> But isn't interesting that we've yet to see menthol-resistant tracheal
mites,

I can see this is going to be a real tarbaby, but I'll take one more whack
at it.

How do we know we don't?

> and yet to see "resistance" to Fumadil crop up...

Again, how do we know for sure?  And, besides what has this to do with
anything?

> Might it be that the subset of beekeepers who use these two (highly
under-rated)
> treatments are also the subset of beekeepers who tend to not only read and
> follow label instructions, but use "treatments" only when there is an
actual
> need to treat?

Interesting speculation, but, we all know -- if we think about it for two
seconds -- one without any foundation.

> Perhaps Canadian bees are more predictable than others in this regard, but
I
> submit that most beekeepers in most locations cannot predict if their bees
will
> "retreat" upwards or downwards within the hive, and suggest that there is
just
> as much chance that clustering will take place adjacent to the strips as
not.

Perhaps what I discussed is not possible where you live, or under your
management.

> One would expect that having a "commercial outfit" would give one the
financial
> incentive to strive for excellence in these areas rather than be used an
excuse
> for sloppy practices.  Lots of businesses hire staff, most hire folks with
less skills
> and smarts than are required to work in an apiary, but the majority of
them equip
> their staffs with checks and balances that are designed to expect, account
for,
> and avoid human error.

I was talking about what happens everyday the Real World, not what we think
should happen.

> Perhaps the "fact of life" is that a lack of metrics and cross-checks are
a risky way
> to run any business, large or small.

Saying something is wrong, or Jim does not like it,  does not change the
fact that it happens.  I'm not an advocate, just a messenger.

> > I am not advocating this leaving strips in over winter, since I know a
> > better and more effective time to apply the strips, but I have heard the
> > practice considered reasonable by persons who hold great respect in our
> > industry.
>
> A rational observer would be forced to rethink his choice of role-models.
> Do these respected folks also think that stop signs only apply to other
people?

I guess I have to point his out once again:  not everyone lives in the US
and is under US or (insert your state here)  law.  I assume that the
researcher(s) to whom I refer have whatever permits they need to do the
research in their jurisdiction.

> > In fact, some respectable research has recently (is currently?)
> > been taking place on this very practice.
>
> There is also research taking place on the effects of anthrax on
> mammals, but this does not imply that the researchers think that
> its a good idea to expose mammals to anthrax.

What does this have to do with anything?  Rhetoric is no substitute for
reason.

Besides I think you may be mistaken about even that, seeing as that exposure
to controlled doses of a weakened pathogen is often the basis for
immunization -- AFAIK.

> > The practice discussed may still be inadvisable, but we need to
> > consider it levelly
>
> If we agree that it is "inadvisable", what would the outcome be of
> additional "consideration"?  What changed to prompt such reconsideration?

Or it may not be inadvisable.  That is the point of considering it -- to
decide under the circumstances and in the jurisdiction in question.  There
are very different rules for Apistan use in different countries of the
world.  Each country makes its own, and discussion and research is how the
rules are set -- monitored, and sometimes changed.

This is an adult forum.  Participants are expected to have enough moral and
ethical sense to know the difference between discussing something and doing
it if it is illegal in their locality, and if obeying the law is the norm in
their community.

> > Things have changed, and will continue to change.
>
> But what specifically changed that might have impact on the issue at hand?
> As far as I know, the chemical is the same, the bees have not changed, and
> the mites have become resistant only in a few specific places.  If mites
were
> becoming generally resistant everywhere, I might agree that something had
> "changed".

We have a lot more experience.

> But ignoring label instructions on pesticides and/or bee medications is
> not a "new way of thinking", it is an old way of not thinking at all.

> If changes are considered prudent by those who shoulder the burden of
> responsibility in this area, they will be reflected on the label.

In Canada, *the people* (that's us) have some say in what goes on the label.
Free discussion is how these labels are written.  If they don't work quite
as expected or a new concept or new information comes along, we change them.

> So, one chooses to follow the label, or one chooses to break the law -
it's just that simple.
>
> As we beekeepers are so fond of chanting when growers use pesticides,
> "the label IS the law".

This is really not about the law. Whatever the law says where you live,
that's what it says.  Whether to obey the law or not is really outside the
scope of this forum.

Respect for the law is important, but this is a beekeeping forum, and we got
to discussing the reasoning and principles around application of Apistan,
and possible future changes in recommendations and regulations, on their
merits.

allen

The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will not submit to
arbitrary measures -- Junius