OK let's get back to beekeeper "A" and "B". You've decided beekeeper "A" is a criminal because he knows he's killing mites using sumac smoke. But you haven't answered my question. As a licensed, highly trained, pesticide applicator: Is beekeeper "B" also a crook because he is using sumac smoke unaware that he's killing mites?
07-02-2006, 12:28 PM
I didnt go back and check, but I believe I stated that beekeeper A, if using sumac smoke as a pesticide would be using a substance that is unregistered by the EPA for use in honeybee colonies as a pesticide, and therefore using it illegally. I didn't say he would be a criminal.
Beekeeper B if using sumac soley as a smoker fuel would not be using it illegally because he has no intent to kill or mitigate a pest.
IF I may add in my edit:
This does not give beekeeper B a loophole of "pretending" he has no intent to use it as a pesticide by using it in a manner intended to conceal it's use as a pesticide.
You may not be able to apply this information to the case of using it as for mite control. Unlike the tanning extract, the mode of application by smoking requires burning the sumac which may change the characteristics, creating unknown compounds.
I remember reading a study that was done the effects of burning sumac for mite control, and I believe that they suspect pyrogallol as the active ingredient, but Im not sure this has been proven to be. From what I am reading suggests that pyrogallol may not be an effective pesticidal agent against the varroa, but it does have anti microbial qualities. There may be an as of yet other unknown substances created when sumac is burned that are affecting the mites and or honeybees or the person inhaling the smoke.
07-02-2006, 08:38 PM
So, beekeeper "B" has every right to use sumac to smoke his hive, but beekeeper "A" does not have that same right?
07-03-2006, 03:30 AM
>Bayer brought us CheckMite (cumophos)
Sure. But the EPA approved it. Now as you point out, they're looking to un-approve it along with the other organophosphates. Great! I could make a snide remark about hindsight being 20:20 but I won't. Whoops! Just did!
>The EPA is phasing out organophosphates like
cumophos, and has eliminated their use in most
of agriculture. Beekeeping is one of the
areas where the EPA has been begged to allow
us to continue using it, as some find it
So who knows best whether a product should be on the market? The end-users, the pesticide company making the stuff, or the regulatory authority who gets to decide if it's safe and prudent to use? Sorry, rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.
>> The EPA is no friend of mine.
>So you feel that you only need to follow
rules and regulations created by those who
I don't think I said that. In fact I know I didn't say that. What I said was "I am not claiming to be above the law, I am merely exercising my right to interpret the law in the light of my own informed perspective."
>> These are the people that pulled the teeth out of the Bee Precautionary Labeling law
>No, don't blame the EPA for the efforts of the
lobbyists hired by pesticide makers and applicators don't blame the EPA for being forced to be more "industry friendly" by the current administration.
Oh. Lobbyists. Right. So the EPA can be bought? Gee, I wonder how much it costs to buy-off a federal regulator or two? I bet it's expensive [img]smile.gif[/img]
>There is no need to worry about smoker fuels,
one may use whatever one pleases.
Well Jim, we agree completely on this one [img]smile.gif[/img]
>Now, if someone started marketing something with an "active ingredient" of Sumac, THEN the EPA would have a say in the matter, and would refuse to approve the product without proof that it was more than a placebo.
Golly, I hope they'd require more than just proof it's not a placebo! Is it safe to assume they would also be concerned about honey contamination, the health effects of short and long term exposure, and the impact on the health and vitality of our queens, or is that where the lobbyists come in?
07-03-2006, 03:34 AM
>So, beekeeper "B" has every right to use sumac to smoke his hive, but beekeeper "A" does not have that same right?
I think Joe has maneuvered his way out onto a limb as is often the result of following a tenuous premise to it's absurd conclusion.
Let's either let him retreat or give him a hand saw [img]smile.gif[/img]
07-03-2006, 07:46 AM
--So, beekeeper "B" has every right to use sumac to smoke his hive, but beekeeper "A" does not have that same right?
They both have the same rights!
But they dont have the right to us it as a pesticide because it is NOT registered for use in honeybee colonies.
Look at the sodium cyanide fiasco.
Sodium cyanide that beekeepers were caught using to kill honeybees is registered for use in the commercial chrome plating business and in mining for extracting gold and silver from ore. It is not illegal to possess the compound, but it is also not registered as a pesticide anywhere in the United States and therefore illegal to use the substance as a pesticide.
07-03-2006, 08:08 AM
--I think Joe has maneuvered his way out onto a limb as is often the result of following a tenuous premise to it's absurd conclusion.
Very clever and crafty comment,
But I can be clever to George! [img]smile.gif[/img]
Well at least I didnt choose to go out on a SUMAC branch George! [img]smile.gif[/img]
A sumac branch is a good analogy to the argument supporting the use of sumac illegally as a pesticide.
It is flimsy and not very strong support, and no foundation in law and will not hold under the weight of Scrutiny.
I would have choosen a fuel that is not suspected to have pesticide qualities like that found on a nice strong sturdy maple tree branch! :cool:
Dick did not prove his point!
The laws on pesticide use are clear.
Although, I may have said it would be STUPID to use a substance that was suggested to have pesticidal qualities as a fuel when there are other less harmful alternatives. I don't believe I ever said it was illegal to use sumac as a smoke fuel.
The laws are clear, and you can refer back to the sodium cyanide example I gave in the last thread.
07-03-2006, 08:27 AM
Joe, I'm not trying to prove anythng. This has become neither a discussion or a debate. It has simply become a 'last word contest', so knock yourself out! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
[size="1"][ July 03, 2006, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ][/size]
07-03-2006, 10:27 AM
The EPA would do just fine if allowed to enforce the laws and standards of this country. As for whether they can be bought....the EPA director is appointed by the president. I'll let you decide what is and isn't being bought in light of a recent, sustained effect by the exucutive branch to undo the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts which were enacted OVERWELMINGLY by a Republican congress who believed strongly in protecting the future of the U.S.
07-03-2006, 11:33 AM
"But I can be clever to George!"
Don't just be clever to George, please include the rest of us, we're waiting. . . .
07-03-2006, 12:44 PM
>Beekeeper B if using sumac soley as a smoker fuel would not be using it illegally because he has no intent to kill or mitigate a pest.
Actually this may not quite be true. If infact it is illegal to use sumac as smoker fuel to control pests in a beehive, then it is an illegal act to use it in a beehive period. Ignorance of the law or lack of intent are not a defense for commiting an illegal act unless intent is specifically codified in the law. That being said in reality they are treated much different. Following is an analology to illustrate:
The Law: It is illegal in the United States to posess the dried pods or straw of the opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum). No distinction is defined in the law regarding the violator's intent, it is illegal to posess it period.
Gardener A: An 80-year old woman who grows "ornamental" poppies in her flower beds. She saves the dried pods from year to year as a seed source to maintain her beds. She believes that "ornamental" poppies are not the same as opium poppies and has no knowledge to the contrary.
Gardener B: A 60-year old man who grows "ornamental" poppies in his flower beds and saves the dried pods from year to year. He has written and published articles on how to grow "ornamental" poppies and promotes the use of the pods/straw to make "opium" tea for use as a mild sedative/analgesic.
Both gardners are performing an illegal act (posession of poppy pods/straw).
Gardener A has very little risk of being arrested or prosecuted.
Gardener B not only is at high risk of being arrested, if he is, it is almost guaranteed that he will be prosecuted because his knowledge and intent are easily documented and can be used against him in court.
I don't personally know if using sumac smoke could be considered an illegal act, since I have not done an exhaustive research of the applicable laws in my state. My gut feeling is that it would be almost impossible to apply the pesticide control laws in my state to this unless there was an "incident" involving sumac smoke being used in beehives that had been proven to be detrimental to human health in a major way. Sumac smoke is not a well known, documented highly used pesticide. If, in the absence of a law specifically forbiding its use, it could be determined based on existing pesticide laws that using sumac smoke was indeed an illegal act, a beekeeper using sumac smoke in almost any circumstances would most probably be viewed similarly to Gardner A above unless he/she had publicly documented and promoted its use as a pesticide. This still begs the question: "Should I use it?" Since the evidence of its effectiveness is "anecdotal" at best IMO its a question each beekeeper should ask themself and make an informed decision based on his/her own comfort level and sense of ethics.
The term "silly" comes to mind with this discussion. Smoking bees is a common activity. Sumac has historically been used. Sumac is not illegal. Smoking bees with sumac is not illegal. Any other conclusion gets the silly verdict. Find one case in law and present it if you believe otherwise.
07-03-2006, 05:24 PM
oh come on Ross
being "reasonable" doesn't make me giggle nearly as much as being "silly" [img]smile.gif[/img]
work the bees [smoke em with some sumac]
get hot and sweaty
get stung a few times
come in and read the "giggly thread"
all is right with the world :D
work the bees
get hot and sweaty
get stung a few time
have some "ornamental" poppy tea [img]tongue.gif[/img]
then read the "giggly thread"
oh yeah, all is right with the world for sure! :D
>Well at least I didn’t choose to go out on a SUMAC branch George!
Well you couldn't get very far out on a sumac limb Joe, nor very high off the ground if you tried. Fortunately sumac don't grow tall so in any case, you wouldn't have far to fall [img]smile.gif[/img]
I find it interesting that you can be so rabidly anti-treatment regarding your bees on the one hand and so vehemently pro-treatment as a licensed pesticide applicator on the other. Life is full of irony and in fact, such conflicts are not uncommon in people's lives. I personally think they broaden one's perspective. That's a good thing.
07-04-2006, 06:47 AM
>Fortunately sumac don't grow tall so in any case, you wouldn't have far to fall.
While most sumac don't get more than six or eight feet I see some that are 30 feet now and then. That's a long way to fall.
07-04-2006, 06:56 AM
I just found this thread, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Didn't matter to me at all as to the outcome, just found it all highly amusing and entertaining. :D
Thanks Guys (and gals, if there were any. ) [img]smile.gif[/img]
07-04-2006, 12:41 PM
--If infact it is illegal to use sumac as smoker fuel to control pests in a beehive, then it is an illegal act to use it in a beehive period.
According to the EPA it would depend if it was used as a pesticide or not.
The EPA link below explains it very well.
All should read the link that do not understand why it is illegal to use sumac as a pesticide in beehives.
Heres some clips from the EPA link that apply to the use of sumac as a pesticide:
Many natural substances can be used as pesticides, such as extracts of pyrethrum, garlic, tea-tree oil and eucalyptus oil. When these natural chemicals are used as pesticides they become subject to the same controls as pesticides produced synthetically.
Another common misconception is that pesticides made from natural substances or 'home brews' are intrinsically safer in all respects than synthetically produced or commercial pesticides. All substances whether they are synthetic or naturally derived involve some degree of risk when they are used to control pests .
PS. I have to include the clip below on this thread from this point on because I want Dick to always have the last word. [img]smile.gif[/img]
,,, This has become neither a discussion or a debate. It has simply become a 'last word contest',,,