Some of these 3rd year keepers have been bitten by the vocation, and have learned to graft queens and make splits. This means they can make up their losses without considering if their "system" is valid. The initial system selection was driven by ideology or naive adoption of some promoted idea or other. The memory of the first year success and gang-buster growth dominates, and the later declines and losses are ignored or suppressed.
Well, I'm a first year keeper, and I've learned to make splits. I started with one hive, bought another package (which did poorly) caught a swarm, made a couple splits, bought in a BeeWeaver queen (unfortunately superceded) and I don't see why any of this makes my "system" (such as it is) invalid. I now have 8 hives. All good beekeepers have to make increase,
including the ones who treat. If you have to compare treatment versus non-treatment, it seems only fair to compare apples to apples. Do you feel that those who treat and make up their losses are also unable to determine if their system is valid?
Again, I think a problem in your arguments is that they seem to rely entirely on genetics. You may recall that Solomon said that he had discovered that a large commercial operation had been going on quite near his yard. To me that was an indication that his cultural practices were more important than the genetics of his bees.
To be fair, I think also that there probably has been some selection in the population-at-large, despite treatment. Those who treat still lose a lot of hives; those that survive are the basis for increase for operations that raise their own bees. I would not be surprised to learn that bees in general are more resistant to mites and mite-borne diseases than they were 20 years ago, which may account for some of the successes of treatment free beekeepers.
There is certainly an academic impulse to deny the existence of successful treatment free beekeepers, or to assign them special circumstances (better climate, better forage, etc.) I saw a particularly annoying statement in the new Bee Culture by Jennifer Berry. I'm sure she's a nice enough person, but her closing remarks were staggeringly condescending. "If your bees are hungry, feed them. If they are overrun by mites, treat them. Your bees are your responsibility. If you refuse to feed or take care of them because it's somewhat unnatural, then don't become a beekeeper. It's not fair to the bees.
Take care!"
Yes I will. I'll take care not to take seriously anyone who does not accept even the possibility of successful beekeeping without miticides. Even if you are limited in your access to information regarding treatment free success stories, how could any researcher worth her salt ignore the example of BeeWeaver, which runs a large treatment free operation? Why would you not follow up on reports of treatment free beekeepers, like Michael Bush, like Kirk Webster? Why would any serious bee researcher ignore the possibility that these folks are truthfully reporting their results?
Finally, I have to say that your assumption that all new beekeepers who do not treat are driven by some sort of naive ideology (chemicals Bad!) is fairly insulting to those who have arrived at their working theories by a process of extensive research and by weighing what they've read on the scale of their own experiences. I've been an organic gardener for 50 years, and I've seen with my own eyes the results that can be achieved through developing a healthy soil, rather than attempting to circumvent many natural processes by the use of artificial fertilizer. A plant grown in healthy living soil is so much more resistant to pests and diseases than a plant with identical genetics grown in poor soil-- I've seen this a hundred times. A hive, like the soil, is a complex system containing a wide variety of bacteria, insects, fungus, yeasts, etc. Treatment may temporarily discourage the most deadly of pests, like varroa, but also damages the hive's biota in ways that have not been quantified.
I certainly don't have the answer, and will never claim to. I expect a lot of my bees to die, and that will be sad, but it was their misfortune to be the victims of a beginner. Still, I can't respect any sort of absolutist attitude regarding treatment (and I'm not accusing you of that; I've learned interesting stuff from your posts.) Given the massive losses over the last few years among those who treat, it's obvious they don't have the answer either.
Well, this thread has wandered far afield. All I really wanted to do was shine the light of reason on the basic silliness of one of the complaints that conventional beekeepers relentlessly put forward regarding the irresponsible hippy-dippy behavior of non-treaters like me.