Sometimes, the number of levels of wheels within wheels 
(a la Ezekiel 1:15) gets a little complexified. 

So, Bob's "truth check" seems to need a "fact check".
But its complicated.  Yes, it is hard to slog through
all this.  It should be. It was hard to write.  :)

> ...ad  suggesting each of us place Checkmite in our hives 
> to control small hive beetle (SHB). Ad claims checkmite 
> is the only *registered* in hive treatment for SHB.

> Beek[eeper]s in Florida used the SHB issue to get checkmite 
> a section 18 so the product could be used for varroa control.

No, that's not right - Back in 1999, Florida pulled a 
very cute gambit, and was able to convince the EPA to 
allow a Section 18 for coumaphos use on BOTH varroa and SHB.  
See Malcolm's report from that time here:
http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis99/apjan99.htm

Several other states followed Florida's lead, among them
NY, which got the same "special exemptions" from the EPA.  
See:
http://tinyurl.com/6fx8jn
or
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/insect-mite/cadusafos-cyromazine/coumap
hos/index.html

Where you can see that NY copied the Florida Gambit
in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007

The basic problem was that under the EPA's regulations, 
only one "Section 18" product was allowed at any one 
time in any one state for any one pest, and both
Api-Life and Checkmite were being sold under Section 18s,
forcing states to choose between them.

But it should be clear to even the casual observer that 
one wants to ALTERNATE one's treatments so as to avoid 
creating resistance, but the painful, lengthy, and 
expensive "Section 3" full approval process is painful, 
lengthy, and expensive, and the beekeeping market is not 
large enough to justify the expense of a "Section 3" 
registration unless one can utilize the lower-cost 
"IR4" program, and even then, it is a painfully slow
process.  Hence, the "Florida Gambit".

But it was still disingenuous in the extreme to allow
coumaphos anywhere near a beehive. At the time, anyone
with a Gas Chromatograph could see the residues in wax,
yet the Section 18 defined coumaphos use as a "non-food" 
use. No tolerances were set for coumaphos in either 
honey or beeswax, yet the residues were measurable with
even the most primitive and obsolete gear after even a 
single use.

The only reason that Checkmite was needed was that
Api-Life was viewed as "risky" in that it was 
temperature-dependent, and the performance curve
had not been plotted with any authority, which made
for uncertainty.  Some people killed bees with Thymol.

The current situation is that Section 3s exist for
Apistan (fluvalinate), Mite-Away II (formic acid),
Api-Life VAR (thymol, menthol and eucalyptus oil)
and Sucrocide ("sucrose octonaote esters", which 
I think has been generally found to be ineffective). 

But there is a groundswell of Oxalic Acid dribblers
out there, and this unregistered product seems to 
offer the best mix of low risk to the beekeeper,
low cost, decent control, and no residues.  Irony.

> SHB get choumaphos on their bodies and cruise the hive.

They do?  Why are they not killed by the contact?

> I imagine many hobby beeks place checkmite in their hives 
> as a preventive year after year after reading those adds.

I think hobby beekeepers are more concerned about the
use of an organophosphate on "moral" grounds, but perhaps
the hobby beekeepers I know are more high-minded
than most.

> Drench the ground with GoldStar.

GUARDstar.  
GoldStar is a Korean appliance maker.  :)

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************