|
595
<br /> and, not infrequently, without addressing their ex- reality to fit their preconceived philosophical posi-
<br /> pressed concerns. When combined with other pit- tion and /or exercise control.
<br /> falls, especially overdocumentation and going cold My own bias is clear. The men and women
<br /> turkey (which is not an atypical scenario) the result asked to make the program work, to provide real
<br /> is alienation of the very group upon which program results in the real world, also should control its
<br /> efficacy ultimately depends. design and direction. Those who cling rigidly to
<br /> Predictably, field staffers in such an agency are philosophical positions, but take no responsibility
<br /> unlikely to be willingly cooperative with the man- for demonstrating the workability or realism of
<br /> dated program. Frustration in the field leads to cof- their positions under actual field conditions, should
<br /> fee -break and lunch -time ridicule. Motivation is lack- be welcome to observe, suggest, or advise, but,
<br /> ing. Enthusiasm never develops. The program, which under no circumstances to dictate or control.
<br /> was often ill- conceived and out of conformance with IPM is the answer. It has provided environmen-
<br /> historic integrated practices in the first place, goes tally sound, effective pest and vegetation control at
<br /> nowhere. Staff blames management and /or outside reasonable cost for more than seven decades. It can
<br /> interference. Administrators and /or local activists do so for decades to come. Act now to bring your
<br /> blame the staff. Nothing positive results and, ulti- agency's methods in line with the authentic/his-
<br /> mately, it is the community that suffers. toric model. Avoid these common pitfalls to effec-
<br /> tive implementation. If you have identified any of
<br /> THE BENEFITS OF IPM ARE them in your program, have the courage to change
<br /> RESERVED FOR THOSE WHO it! You will not be sorry that you did.
<br /> WILL USE IT
<br /> More than 10 years' experience has convinced me REFERENCES
<br /> that IPM is the ideal pest and vegetation control
<br /> strategy for the 1990s and beyond. I have yet to 1. Proverbs 22:3, The Holy Bible, The New King
<br /> find a public agency resource management chal James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers,
<br /> lenge to which it could not be applied with excel- New York, 1983, 738.
<br /> lent results, yielding the parallel benefits of public 2. Flint, M. L. and van den Bosch, R., Intro -
<br /> safety, environmental protection, program efficacy, duction to Integrated Pest Management, Ple-
<br /> and cost efficiency. But I am even more convinced num Press, New York, 1981, 5.
<br /> that these benefits will not be achieved by those 3. Yepsen, R. B., Ed., The Encyclopedia of
<br /> who discard or tamper with the authentic, historic Natural Insect & Disease Control, Rodale I°
<br /> methodology. All such programs with which I am Press, Emmaus, PA, 1984, 189.
<br /> familiar have failed to do so. 4. Marer, P. J., The Safe and Effective Use of
<br /> Time and time again, the pitfalls discussed in this Pesticides, University of California, Statewide
<br /> article have cost what could have been an effective Integrated Pest Management Project, 1988,
<br /> program the results it should have achieved. Inevi- 67.
<br /> tably, this has come about because of the pro- vs. 5. Shurtleff, M. C., Fermanian, T. W., and
<br /> antipesticide controversy, with its hostility and sus- Randell, R., Controlling Turfgrass Pests,
<br /> picion, and the desire of one or both factions to bend Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987, 361.
<br /> I I
<br />
|