a couple of Janet L. Wilson snips followed by > my comments....

I am always amazed that when an easy, quick answer to a thorny biological challenge is not available, so many humans step up to fill the void with copious amounts of speculative, self-aggrandizing snake oil. 

>Amazed not! Most folks wish to think whatever action they take is positive and will remedy a problem.  For many it is not in their mental modeling to even consider the short, intermediate or long term consequence of their actions. A long list of 'emergency approved' remedies have demonstrated this inability to consider long term consequence of their use (and often time over use).   

Leaving aside the virtues of swilling/injecting disinfectant, the treatment free movement, which likes to brand itself as "better beekeeping", "natural beekeeping", "ethical beekeeping" (that's my personal favourite), "Darwinian beekeeping" (??), simply promotes and capitalizes on an anger and distrust of hard science and beekeeping regulatory agencies for failing to provide a quick and certain remedy for Varroa mites.

>I have no idea what 'natural beekeeping even means. I guess some of us do practice a form of what some might call Darwinian beekeeping (even that terms sounds not so accurate) and at least a group of us here in Central Texas have had some success in this endeavor.  Typically this requires a mind set that the problem is complex enough that 1) you are not capable of mentally modeling all the variables and 2) resolving a long term problem requires a long term commitment in time and money. It seems to me that 'science and regular agencies' have provide and promoted quick (short term) remedies but have largely been in denial of these remedies long term consequence and cost.  

As Jim said, good peer-reviewed science is the worst tool of all...except for all the others. It will get us there, but the timeline is uncertain. 

>Nothing wrong with peer reviewed science... imho good science is easy to criticize but difficult and time consuming to do! The down side of peer review is 'confirmation bias' and clever sounding quips which often distract folks from determining what is known from what is 'thought to be true'. At least for myself I often have to read an article twice to distinguish what is fact and what is speculation.    

Meanwhile, as I have said before,  this is no time to throw in the towel and let Mother Nature have her way. 

>Well quite often Mother Nature (or time) will inform us that we (as individual and a species) are not as smart as some folks would like to believe.

Gene in Central Texas.....

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html