recently, joe hemmens wrote:
 
"Also,  and I don't know about beekeepers in the US,  but in the UK
there have certainly been quite a few beekeepers who practise
'let-alone'  beekeeping.  The 'let-alone'  beekeepers do not treat
their bees against Varroa (or anything else!) and provide a reservoir
of mites to infest other colonies whose owners take more care.  After
a year or two the 'let-alone'  beekeepers give up beekeeping or
decide to treat their bees - and the level of reinfestation drops."
 
i'm not sure i totally agree with this statement.  if, as everyone suggests,
and has been my own experience, a "let-alone" hive will die over winter due
to not being treated, then where is the reservoir of mites coming from?  we
know dead bees cannot support mites, and that they die off shortly after the
colony dies.  so, i can't agree with this statement.
 
however, if a severly weakened colony survives the winter with mites, then
it could re-infest the locale.  but my own experience shows that an infested
colony dies over the winter.  i lost my 3 hives last winter, altho i never
saw a mite.
 
i now have 6 hives obtained from people's roofs.  all of these were at least
3 years old, quite strong, survived with no chemicals at all and are still
going strong.  my hope is that they are resistant or are developing resistance.
 
how are we to develop resistant bees if we treat all bees?  those left
untreated, and which survive, can certainly be declared as resistant, even
if just somewhat.  natural selection will cause some colonies to survive,
and many to die.  the ones that survive should be split and propagated, as
i have done, and allowed to continue to verify that the resistance is real.
 
any thoughts?
 
         (\     John     /)
       {|||8-    in    -8|||}
         (/  Santa Cruz  \)
             California