go
Round and round and round we go……

It’s also like “Today in Parliament“ - a load of guff and reasons why we can’t deal with a problem, we have an answer for, that if left unresolved will turn into a monster.

Time to stick the pencils up the nose….
Wibble.

 

[Karol]

Not really. There's still the issue of an authorised veterinary medicinal product being used off licence, which is illegal unless done under veterinary prescription.

Only if used medicinally!

If it's not used as a veterinary medicinal product it falls outside of the scope of the VMR.

The problem Wilco that you have adopting the line you have is that you classify velutina as an animal under VMR which I would argue it's not. Admittedly the VMR is poorly written because its definition of animal is ambiguous in the extreme. But that ambiguity allows the argument to exclude velutina from the definition of animal and therefore fall outside of the scope of the VMR.

If you define velutina as an animal you actually put velutina beyond cascade and into the realm of getting specific authorisation from the Secretary of State. Under VMR the animal has to be under the care of the vet to permit the vet to prescribe. Don't see how velutina can be considered to be under the care of a vet.

If there's a non veterinary version of fipronil then it might come under different legislation and there be wiggle room but that's outside my area of expertise.

It becomes non veterinary the instant it's not used medicinally. The VMR defines what a medicinal product is by function/usage.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

It becomes non veterinary the instant it's not used medicinally.

and then immediately becomes illegal to use?

 

[Wilco]

Only if used medicinally!

If it's not used as a veterinary medicinal product it falls outside of the scope of the VMR.

The problem Wilco that you have adopting the line you have is that you classify velutina as an animal under VMR which I would argue it's not. Admittedly the VMR is poorly written because its definition of animal is ambiguous in the extreme. But that ambiguity allows the argument to exclude velutina from the definition of animal and therefore fall outside of the scope of the VMR.

If you define velutina as an animal you actually put velutina beyond cascade and into the realm of getting specific authorisation from the Secretary of State. Under VMR the animal has to be under the care of the vet to permit the vet to prescribe. Don't see how velutina can be considered to be under the care of a vet.



It becomes non veterinary the instant it's not used medicinally. The VMR defines what a medicinal product is by function/usage.

Fipronil = AVM GSL = Veterinary medicinal product with specifications on how it is allowed to be used.

Use outside this = off licence needs prescription by a vet under the cascade. Otherwise it's illegal.

So if a beekeeper were to use it to protect their bees from AH, the result an arguable case. However, thats for the NBU to decide.

In this case permission from the Secretary of State would probably also be wise.

 

[Karol]

and then immediately becomes illegal to use?

The VMRs control the use of products as medicines administered to animals. The product therefore has to satisfy the definition of veterinary medicinal product and the animal has to satisfy the definition of animal. If either condition isn't met then the VMRs don't apply.

The definition of medicinal product does not rely on the classification or authorisation of a product as a veterinary medicine. Rather it relies on how the product is used.

There are no restrictions on the sale of AVM-GSL products so it is lawful to be in possession of AVM-GSL products precisely because they are authorised for sale. They can only be used medicinally in the manner of their authorisation. If they are not used medicinally then I can't see any statute preventing non medicinal use in this one specific instance. In this instance the product falls out of the regulations and becomes unregulated as far the VMRs are concerned in which case the biocides directive kicks in. So for non medicinal use to be lawful or unlawful there has to be an applicable law which I don't believe there is one because the biocide directive only controls sale not use. Hence why I carefully chose the wording 'not unlawful'.

Again all the usual disclaimers apply. It's a very complex area of specialist law and my advice is not to do anything without getting that specialist legal advice. The body to get that advice would be the NBU or BKAs.

Also the same caveat applies that this is in preparation for a change of condition in the UK so as to have all the i's dotted and t's crossed before it becomes a problem.

 

[fian]

Fipronil = AVM GSL = Veterinary medicinal product with specifications on how it is allowed to be used.

Use outside this = off licence needs prescription by a vet under the cascade. Otherwise it's illegal.

So if a beekeeper were to use it to protect their bees from AH, the result an arguable case. However, thats for the NBU to decide.

In this case permission from the Secretary of State would probably also be wise.

There is also a legal requirement that cannot be ignored.
Who is the owner of the nest of velutinas that you intend to decimate?
Basically because the legislation establishes that there must be a signed informed consent.
https://www.bsavalibrary.com/content/formulary/frontmatter/exotic-pets/theprescribingcascade

 

[Wilco]

The VMRs control the use of products as medicines administered to animals. The product therefore has to satisfy the definition of veterinary medicinal product and the animal has to satisfy the definition of animal. If either condition isn't met then the VMRs don't apply.

The definition of medicinal product does not rely on the classification or authorisation of a product as a veterinary medicine. Rather it relies on how the product is used.

There are no restrictions on the sale of AVM-GSL products so it is lawful to be in possession of AVM-GSL products precisely because they are authorised for sale. They can only be used medicinally in the manner of their authorisation. If they are not used medicinally then I can't see any statute preventing non medicinal use in this one specific instance. In this instance the product falls out of the regulations and becomes unregulated as far the VMRs are concerned in which case the biocides directive kicks in. So for non medicinal use to be lawful or unlawful there has to be an applicable law which I don't believe there is one because the biocide directive only controls sale not use. Hence why I carefully chose the wording 'not unlawful'.

Again all the usual disclaimers apply. It's a very complex area of specialist law and my advice is not to do anything without getting that specialist legal advice. The body to get that advice would be the NBU or BKAs.

Also the same caveat applies that this is in preparation for a change of condition in the UK so as to have all the i's dotted and t's crossed before it becomes a problem.

Biocides directives contains a clause stating that it does not apply to products on the market under the VMR.

Fipronil is on the market under the VMR.

Under the VMR it is authorised as an AVM GSL for a specific purpose. To deviate from this use is to use it illegally.

The only way around this is prescribing under the cascade. Yes, it gets murky around ownership/wildlife/invasive species but there are some other relevant pieces of legislation which may give a way through.

 

[John stockburn]

Old man river he just keeps rolling on
FFS just do whatever it does not need all this waffle