US IPM Standard: Pro-Poison, Pro-Big Business

[treelooker]

After Monday August 25, Public Comments on the Integrated Pest Management Part 10 Draft will not be accepted. This is your last chance to advocate for a balanced IPM Standard that gives equal attention to cultural and biological means of managing pests. If you are happy having our industry dominated by big corporations, and seeing piles of dead bees as the face of IPM in the US, read no more.

The current draft focuses on chemical applications by large companies, like the company responsible for the big bee kill in Oregon. That’s who wrote it, so that’s who benefits.

Chemical use is the focus in this draft. Less damaging methods are thrown aside with the weakest language possible: ‘Consideration should be given to…’ This document needs better balance, to ensure that the standard fits users who prefer cultural and biological approaches. Other suggestions in the link below are to follow chronological order, simplify wording, and streamline the process.
IF you are an individual practicing less toxic pest management, the only way to avoid having the rules rigged against you is to review this draft and comment to rrouse@tcia.org. If you are associated with any of the below committee members, please comment to them as well.

Bartlett Tree Experts -pbecker@bartlett.com
Asplundh Tree Expert Co. gkemp@asplundh.com
Davey Tree Expert Company chris.klimas@davey.com
Tree Care Industry Assn. tmugridge@forestcitytree.com
PLANET Alice Carter acarter@valleycrest.com
Society of Municipal Arborists Nolan Rundquist nolan.rundquist@seattle.gov
International Society of Arboriculture Richard Hauer, PhD rhauer@uwsp.edu
American Society of Consulting Arborists: Torrey Young torrey@dryad.us
Professional Grounds Management Society: Gene Pouly gpouly@efpouly.com
Utility Arborists Association: William Rees (410) 291-3633
USDA/US Forest Service: Ed Macie (404) 347-1647
Alliance for Community Trees carrie@actrees.org

http://www.historictreecare.com/category/our-work/

 

[DMc]

Guy, could you be more specific on which portions you find inappropriate or weighted toward the chemical approach? Both Sylvia and I read this draft and thought it sounded pretty well balanced. I'm wondering what it was we missed? We are both strong proponents of alternative methods with chemical application being the last choice. Chemical applications always appeared to be listed last such as illustrated here in Annex E, paragraph E-7.

"E-7 Intervene to Reduce Pest Populations -- Apply IPM strategies to control pests. These include redesigning and repairing structures, improving structures, improving sanitation, employing pest resistant plant varieties, implementing biological control, proper watering and mowing practices, and applying pesticides judiciously. "

 

[treelooker]

Dave, that Annex is not part of the Standard. what you quoted is background info only. Beware smoke and mirrors.

How much detail do you see in the text about cultural/biological methods? How much more do you see re chemical usage?
"Consideration should be given to..." is literally a blow-off; you can think about non-chemical treatments, or not...

I'm a certified applicator, not anti-chemical, but it's supposed to be the last tool out of the bag, not the first. In reviewing 29 DD articles on diagnosis I wrote over 9 years, I only found 1 where chemical treatment was specified. It may not be an issue in MT, but in my market, I've been outbid again and again by a company that bamboozles clients into believing they must change bid specs to include chemical applications where they are totally unwarranted. Smoke and mirrors.

Attached is the draft with comments fwiw.

 

[treelooker]

David, I know that at first skimming it looks like it's all in there. But consider an example: instead of just hinting at this stuff and burying it on page 12, it should be way back up with the resource assessment.
Instead of this on page 12:
“Consideration should be given to the conservation, introduction,and /or augmentation of natural predators and parasites of pests on the site
Consideration should be given to installing plant species that promote predators and parasites of pests.
Consideration should be given to cultural approaches to maintaining plant health such as, but not limited to, pruning, improving soil conditions, mulching, and irrigation.”
This should be at the top of page 10:
“The site shall be assessed for conditions that benefit pests, such as water drainage, light and air movement, … and all reasonable options reviewed for cultural approaches to maintaining plant health such as, but not limited to, pruning, improving soil conditions, mulching, and irrigation.
The site shall be inventoried for natural predators and parasites of pests, and options reviewed for their conservation, introduction, and /or augmentation.
The site shall be inventoried for plant species that promote predators and parasites of pests and/or contribute to plant health, and options reviewed for their conservation, installation, and /or augmentation.”
See the difference? Without changes like this, anyone offering less-toxic tree care is at a competitive disadvantage. A300 says they set the parameters of what is acceptable practice in the USA, so if your work is not fairly recognized, you will be outmarketed and outbid--unless you act now to change this!

 

[ValleyArborist]

You mentioned having the rules rigged against you if you practice less toxic/non toxic pest control methods. How are the rules rigged against you? If you can demonstrate good results with organic/natural/less toxic control, and can present it as a good value to your market, go for it.

 

[treelooker]

You mentioned having the rules rigged against you if you practice less toxic/non toxic pest control methods. How are the rules rigged against you? If you can demonstrate good results with organic/natural/less toxic control, and can present it as a good value to your market, go for it.

Thanks; I do just that. Rules are rigged when those methods are not included as 'acceptable' in the standard, as other methods are. If cultural methods are not integrated, it's not IPM.

 

[ValleyArborist]

Out of those committee members, only three are involved in commercial arboriculture. The rest are non profit, and Asplundh. I can't speak to Valley Crest, but I know that Bartlett and Davey offer biological and cultural options .i.e soil amendments, natural predators, etc. I don't think that the A300 is rigged at all. It is written for industry professionals. I have never met a client that read an ANSI standard or BMP. A handful may have some vague knowledge of it through an extension publication or seminar.

I know your work and respect you as an arborist. I feel that this thread is an overreaction though. As an arborist who has worked both in commercial plant health care and the utility vegetation management industries, the whole " poisons" thing is a little offensive to be honest. Just because the new A300 isn't a brochure for the services you offer, doesn't mean it's a weak or bogus document. Just my two cents.

 

[treelooker]

"Out of those committee members, only three are involved in commercial arboriculture." However you count, I would consider that there is a very low % of practitioners involved.

... the whole " poisons" thing is a little offensive to be honest. Just because the new A300 isn't a brochure for the services you offer, doesn't mean it's a weak or bogus document. Just my two cents.

Sorry to offend. Just looking for balance. And thankfully it's not the 'new' standard yet; there will be other opportunities to change it for the better.

 

[ValleyArborist]

I understand Guy. I'm positive the corresponding ISA BMP, when updated, will expound on cultural and biological practices much more.

We are getting there. We don't do tank mixes of Carbaryl and whatever else plus whatever else and spray everything green anymore. Focus is on identifying the patient, diagnosing the problem, bringing pest populations down to the clients threshold, and working culturally to prevent future problems. Horticulture oil is always our first step in the spring for many pests, and of course if the timing is missed, or control is not achieved, then chemicals come out, usually something natural like Distance for scale, and strictly miticides for mites.

I think the biggest thing in an IPM program is the damage threshold aspect. That's a big limiting factor. That plus cost. People don't want to pay my prevailing arborist wage to manually pick bag worms off a huge hedge when I could just hit it with Conserve ( another natural product btw). People who want NO apple scab on their crabapple tree in the front of the house will not always want to pay to have run out and reapply sulfur to the foliage every time rain washes it off. Systemic fungicide is the more viable option in these instances.

I understand your position. I feel that IPM is more about minimizing chemical use, not doing away with it completely. Of course cultural methods, long term are going to be better, but not always appropriate, at the time, for every landscape, client, etc