EDIT: to be clear, I'm talking about what was written in this article. I know nothing about the past mite issues in feral bee populations. Not debating that.
This is a landmark census of a known population of feral bees before and after Varroa introduction: ~25 years apart [1]. The evolved methods of this particular group for Varroa defense are not the typical methods (hygienic behavior) that are seen with modern treatment-free survivor bees. There are now known to be a diverse array of natural methods that honeybees survive in the wild against Varroa. A couple of very recent papers survey these [2][3]. The last 5-10 years have seen an explosion of primary literature research on the topic, as well as queen breeders all over NA producing bees with genetic traits that allow them to survive without our help. You may also want to peruse this recent and passionate plea from one of the top honeybee researches in the world to move towards beekeeping methods that let bees better survive in the wild and stop circumventing their efforts [4].
Honeybees survive in the wild in North America despite beekeeper activities, not because of them.
[1] https://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/... [2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eva.12448/abstrac... [4] http://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/darwinian-beekeeping
Do we want honeybees to survive in the wild in North America? They are, after all, an invasive species. I'm not sure if they have any particularly destructive ecological effects, but certainly the ecosystem would work just fine without honeybees as it has for millennia? I'm not sure why making it easier for feral bee colonies to form should be considered a priority.
They weren't devastated, and have in fact evolved to deal with it.
What's missing, is your understanding that pesticides have caused far more devastation across a greater variety of honeybee species. Varroa mites are a straw man.
The consensus still holds, that pesticides are responsible for the decline: not mites.
Regarding (1): are you trying to say that recent bee losses are related to pesticides and not mites? We might not disagree. The eradication of feral honey bees occurred decades ago. Neonicotinoids were introduced more recently. Clearly there are some feral honey bee colonies today (after all: American beekeepers keep reintroducing new honey bees). If you want to tell me that pesticides are a greater threat to those colonies than the Varroa mites that wiped out all the 90s-vintage honeybees, I'm not going to dispute that.
I don't expect you to be convinced this time, but .. lets see:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1393
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49768/...
If all you're saying is that neonicotinoids are bad for honey bees, I don't disagree! My issue is that I don't think it really matters what's bad for honey bees, because it's not like there was a thriving population of wild honey bees for neonicotinoids to ravage: the mites took care of that 2 decades ago.
Glad, also, to hear the bees can bounce back. In my neck of the woods though, it has to be said: there are as many bees as ever, and that is to say: lots. Happy summer!
My father has been briefed by the USDA more than once on the issue, it's complicated and nation states haven't been ruled out according to the last update he had.
Most likely it's a number of causes.
It's untraceable, gradual, and the investment required to do it will be well within the reach of major nations.
And what better weapon than one which, once released, requires no upkeep or maintainence and slowly cripples key biological supports of your rival's economy?