# An Agreeable Starting Point?



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

There are people here with many different circumstances, some of which make moving to treatment-free beekeeping very hard, and with different resources, and needs as far as preserving numbers of working colonies. Many are caught in the trap of needing to treat to maintain a livelihood, while knowing that treating preserves low levels of resistance - the treatment addiction scenario. Others are freer to experiment with strategies that often lead to high failure rates, without that mattering particularly.

These differences in circumstances and side-aims seem to me to be the cause of a lot of cross-talk. 

I suspect one major cause of disagreements is born of the of use of the absolutes: 'resistant' and 'non-resistant', where the reality is that most of the time we are dealing with bees that have a little, but not enough resistance. The objective is to raise resistance levels, until treatments are no longer needed in a sufficiently large proportion of our bees, rather than to try to get 100% of colonies 100% varroa-capable. 

I wonder: does all of that form an agreeable starting point for all parties to begin a discussion about how we locate principles that can be taylored to all circumstances, taking care to use language that does not mean different things in different places? Or even the basis for a discussion about what would form an agreeable starting point to such ends?

Such a discussion would accept the premise that breeding toward resistance leading to genuine improvement is possible. We don't want to keep fighting that fight again and again. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

It's not the starting point that is disagreeable.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Every beekeeper who makes their own increase - assuming that they also have hives that die of varroa related causes - is working toward mite resistance whether they intend to or not. Every beekeeper would like to have healthy productive bees that don't require expensive time consuming medication. But this part of the forum is constrained to ideologically pure treatment free beekeeping which is free of other husbandry practices regardless of their practicality or effectiveness or lack of. You might be better off starting it in the bee forum if that is not what you had in mind. It would be a bit less likely to result in a food fight.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

mike bispham said:


> Many are caught in the trap of needing to treat to maintain a livelihood,


I dislike weasel words, why don't we just cut to the chase, commercial beekeepers. There are two primary groups who are very resistant to moving to treatment-free beekeeping. These are commercial (or sideliner) beekeepers who cannot afford major losses and hobbyists who are averse to the idea of "their girls" dying.




mike bispham said:


> until treatments are no longer needed in a sufficiently large proportion of our bees, rather than to try to get 100% of colonies 100% varroa-capable.


No group of colonies is going to be 100% of anything 100% of the time. Expecting hives to live forever is a practice in disappointing yourself. So rather, the goal is to progress to a point where no treatment results in acceptable losses, let's say less than 10% on a fairly consistent basis. Then we can discuss how to get there. Seems like an agreeable starting point to me. Ultimately, it is the individual beekeeper's choice of what to do and hopefully they will approach it in a scientific manner.




mike bispham said:


> We don't want to keep fighting that fight again and again.


Then you've got to stop with the insults and learn to use the "Ignore" function. There are a couple of specific individuals around here who are more than happy to return what they get with an extra helping on top. As long as that keeps going back and forth nothing will get done. I have come to the point where I have decided that my purpose is to help hobbyists and backyard beekeepers. I'm not terribly interested in arguing with commercials. Discuss your theories and methods with people interested in discussing theories and methods. What you've been doing is arguing with people not interested in accommodating your side of the story and they're going to keep dragging you through the mud. Do you think Michael Bush got where he is today by arguing about it?


"Cancel all my meetings, someone on the internet is wrong!"


----------



## Robbin (May 26, 2013)

Solomon Parker said:


> Do you think Michael Bush got where he is today by arguing about it?
> 
> 
> "Cancel all my meetings, someone on the internet is wrong!"


You should read more of Michael Bush's responses, and emulate his tone... I'm a hobbist with 6 hives, wanting to be/stay treatment free, and I'm researching the "ignore" function you mentioned as your flame thrower attack responses cut down on my enjoyment when I read treatment free threads. That said, I can't find ignore anywhere....


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

One way to add someone to your Ignore list is through your _Member Profile > Settings > Edit Ignore List
_
This link takes me to mine, perhaps it will also work for you, assuming you are _logged in._
http://www.beesource.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist

However, personally I doubt that adding someone to an _Ignore _list will increase your overall satisfaction with Beesource, but it won't be the first time that I am wrong!

I don't agree with all of Solomon's posts, but when I read #4 above I thought it sounded fairly reasonable to me. If everybody on Beesource always agreed on everything, there wouldn't be much useful _discussion_, would there?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Click on Settings at the top of this page. Look under My Settings and find Edit Ignore List. Or simply control yourself and don't read Posts submitted by folks you wish to ignore.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

> and hobbyists who are averse to the idea of "their girls" dying...(snip)...Then you've got to stop with the insults ...


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Your tone could use some work, too, y'know. Mr. Parker, I may not agree with your message but I have never objected to it, just the way you deliver it. I find myself more and more reluctant to even browse this particular forum because of the tone of a few people, not just you. But you're the moderator. You're supposed to set the tone. But you are too often guilty of setting the wrong tone and allowing others to do the same.



> I have come to the point where I have decided that my purpose is to help hobbyists and backyard beekeepers. I'm not terribly interested in arguing with commercials.


If this is really the case, then I look forward to the tone on here changing. There is a lot all of us can learn from each other if we can just dial back the rhetoric a tad. There are some interesting theories that are worth exploring if we can just stop arguing long enough to hear each other!

JMO

Rusty

edited to add:


> However, personally I doubt that adding someone to an Ignore list will increase your overall satisfaction with Beesource, but it won't be the first time that I am wrong!


It has worked for me!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> But you're the moderator.


No, he isn't. Hasn't been for quite a while. Moderators have the word Moderator under their name.

I don't know how anyone can expect anyone elses tone to change. Our tone is an illustration of our personality. Luv us or leave us be, I guess. Take an "Oh, that's just sqkcrk." attitude. That's my suggestion.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> But you're the moderator.


Solomon _was _a moderator, but is not currently. Note that moderators have the word "Moderator" under their member names.

Not a job I would want! :lookout:


(and for the record, the title under my name is just a _title_. It comes with absolutely no privileges/authority/responsibility/etc. beyond what any other member has. )


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

sqkcrk said:


> No, he isn't. Hasn't been for quite a while. Moderators have the word Moderator under their name.
> 
> I don't know how anyone can expect anyone elses tone to change. Our tone is an illustration of our personality. Luv us or leave us be, I guess. Take an "Oh, that's just sqkcrk." attitude. That's my suggestion.


I stand corrected. When I started here, he was indeed the moderator. I never noticed that had changed. 

Sorry, Mr. Parker, I obviously cannot hold you responsible when you are not in authority! I guess we are going to have to police ourselves. Too bad. We sure don't seem to be very good at it. We need some help here!

Rusty


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Robbin said:


> You should read more of Michael Bush's responses, and emulate his tone.


I'm not Michael Bush, he's obviously much nicer than me in text. What I say, I say with conviction. Yes, it does come off a bit harsh, but you won't see me calling anyone names or saying things which are blatantly disrespectful. That much you can expect out of me. But you'll notice I don't use "I think" much or "just my opinion." If I'm saying something, it's because I believe it, it's true, and I mean it. If you don't like that, feel free to ignore me. You haven't interacted with me so far, so I have no way of knowing if it would be worthwhile. Your choice.




Rader Sidetrack said:


> If everybody on Beesource always agreed on everything, there wouldn't be much useful _discussion_, would there?


Yes, even strenuous disagreement. That's why I commented on this thread. I haven't said but a couple of comments toward Mr. Bispham yet, but his tone can be quite a bit out of line, saying things like "blah blah." I don't like this for two reasons, number one, since I am a treatment-free beekeeper, I feel the discourse in my field must have some minimum level of intellectual rigor, and number two, it only inflames the users I already have "ignored" and the discussion goes totally off the rails, usually ending up with arguing about a bunch of esoteric junk that is of no use to anybody.





Rusty Hills Farm said:


> I find myself more and more reluctant to even browse this particular forum because of the tone of a few people, not just you.


If you think my strong views against anthropomorphization of bees is an insult, then perhaps the problem is that you're too sensitive.





Rusty Hills Farm said:


> But you're the moderator. You're supposed to set the tone. But you are too often guilty of setting the wrong tone and allowing others to do the same.


And here's another prime candidate, people not working with the facts. When I was the moderator, I clamped down on everything and a bunch of people hated it. But it was peaceful and stayed on topic. I stand by my record.





Rusty Hills Farm said:


> If this is really the case, then I look forward to the tone on here changing.


That will happen when treatment-free beekeepers actually come to the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum to talk about treatment-free beekeeping, in other words, not bloody likely.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

Solomon Parker said:


> If you think my strong views against anthropomorphization of bees is an insult, then perhaps the problem is that you're too sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> And here's another prime candidate, people not working with the facts. When I was the moderator, I clamped down on everything and a bunch of people hated it. But it was peaceful and stayed on topic. I stand by my record.


When I make a mistake, I say so. Which I did in post #11. I did say I was sorry. I had not noticed that you are no longer the moderator. To give credit where credit is due, you kept order. I realize now that this forum has become so unpleasant precisely because you are no longer exercising authority over it.

But there are ways to communicate and then there are ways to communicate. Just rein the sarcasm back a few notches. There is no need to be snotty towards the rest of us. You constantly give off the impression that you are slumming when you deign to respond to some of us who are not the purists that you are. At the very least that is off-putting. At its worst, it drives away the very people you say you want to help. Nobody wants help from someone who is gonna rub their nose in the fact that they need help! And nobody is gonna reconsider their position when they are being put down by the very person who is trying to persuade them!!!

JMO


Rusty


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If y'all don't mind me jumping in here, perhaps people read too much into what someone has written. Such as "sarcasm" and a "snotty" attitude. Read what is written and try to overlook what you think the demeanor of the Poster is in your mind. Because, quite often the way someone comes across in text is only in the mind of the reader and not the intent of the writer.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Oh, I freaking hate that, I just lost my entire post.



Rusty Hills Farm said:


> To give credit where credit is due, you kept order. I realize now that this forum has become so unpleasant precisely because you are no longer exercising authority over it.


Thank you.




Rusty Hills Farm said:


> Just rein the sarcasm back a few notches. There is no need to be snotty towards the rest of us. You constantly give off the impression that you are slumming when you deign to respond to some of us who are not the purists that you are. At the very least that is off-putting. At its worst, it drives away the very people you say you want to help. Nobody wants help from someone who is gonna rub their nose in the fact that they need help! And nobody is gonna reconsider their position when they are being put down by the very person who is trying to persuade them!!!


Here's where I am curious. This is sarcasm.  If you don't see this  then it's not sarcasm. I've come to realize that people just can't handle the amount of openness and honesty I have. Surely they think "he can't actually think that" and so assume it's sarcasm. It's not.

I don't know what "slumming" means, but I know what works and that's what I push. And if there is any snottiness whatsoever it is toward guys who come in here who are not treatment-free beekeepers and have no intentions of becoming one. Why are they here? Do they go in the Warre forum and argue Warre hives don't work? What is the big hangup?

On the other hand, I am extremely gentle with people who come in and honestly ask questions. I am here to answer those questions and it is toward those I gear my message. I do admit, I really do cringe when I see the anthropomorphism so often found among newbees. But there's a reason. Here's an example. I really hate killing things. You know, dog breeders never make friends with the dogs that don't cut it. They either keep as pets the champion dogs with the long working life, or they keep the dopey ones who have no chance of competing. Those are their pets. They don't make friends with the ones they have to take out back and shoot because they can't be sold. So when I see the "the girls" and the like, it stands fundamentally in the way of what is necessary in keeping bees treatment free. Because death is not just a regrettable loss that happens sometimes, it is the main tool of the trade. So you either have to have the fortitude to squish the queen ahead of time, or know that out there in the freezing cold your hive is dying. I really hate squishing queens and cutting chicken's throats and shooting dogs, I really really do. But this is life. And anybody who says that treatment-free beekeepers paint a rosy picture about just not treating and everything will be alright are full of it.

Who exactly have I rubbed in anything that needed help? If I rub anything in anywhere it's in my experience. I only speak from my experience unless specifically stated otherwise. I'm not here to tell people it's their fault, I'm here to tell people exactly where the problem is, from experience. What conclusion am I to come to when I do it the hard way and succeed, and yet most doing it the soft way seem to be failing?

I'm sorry if you think I've become embittered. Look at the reality.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> perhaps people read too much into what someone has written.


Thank you Mark. Best practice is just to go with the text. The internet is full of people who just insult so easy. ("Is that a dig?" "Are you calling me a liar?" "I'm just giving it back.")


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yeah, you and I have had our moments and have at least come to an understanding, a datante perhaps?

Warre Forum? There's a Warre Forum? Where? Where? Gotta go. C ya!!:banana:


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> However, personally I doubt that adding someone to an Ignore list will increase your overall satisfaction with Beesource, but it won't be the first time that I am wrong!
> 
> It has worked for me!


Same here. Funny though it's kind of like with black holes - Even though you don't see the comments you can still tell where they are because of the other people that fire up as they get sucked in.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Solomon Parker said:


> I really hate...(certain tasks in animal husbandry)...I really really do.


You really should be careful what you put in writing on the internet under your own real name. There are large well funded organizations of true believers who use Google alerts to find you and can make your life miserable if you aren't. Seriously.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Well, at least I have a conscience about it. I have never considered killing animals fun, necessary in certain contexts, but not fun. I don't hunt, rarely fish, and try to eat as little meat as I can get away with in the South. Surely they'd go after the Duck Dynasty guys before me.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> Yeah, you and I have had our moments and have at least come to an understanding, a datante perhaps?


You're generally a decent guy to disagree with. It's much easier to get along with somebody you disagree with if you do other things beside disagreeing all the time. Plus I think your very nature militates against fundamentalist sorts of understandings of things.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

"militates"? I'll have to look that one up. Yer probably right.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Militate: To give force or effect toward; to influence.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm (Mar 24, 2010)

I had this whole long response typed out and then I thought about it and I deleted it. Instead I'm just gonna say "Pax!" and move on.

Rusty


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> I had this whole long response typed out and then I thought about it and I deleted it. Instead I'm just gonna say "Pax!" and move on. Rusty


Its easy to get into combat mode and think you can win an argument with people who don't abide by rules of argument. It drives me nuts not being able to talk about the stuff that means so much to me. Hat off to Rusty for thinking twice. 

I didn't know there was an actual 'ignore' button! I thought it was a comic analogy. Or something. I'm glad to know its there.

I didn't know either that Solomon had stopped moderating. It does explain a lot.

I know I come across as a snooty brit. My writing manners are poor. I find it hard to think and be polite at the same time. And I try, foolishly, to make people who won't play the game fairly look silly, in the hope that they'll back off. 

I was going to say these people mystify me, but they don't. I don't know what the reason is for such behaviour in each case, but I can think of several plausible explanations. 

I think maybe we should police ourselves more. I'm not sure how. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

David LaFerney said:


> Every beekeeper who makes their own increase - assuming that they also have hives that die of varroa related causes - is working toward mite resistance whether they intend to or not.


I'm not sure that's true David. If you are making increase in an environment where treatment is systematic - or even just used against 'those who need it', the adaptive pressure is lifted, and there is no increase in resistance. That's the real big problem. 

I hope we'll be able to talk about our beliefs without being constrained by any ideology. We have a common goal, a desire to see bee populations everywhere lifted from the genetically corrosive curse of treatment-addiction, and a concomittent desire to help others find a path to treatment free that will work for them. 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'other husbandry practices regardless of their practicality or effectiveness or lack of.' Perhaps we could talk about that? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Solomon Parker said:


> I dislike weasel words, why don't we just cut to the chase, commercial beekeepers. There are two primary groups who are very resistant to moving to treatment-free beekeeping. These are commercial (or sideliner) beekeepers who cannot afford major losses and hobbyists who are averse to the idea of "their girls" dying.


Is there some reason we wouldn't want to try to help commercial and sideliner beekeepers who to raise resistance in their bees? And to try to explain to hobbyists that what is kind to individuals can be damaging in a wider sense? 



Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not terribly interested in arguing with commercials. Discuss your theories and methods with people interested in discussing theories and methods.


I think many 'commercials' (and sideliners) come into that category - many come here because they are interested. I think often the arguments we get from them are a strategy for eliciting information. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Mike,
The goals/focus/purpose (whatever the correct word may be) of Commercial and most Sideliner Beekeepers is different from Small Scale Beekeepers. It has to be. Commercial Beekeepers are dependent on their bees for sustinance and sustaining income. Sideliners too, but not as much perhaps.

Whereas Small Scale Beekeepers, w/ some exceptions of course, don't depend on their bees to even pay for themselves. Their day job pays for their hobby.

Small Scale Beekeepers are in a better position to harbor and sustain bees which have developed ways to deal w/ Varroa Mites. Randy Oliver says it better than I in the August ABJ, but that is basically what he said. Keep keeping those feral bees that appear mite resistant and raise queens from local stock.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

mike bispham said:


> Is there some reason we wouldn't want to try to help commercial and sideliner beekeepers who to raise resistance in their bees?


Commercials don't want help. To my knowledge, there has never been a commercial come in here seriously trying to figure out how to go treatment free. What they do is come in and endlessly explain how it is a bad idea for them. Mark says it pretty well. The question then is why are they here? Why don't they to to the Warre or Topbar forum and explain why Warres and Topbars won't work for them?




mike bispham said:


> And to try to explain to hobbyists that what is kind to individuals can be damaging in a wider sense?


Not sure what you're getting at here.





mike bispham said:


> I think many 'commercials' (and sideliners) come into that category - many come here because they are interested. I think often the arguments we get from them are a strategy for eliciting information.


Interested in what, saying they can't do it? Isn't there a commercial forum?


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> I'm not sure that's true David. If you are making increase in an environment where treatment is systematic - or even just used against 'those who need it', the adaptive pressure is lifted, and there is no increase in resistance. That's the real big problem.
> 
> I hope we'll be able to talk about our beliefs without being constrained by any ideology. We have a common goal, a desire to see bee populations everywhere lifted from the genetically corrosive curse of treatment-addiction, and a concomittent desire to help others find a path to treatment free that will work for them.
> 
> ...


I know that at one time tracheal mites were seen as threatening the viability of beekeeping and bees, and they have stopped being a primary concern even though when they were a big problem many bee keepers did treat for them. Also, there seem to be reports that varroa might not be as bad as they once were. Most likely because our stocks have become more resistant despite the use of treatments.


As we all know mite treatments are management tools, not cures - nothing eliminates them permanently. So all of our bees have to cope with them more or less constantly, regardless of if we treat or not - that is adaptive pressure, although not as intensive as just letting them die. Some perform better than others, and are more likely to survive. Even the most lackluster bee producer propagates exclusively from live bees obviously - survivors in other words. But I suspect that even the much maligned Southern commercial package producers are actually breeding from better stock than they get credit for.

All I mean by husbandry practices is whatever you do to take care of your bees - but particularly I was referring to treatments, But since this is the treatment free forum I was trying to avoid that. I guess* that's* blown now.

Since it *is* blown - here is what I see as the problem with the treatment free forum: It seems to assume that the only way to go from conventional bee keeping to treatment free is to stop treating all of your bees and let the weaklings die. 

I doubt if that is true. Another alternative might be to check mite counts, treat the colonies that require it, and remove those genetics from the breeding program by requeening asap with genetics from your higher performing hives. 

But that is not ideologically pure. Perhaps it would be more helpful and less confrontational if the forum were something like "becoming treatment free" and embraced those who desire to be treatment free, but just haven't been able to make the leap yet. Just saying.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

mike bispham said:


> I know I come across as a snooty brit.


I quite enjoy brits, but it is a different culture, often polite, often not. An interesting dichotomy. Perhaps you should change your location to New Zealand or New York, then you'd fit right in.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I was going to reply yesterday to some of this, but then decided against it. Since this idea of "how to fix the forum" keeps coming up, I'll add my thoughts on it.



David LaFerney said:


> Perhaps it would be more helpful and less confrontational if the forum were something like "becoming treatment free" and embraced those who desire to be treatment free, but just haven't been able to make the leap yet. Just saying.


David, it is well within the forum description to have these "becoming" conversations. "Discussing and formulating honeybee management methods that cooperate as much as possible with natural bee biology without resorting to the use of chemicals and drugs." Notice it says "as much as possible" allowing room for methods beyond the Bond method. I have made it clear from the beginning that the forum is wide enough to allow discussions about getting from treatment to treatment free. Unfortunately, those who are staunch TF give virtually no room in this area.



mike bispham said:


> I think maybe we should police ourselves more. I'm not sure how.





Rusty Hills Farm said:


> Sorry, Mr. Parker, I obviously cannot hold you responsible when you are not in authority! I guess we are going to have to police ourselves. Too bad. We sure don't seem to be very good at it. We need some help here!


I think the people you need to hold responsible are yourselves. Those who participated in these threads have a lot more control over the direction it goes than they think. Stop replying to contentious comments. Ignore baiting questions or comments. As adults, and most likely parents, we exercised this kind of wisdom/strategy when we had discussions with our kids, I hope. Why do we get sucked in here with other adults? Over and over again, I see it all starts with an off the cuff jab at someone or something. I fall for it as well at times.

A moderator should only need to take action when forum rules are not being observed. There is a lot of ground that this doesn't cover which most of the flack taking place here is on.

￼ Originally Posted by Rusty Hills Farm ￼
If this is really the case, then I look forward to the tone on here changing.


Solomon Parker said:


> That will happen when treatment-free beekeepers actually come to the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum to talk about treatment-free beekeeping, in other words, not likely.


Sol, you'll keep being disappointed if you're looking for a closed group where all think/interpret as you do. You're right, not likely, so adjust your expectations.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Barry said:


> Sol, you'll keep being disappointed if you're looking for a closed group where all think/interpret as you do. You're right, not likely, so adjust your expectations.


What I'm looking for is somewhere to discuss treatment-free beekeeping where I don't have to argue *for* treatment-free beekeeping before I can argue *about* treatment free beekeeping. I don't see this sort of thing being allowed to go on in the Warre or Topbar forums. Bond vs. other should be an internal discussion. I should be able to discuss Bond vs. non-Bond, not Bond vs. treating, not treating vs. not treating, and not have commercial treating beekeepers mucking up every discussion.

It would be great to not have to put up with "well you're bees are going to die" or "you must be doing something else, you simply can't be an actual Bond beekeeper" or "I just can't do treatment-free, I'm a commercial and have to keep making money." I mean really, were it not for the respect I have for other beekeepers, I would be happy to go into the Topbar and Warre forums and start posting about how I could never do it because it takes to much time just to prove a point. Is anybody getting the point?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yep, and then you go and start a thread and bring all that stuff you don't want right back in here!


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

And then you go and delete it. If there's no way to block the discussion about the nonsense that goes on in here, might as well talk about it openly, but that isn't allowed either. So we can't talk about it and we can't do anything about it...So we just have to continue putting up with it. Reminds me of a forum I was recently kicked from where the moderator wouldn't let me disagree with him about my motives without getting threats to be kicked out.

Yay!

What happens when I post in the commercial forum? I get yelled at because I'm not a commercial. But yet yell at a commercial for posting in the TF forum and get shut down. This sucks.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Because, quite often the way someone comes across in text is only in the mind of the reader and not the intent of the writer. 

I find this to be very true. Often we read the tone into it and it was not intended that way at all. And then, because of our assumptions, it rapidly degenerates from a useful discussion to an irrational and emotional one...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Solomon Parker said:


> So we can't talk about it and we can't do anything about it...So we just have to continue putting up with it.


Worry about moderating yourself.



> RWhat happens when I post in the commercial forum? I get yelled at because I'm not a commercial.


I don't moderate that forum. Take it up with the moderator. I know there's more to the story than what you make it look like.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Barry said:


> I don't moderate that forum. Take it up with the moderator. I know there's more to the story than what you make it look like.


I have, repeatedly. I got a bogus infraction for name calling (something I never did) because I kept trying to set the record straight. So the commercials get their protected nest, moderated by a commercial beekeeper, and treatment-free gets to be hounded by commercials constantly, moderated, occasionally. I tried to do a good job as a moderator, which some people noticed, but I got kicked for something totally unrelated, and just as bogus.

It really sucks to have moderators that hand out infractions and ban threats for disagreeing with them, even in private, even about your own thoughts and intentions. It's capricious and arbitrary.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

You do go on, Sol. Move forward and quite looking at the problems with everyone else.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I just took a look at the tf forum…and with a quick review saw countless non contentious treatment free only threads.

What I believe I see here in the tf forum is…if a genuine question about methods is posed, it is answered. I don’t ever see a post here asking an honest tf question answered by anyone stating that the op ought to treat.

On the other hand, if an intentionally contentious topic is raised…here or anywhere…all bets are off. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I would love to.

Let me clarify, it was Barry who kept threatening to kick me when I disagreed about what my intentions were when posting in Tailgater. You threatened to kick me out because I wouldn't admit that your version of what was going on in my head was correct. And this was all in private.

That's real open minded of you.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

And when I do try to answer questions by and for real treatment-free beekeepers (why would someone come to a treatment-free forum to have their questions answered by treaters?) those threads get shot down too.

So what happens is that someone comes in and asks a question about how best to become treatment free and it gets answered by a very dedicated group of commercial treating beekeepers. And I ask why. Why is this the best way to do things? Would it be appropriate for me to answer a "how to become a commercial" in the commercial forum? Why not? What is the big difference because I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Still hanging on to past issues I see. Too bad. This isn't TG, so don't bring it in here. But you can't resist breaking the forum rules and doing the very thing you get upset at others for doing. You knew your thread would get deleted, yet you did it anyway. You say so yourself. Those are your motives.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

See ya Sol.

Really too bad, you were very helpful and added a lot of good ideas and personality to this forum.

Don


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

I think all this needs airing. Rules that allow free constructive discussion need to be in place. The present system isn't working. It only works where everone makes polite room for 'the commercials' (I think that's a duff label btw - 'naysayers' might be better?) to put forward their depressing and counterproductive views, and to use unfair methods to dimish the credibility of posters. Those things, of their nature, undermine both the case for non-treatment beekeeping and any constructive discussion of methods. Persistently undermining other's conversations should be regarded as an infraction, and censored. For whatever their reasons people can all too easily prevent conversations among others about their methods. 

Here's a suggestion. The thread maker gets special rights to appeal for moderation. If the thread is started with a clear topic, and stated aims, anyone dragging the conversation off topic repeatedly should be publically censored, warned, and then barred from posting.

Its no good that we can't have the discussions we want. It discredits Beesource, and deprives people interested in tf beekeeping worldwide of what could be a valuable resource.

Personally, I'm as passionate about fixing this problem as I am about bees.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I find it interesting that it's those who have the strongest personality and butt heads with other members in their posts, they're the ones posting in this thread about the need for moderation! :scratch: 

So I say again, if the handful of strong personalities would moderate themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> I find it interesting that it's those who have the strongest personality and butt heads with other members in their posts, they're the ones posting in this thread about the need for moderation! :scratch:


Why is that interesting Barry? Those who feel moved to bash their heads against the wall of naysayers in defence of truth and reason about tf, are also those most passionate about tf beekeeping, and about their right to relatively uninterruped constructive conversation.

That's the link. 

Mike (UK)

Mike


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Because it's always the other guy causing the problem. Like telling the bull to be a cat in a china shop. It's clear how these conflicts start, but two bulls don't know how to get out of the shop before breaking all the china. You want me to ban those with strong personalities? Come on, it comes from both sides.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I want moderation because what I have is ineffective and butting heads means I am pushing back against something that shouldn't be there.

You might as well change it back to Biological Beekeeping and let it go back to being the quiet impotent little forum it was before I showed up. I expect it to be what it says it is in the title and in the rules. There is no other forum on this website that is so allowed to be stampeded upon, run off topic, and pushed aside by people not interested in what the forum is about.

What other forum can someone demand (and obtain) the right to be heard in opposition to the subject of the forum? Commercial? Topbar? Warre? Observation hives? Home Brewing?

The rules are perfectly fine, they just need to be enforced.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Barry said:


> David, it is well within the forum description to have these "becoming" conversations. "Discussing and formulating honeybee management methods that cooperate as much as possible with natural bee biology without resorting to the use of chemicals and drugs." Notice it says "as much as possible" allowing room for methods beyond the Bond method.


Thanks - that sounds good. I guess I was under the wrong impression. Should have referred to the forum guidelines. My bad.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> What other forum can someone demand (and obtain) the right to be heard in opposition to the subject of the forum? Commercial? Topbar? Warre? Observation hives? Home Brewing?
> 
> The rules are perfectly fine, they just need to be enforced.


Aren't you doing it right now in the Forum about What is everybody doing for TREATMENTS?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> Aren't you doing it right now in the Forum about What is everybody doing for TREATMENTS?


Mark, perhaps you should go back and read that thread again.



Solomon Parker said:


> I use no treatments whatsoever, because I believe bees shouldn't need them. After some years of development, I now have minimal losses. I just wanted to say that it is a viable option, but I'm not going to push it here.


I haven't make one single post in that thread that pushes treatment-free beekeeping in any way. I merely answered the question in the OP.

Perhaps you are mistaking me for Acebird, which just makes me feel uncomfortable.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> I haven't make one single post in that thread that pushes treatment-free beekeeping in any way. I merely answered the question in the OP..


The OP asked what ‘TREATMENTS’ people were using. He didn’t ask who treated and who didn’t. He didn’t ask whether or not he should treat.




Solomon Parker said:


> I use no treatments whatsoever, because I believe bees shouldn't need them. After some years of development, I now have minimal losses. I just wanted to say that it is a viable option, but I'm not going to push it here.


And in reply to your post.


burns375 said:


> Excellent philosophy. Me too.


And, for once, Ace was on the money.


Acebird said:


> I think you just did but I agree with you
> Oops I think I was just pushing it. sorry.


And ol’ Sol continued…not ‘pushing it’ of course.


Solomon Parker said:


> Check out the Bee Informed National Survey. It can be quite enlightening about the relative effectiveness of various treatments. beeinformed.org


And then there’s this guy.


oldreliable said:


> Leave hives to nature and you will find happier and healthier bees


And this guy.


Kirk Osborne said:


> I have never and continue to not treat my bees with medications.


And yet you don’t see it. 
If someone in tf asked what people did to regress their bees…and five posters said they never did and never would and started quoting studies that said it wasn’t useful…you’d be livid....


----------



## RiodeLobo (Oct 11, 2010)

Solomon Parker said:


> Perhaps you are mistaking me for Acebird, which just makes me feel uncomfortable.


Thank you, this thread needed a good laugh.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

beemandan said:


> And yet you don’t see it.


So you're holding me responsible for what other people post?

How about some accuracy in quoting:



Luterra said:


> I'd like to see a treatment "rating" thread here. Maybe they all work, and I'm just not doing it right with some of them.





Me said:


> Check out the Bee Informed National Survey. It can be quite enlightening about the relative effectiveness of various treatments. beeinformed.org


I didn't even mention treatment-free after the first post, still haven't. I answered a question. It's what I do.

You see me point to data comparing the effectiveness of treatments and you assume I'm pushing treatment-free. The data shows treating works better than not treating! I am gonna have to quote deknow again. Looking at a link is not an effective method of preparing to discuss its contents. :facepalm:


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

To Michael Bispham.

I read your first post in this thread, and, I liked it.

Nice work.

Maybe you ain't such a bad dude. . Me? I know I have succumbed to temptation and been obnoxious to you on occasion, I will try harder.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> So you're holding me responsible for what other people post?


Yo Sol...it ain't always about you. You were simply one of several.....as I clearly pointed out.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Perhaps you are mistaking me for Acebird, which just makes me feel uncomfortable.


No danger of that….Ace gets it.


Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not going to push it here.





Acebird said:


> I think you just did


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Well, I'll trust he speaks for you from now on.


----------



## Matt903 (Apr 8, 2013)

Hello folks,

I really don't want to get in the middle of this, although it has been highly entertaining, (laughed out loud a couple of times). I just want to become a treatment free beekeeper. Can any of you gentleman help me with that? 

Hope I am not sticking my nose in where it has no business being.

Thanks


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Wanting to try cold turkey, or what? How many hives you got?

What kind of bees do you have now and how long since they were treated?

These questions will help determine the best course for you.

About the forum. There are one or two dominant members who feel they own and run the forum. There are a whole heap of others who don't say much, but are equally, or more, knowledgeable. When they do say something, it's probably worth listening to.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Solomon seems to have a good plan.

Check out Michael Bush's website/Book.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

BeeWeaver.

Or, someone local with treatment free resistant stock.

Feral colonies or swarms are good too, but you have to go out to get them.

I wouldn't recommend going 'Bond' on just any old stock.


----------



## Matt903 (Apr 8, 2013)

I have four top bars and four frame hives. The top bars were packages I bought this spring. The seller is a local guy who stated that he has been tratment free for ten years. I have no reason not to believe him, however I really don't know the man either. Two of the frame hives were from swarms I caught this spring. They came from a feral hive that has been in a cedar tree for 15 years that I know of, the other two frame hives were given to me, and I don't know their history. All of the hives are doing well, I have checked drone comb for mites, and looker visually for mites, wing virus, etc, and have seen nothing. The top bars are natural comb, and the frame hives are all large cell comb. I don't plan on treating at all this fall. Mr. Parker was kind enough to answer questions when I e mailed him, and I have read Mr. Bush's website several times, however I am always open for suggestions and advice from anyone with more experience than me.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well if they have been treatment free for 10 years, just stay treatment free.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

If they're already treatment free, then just keep going that way. Practice a little increase, even if you don't need it. You can always combine hives in the fall, or sell a queen or two to your friends if the need arises.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> Because it's always the other guy causing the problem. Like telling the bull to be a cat in a china shop. It's clear how these conflicts start, but two bulls don't know how to get out of the shop before breaking all the china. You want me to ban those with strong personalities? Come on, it comes from both sides.


Come off it Barry. Its always perfectly clear who is trying to have a rational constructive conversation, and who is trying to undermine the very notion that treatment-free is possible, and prevent any discussion that might lead anyone to think that. You can't simply equate them both as 'strong headed personalities' and blame them equally on that basis. 

The 'bull' who want to have meaningful conversation doesn't want the leave the shop. Its his shop for heaven's sake. He isn't breaking the shop. He's trying to trade honestly and constructively. That comes across in evey post.

The guy who's evasive, throws insults, drags in his pals to poke fun, denies the validity of statements without offerring reasons, refuses to accept he's made mistakes when shown... isn't an honest trader. 

It might be hard to pin down with rules, and it might be hard to police - but you can tell the difference.

You have to agree the forum is dysfunctional as things are. What is your suggestion? Allow that situtation to stand?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I liked your first post and thought progress was being made.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Solomon Parker said:


> Commercials don't want help. To my knowledge, there has never been a commercial come in here seriously trying to figure out how to go treatment free. What they do is come in and endlessly explain how it is a bad idea for them.


I don't think that is quite right. I think commercial beekeepers tend to try stuff before it is ready for prime time and get disappointed when the initial claims prove untrue in a commercial setting. I'm thinking BeeWeaver - still a work in progress and getting better all the time; Russian Bees; Even Mike Palmer's over wintering nuc strategies change as he works them longer. Beekeeping ought to be dynamic; often times we try something, find it doesn't work for us in our sittuation right now, and write it off forever. I won't be trying Russian bees again any time soon though it may very well be that the Russian Bees available today are superior to those available a few years ago.

I wish there was a way to balance claims made to sell product so that someone can continue their work and the claims that can be legitimately made after completing that work or making substantial headway. The buyer beware mentality...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> Come off it Barry. Its always perfectly clear who ........

Wow!! :lpf:  :lpf:

One thing *is *perfectly clear, but *my *conclusion is somewhat different than the one that MB seems to have drawn!

:ws:

:gh: opcorn:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

The truth is that most commercials have had infinitely more experience in the ramifications of treatment free beekeeping than most on this forum. Commercials deserve better than to be painted with one broad brush. The successful ones are those that evolve and are always looking for better and more productive ways to do things. New management techniques, better supplements and better bees needing fewer treatments. I read some things in the tf forum with great interest and some with great amusement. There is a reason why commercials are doing things much differently than the average participants on here and it's not because they are a collection of the unenlightened.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> It might be hard to pin down with rules, and it might be hard to police - but you can tell the difference.
> 
> You have to agree the forum is dysfunctional as things are. What is your suggestion? Allow that situtation to stand?
> 
> Mike (UK)


If you read what I read, Barry suggests not engaging or reacting to those that you identify as being or doing what you wrote in this Post. The Moderators aren't always around and don't always see things the way others do. So, if you see something you don't like, ignore it, don't feed it.

Moderators have a thankless job. They get critisized when they Delete Posts and when they don't exercise control. Maybe you'd like to volunteer for the job. I did it for a while, but found I could not be myself in the Forums. Solomon could tell you about his experience.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Matt903 said:


> I really don't want to get in the middle of this,


You probably ought to start a different thread for your questions. Either in the Treatment Free or Top Bar forum. There are surely many knowledgeable, treatment free beekeepers who've already lost interest in this thread and may never see your request in the midst this long drawn out, contentious thread on a different topic.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Andrew Dewey said:


> I don't think that is quite right. I think commercial beekeepers tend to try stuff before it is ready for prime time and get disappointed when the initial claims prove untrue in a commercial setting. I'm thinking BeeWeaver - still a work in progress and getting better all the time; Russian Bees; Even Mike Palmer's over wintering nuc strategies change as he works them longer. Beekeeping ought to be dynamic; often times we try something, find it doesn't work for us in our sittuation right now, and write it off forever. I won't be trying Russian bees again any time soon though it may very well be that the Russian Bees available today are superior to those available a few years ago.
> 
> I wish there was a way to balance claims made to sell product so that someone can continue their work and the claims that can be legitimately made after completing that work or making substantial headway. The buyer beware mentality...


Maybe what Solomon meant was that Commercials don't need help from the TF Forum and its beekeepers.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

mike bispham said:


> The guy who's evasive, throws insults, drags in his pals to poke fun, denies the validity of statements without offerring reasons, refuses to accept he's made mistakes when shown... isn't an honest trader.
> Mike (UK)


I guess that of course, that would be me. 

Mike I will not respond in kind, there is not really any benefit from going on like that. Thing is, your goals, and my goals, are actually the same. Check this old thread of mine.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ybe-There-s-Something-To-This-Small-Cell-Crap

Can you see, that you, are me, a year ago. I have done the hard yards and given the bond method the best shot I could. It didn't work out, I will try a different approach. Why does that make me the enemy? You might even end up in the same boat!

Barry has pointed out that this forum is for treatment free, and moving towards treatment free. Myself and quite a few others are in the latter category. We should be allowed to discuss that without the put downs and agro.

I know there's strong feelings and emotions and whatever. But as I have discovered the hard way, being treatment free or getting there, is not one size fits all. Just like beekeeping in general isn't.

If proponents of one particular method, could be less defensive about their way being the only way, it would go a long way to us all getting along.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> I have done the hard yards and given the bond method the best shot I could. It didn't work out, I will try a different approach. Why does that make me the enemy?


It doesn't. You know what does, you just quoted it.

See the 1st post of this thread. If you truly want to see that conversation develop, try not posting 3 times a day. Or even every day. Just watch for a while. 

Perhaps you might take the view that since I started the thread, you are a guest in my house. I'm asking you, as a guest, please make room for others to have the conversation they want to have. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

So then I should dislike you for the same reasons? I'm not happy about your behaviour, sure. But I saw you say at least one good thing, and I made myself leave all the bad behind, I'm over it.

If you cannot do likewise, well, you can't complain about everybody else. Can you.

"Please make room for others". It's a 4 page thread. I came in near the end of page 3, and that was to pay you a compliment. There was plenty of room for your friends, look what they did without me. Somehow it's all my fault right? 

You need to move on.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe what Solomon meant was that Commercials don't need help from the TF Forum and its beekeepers.


I would agree if he had just stopped there at that point.....but he didn't. Lets try to remember there is n


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> It doesn't. You know what does, you just quoted it.
> 
> See the 1st post of this thread. If you truly want to see that conversation develop, try not posting 3 times a day. Or even every day. Just watch for a while.
> 
> ...


That's funny. If you think Oldtimer has been a Posthog in this Thread and that he should sit back and just read what do you think of me?

Stop trying to control others. Control yourself. That's all you can really do. If you don't like what Oldtimer says or is saying don't respond to his Posts. If you really find his Posts agrivating then Block him. Put him on your Ignore List.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe what Solomon meant was that Commercials don't need help from the TF Forum and its beekeepers.


I would agree if he had just stopped there at that point.....but he didn't. Lets try to remember there is nothing in the rules of this forum that prevent commercials from discussing their progression towards or their goals of becoming treatment free. This is no ones private domain.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> It's not the starting point that is disagreeable.


Second Post of this Thread. Was that prophetic or what?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Its not even _his _sandbox, but that isn't stopping him from trying to get the other kids kicked out! :no:


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Does anyone know if the 'commercial' beekeepers in South America with AHB stock are using treatments?

Perhaps TFB is already happening elsewhere, but it isn't with the EHB.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19851876


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Could be onto something WLC


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I think I read that the type of varroa in Brazil is not the same as we have here in the U.S.A., theirs is not as damaging to the bees. Before anyone asks, no, I can't give the source of the information. I made the mistake of giving away all my back issues of the ABJ and Bee Culture.

WLC, how many years of treatment free beekeeping would a colony require before you considered it treatment free?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

In fact you did read that AR Beekeeper, because I read it too.

Seeing as the thread no longer has a topic.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I would say 3 successful consecutive overwinterings.

I can say that because of the results of the stationary hive project.

They didn't treat over 200 hives, and lost most after the first season, and all by the 3rd.

They ended up sacrificing around 400 colonies to get their data.

With regards to the Japan vs Korea haplotypes of Varroa and AHB, the further south you go, the more resistant AHB stock are towards either type of Varroa.

The Korean haplotype causing more losses the further north you go.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> Seeing as the thread no longer has a topic.


It's also become amazingly civil....


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

beemandan said:


> It's also become amazingly civil....


yep, full moon was yesterday, we should be alright for awhile.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

If three years is the standard, there are several treatment free beekeepers I know. Three years is easy to reach here in my area, if a beekeeper watches for queen failure and food stores.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

AR Beekeeper said:


> IfThree years is easy to reach here in my area, if a beekeeper watches for queen failure and food stores.


Add in some springtime splits for a brood break and three years is pretty easy.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

If they make it for 3 overwinterings without treatment, then I would say that they have resistant stock, Yes.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

AR Beekeeper said:


> If three years is the standard, there are several treatment free beekeepers I know. Three years is easy to reach here in my area, if a beekeeper watches for queen failure and food stores.


i have several at the three and four year mark. queen failure has been responsible for most of my losses.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

beemandan said:


> Add in some springtime splits for a brood break and three years is pretty easy.


i have only split a couple of hives, most of my increase and replacements have come from caught swarms.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

AR Beekeeper said:


> I think I read that the type of varroa in Brazil is not the same as we have here in the U.S.A., theirs is not as damaging to the bees.


According to some of Tom Seeley's more recent work...there may be some less virulent strains in the US as well.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

beemandan said:


> It's also become amazingly civil....


You just saying that cos Solomon has left us. 

Hmm..


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> yep, full moon was yesterday, we should be alright for awhile.


Explains a lot.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldtimer said:


> You just saying that cos Solomon's not here.
> 
> Hmm..


I would never say such a thing.....


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

squarepeg said:


> i have only split a couple of hives, most of my increase and replacements have come from caught swarms.


I'm not saying that it would be essential to split for a nonresistant colony to survive three years...I'm only saying that it would help.
Also...in light of the suggestion that there may be less virulent mites.....how can one be sure if it's the bees or the mites...or a combination that control the survival?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

beemanden:

You're asking a fundamental question in TFB.

In my view, they only need to be functionally resistant.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

WLC said:


> You're asking a fundamental question in TFB.


I really am not clear. Which question are you referring to? And...are you telling my that the question was inappropriate for this forum?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Or just this Thread.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> Or just this Thread.


I took it as the forum...as he referred to it as 'in TFB'. 
You aren't supposed to ask 'fundamental questions'?
But what do I know? I find myself surprised by all sorts of stuff.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I don't know either. I only see his Posts when someone Quotes them. I like it that way.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Beemanden:

You're asking what makes these bees resistant.

WLC.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

WLC said:


> Beemanden:
> 
> You're asking what makes these bees resistant.
> 
> WLC.


Can you quote my question? I still don't understand what I asked that was inappropriate.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"...in light of the suggestion that there may be less virulent mites.....how can one be sure if it's the bees or the mites...or a combination that control the survival? "

It's very appropriate to ask that question.

Better yet, approach the 'starting point' to treatment free beekeeping by addressing the contributing factors to Honeybee decline that are the current scientific consensus.

I've used VSH, for example, to address pests, parasites, and pathogens. I've BeeWeaver's for similar reasons +.

Now, if I knew of pesticide resistance, or say, adaptations to my own foraging conditions, that would be good too.

It really is important to start with the best bees you can get while addressing more than 1 issue.

Simply stopping treatments isn't the best approach available or a good starting point. We have better choices.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

sqkcrk said:


> I don't know either. I only see his Posts when someone Quotes them. I like it that way.


I'm beginning to think I may need to go this route as well......


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm contributing content in context.

I'm only getting it back from a few other members.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

WLC said:


> I'm contributing content in context.
> 
> I'm only getting it back from a few other members.


I see...to the ignore list you go.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Same goes for you two.


----------

