Integrated Pesticide Management. Chemical Trespass/Herbicide, 1995

New Search

Chapter 51 Avoid IPM Implementation A v on Pitfalls o p Tim Rhay, Eugene Public Works Maintenance Division, Eugene, OR CONTENTS Divorce Program Design and Operation from Partisan Controversy 591 Failure to Utilize Authentic IPM Methodology 592 Why the Confusion? 592 I Segregation Is Not "Integrated" 592 Authentic IPM Lowers Costs 593 Don't Go "Cold Turkey" 593 , Avoid Excessive, Unnecessary Documentation 594 ff i '' Involve Field Staff Program Design 594 The Benefits of IPM Are Reserved for Those Who Will Use It 595 References 595 Citizen concern about the use of pesticide by pub- nate the controversy between pesticide advocates antichemical activists. Dwight Moody said, of alternative maintenance practices. Frequently, to calls for the use and ant g s has increasingly led . lic agencies g y g "The best way to show that a stick is crooked is communities that have examined the options have not to argue about it, or spend your time denounc- accurately concluded that IPM provides the best ing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it." His means of developing viable vegetation and pest wisdom is usually lost on partisan activists, for control strategies that are both environmentally whom argument and denunciation are a virtual sound and cost - effective. Unfortunately, many of way of life. those who have set out with good intentions to In this case, the straight stick is a functional i implement IPM programs have failed to achieve IPM program that provides cost - effective vegetation one or both of these objectives. Where such fail- and pest control without dependence on calendar- ures have taken place, one may hear that "IPM driven cover sprays, yielding substantial environ- doesn't really work," or "IPM costs too much," mental benefits. Such a program is easy to defend neither of which is true of the historic or "authen- to critics from either quarter, especially if they tic" methodology. have nothing better to offer as a substitute. How - Why, then, the failures and inaccurate percep- ever, it is unusual for such programs to arise in a tions? In more than 10 years as the City of Eugene, community that has already been polarized by the Oregon's IPM program coordinator and a consult- pro- vs. antipesticide struggle. And, once a ant to numerous other public agencies, I have ob- nonauthentic "IPM" program, favoring the philo- served that they are often the result of the "pitfalls" sophical or political bias of either side, has been I will enumerate. These include: allowing the pes- established, it becomes difficult or impossible to ticide controversy to motivate and drive the pro- replace it with the actual/historic methods. gram; failure to utilize authentic IPM methodol- Your best opportunity to build a successful pro - ogy; imposing an arbitrary ban on pesticide use; gram, true to authentic IPM principles, is to do so developing overly ponderous written documenta- before the controversy arises in your community, tion, formal procedures, or both; and failure to or at least before it has divided people into antago- involve field staff in program design. nistic, hostile factions. This means you must take the initiative. While you may not currently see the DIVORCE PROGRAM DESIGN AND need to commit your agency to the type of effort this will require, especially if you are satisfied with OPERATION FROM PARTISAN your present vegetation and pest control programs, i „I, CONTROVERSY you will not regret doing so in the long run. As I lit Unworkable pseudo -IPM programs often grow out will review below, IPM makes excellent sense from of the suspicion and hostility that seems to domi- an economic and efficiency standpoint as well as j 0-87371-350-8/94/$0.00+$.50 591 © 1994 by CRC Press Inc.