Integrated Pesticide Management. Chemical Trespass/Herbicide, 1995

New Search

with Mimi - Chapter 55 er by nd is e -of- IPM in Municipal Parks Maintenance — A Case Study gene Tim Rhay, Eugene Public Works Maintenance Division, Eugene, OR ality re CONTENTS Ifor ced. Ordered to Attend 613 deal Internal Staff Training 613 and Field Staff Drives the Program 614 give "Realism" Has Paid Off 614 , 1 of be Environmental concern is a longstanding commu- problems first -hand and making suggestions. He , to nity value in Eugene, OR. It is not surprising, then, also left us with some printed material. Our chal- ' ing to find a viable IPM program with more than 10 Ienge was to effectively communicate and estab- t is years of positive history behind it guiding vegeta- lish the IPM methodology as standard operating ler- tion and pest control activities of the Eugene Public procedure throughout our organization. The ap- 1 ted Works Maintenance Division. What might not be proach we took to accomplish this, while it seemed :en expected is the history of how this came about. obvious at the time, appears to have been some- what unique. us ORDERED TO ATTEND 3n ' INTERNAL STAFF TRAINING 'or In 1980, another supervisor and I were ordered by Id- the Superintendent to attend a seminar on IPM An internal training program was organized for all of conducted by Dr. William Olkowski. As I've stated staff engaged in pest or vegetation control activi- Ir- in the past (too many times to deny it now) I did not ties. Prior to the first session, a half -dozen staff e. want to go to this presentation because, while I members were selected, based on experience and/ e- didn't know specifically what IPM was, I felt it or interest, to be briefed on IPM principles and to would be some impractical, "no chemicals" pest research how these might be applied to a specific control strategy, recently dreamed up by the radical weed or pest control challenge faced by the divi- fringe of the environmental movement, that would sion. At the actual training session, following an cost too much and wouldn't work under "real world" initial review of the history and methodology of d conditions. What I learned from Dr. Olkowski was IPM, each of these "peer instructors," in turn, pre - d that every one of these assumptions was, in fact, sented their specific proposed IPM strategies. a incorrect. We purposely selected the six best -known or t, IPM was developed within, and for the use of, most problematical pests the division had to deal the agricultural industry. While ecologically based with. This, combined with the peer teacher tech- ¢ it is completely practical by nature and design. nique, proved effective in "selling" the concept and Originally formulated as a cost - containment strat- providing staff with a useful (and useable) under- egy, it provides truly cost - efficient vegetation and standing of how it worked. Consequently, most of pest control. "Real world" criteria drive the pro- our staff viewed IPM as an asset and were enthu- gram, determining when and what action is taken. siastic about putting the methodology into practice Finally, the methodology had at least a 57 -year in their own vegetation and pest control work. history of proven efficacy at the time I attended Dr. Refresher training sessions brought the group Olkowski's seminar. In short, IPM made perfect together again, facilitated information sharing, and P'' sense as a management tool to guide our division's helped keep the momentum and enthusiasm high. N vegetation and pest management operations. These sessions also provided a ready means of Dr. Olkowski spent a second day with some of training and indoctrinating new staff members. Most our staff in the field, seeing pests and vegetation important, the field staff developed a strong sense 0- 87371- 350 - 8/94/$0.00+5.50 ' 1994 by CRC Press Inc. 613 1