I can accept Paul H.s definition,even though I consider it a bit extreme.
"I propose that we all agree that any hive manipulation, chemical application, apiary location, or any other intervention preformed for the purpose of controlling the naturally occurring varroa population be defined and recognized as a treatment."
I prefer to use the term "miticide free" to distance myself from the fringe groups (dare I say wack jobs) who espouse "do nothing" beekeeping. It is no wonder that the TF label has now so many detractors.It wasn't always this way.It started as an offshoot of the organic movement,a desire to find alternative methods of pest control.I remember the statement that  " beekeepers were on the other side of the fence from pesticides,but when the mites hit,they knocked the fence over in their haste to get to the other side"
What bothers me is  the fact that many beekeepers( and much of commercial ag also) have turned the IPM triangle upside down.Instead of starting from a broad base of resistant bees(crops) and progressing towards pestcide applications if indicated by parasite monitoring,we are now being advised to use pesticides (or seed treatments) first.
I'm not knocking commercial beeks(or commercial ag).They have to eat,we all have to eat.I commend those like Randy whose goal is to reduce pesticide usage, but I doubt we will ever eliminate the need.
Jack



             ***********************************************

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