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. This draft includes not only IPM but also A Guide for Big Companies to Set up and Operate an IPM Program. This does not apply to many users: agencies, smaller-scale operations, or individuals. If it’s in the standard, bigger companies with a more formal program would enjoy an even greater competitive advantage.
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 copy 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 [email protected]. If you are associated with any of the below committee members, please comment to them as well.
Bartlett Tree Experts [email protected]
Asplundh Tree Expert Co. [email protected]
Davey Tree Expert Company [email protected]
Tree Care Industry Assn. [email protected]
PLANET Alice Carter [email protected]
Society of Municipal Arborists Nolan Rundquist [email protected]
International Society of Arboriculture Richard Hauer, PhD [email protected]
American Society of Consulting Arborists: Torrey Young [email protected]
Professional Grounds Management Society: Gene Pouly [email protected]
Utility Arborists Association: William Rees (410) 291-3633
USDA/US Forest Service: Ed Macie (404) 347-1647
Alliance for Community Trees [email protected]
A300Part10-IPM-Drft1-V1 140821
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. This draft includes not only IPM but also A Guide for Big Companies to Set up and Operate an IPM Program. This does not apply to many users: agencies, smaller-scale operations, or individuals. If it’s in the standard, bigger companies with a more formal program would enjoy an even greater competitive advantage.
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 copy 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 [email protected]. If you are associated with any of the below committee members, please comment to them as well.
Bartlett Tree Experts [email protected]
Asplundh Tree Expert Co. [email protected]
Davey Tree Expert Company [email protected]
Tree Care Industry Assn. [email protected]
PLANET Alice Carter [email protected]
Society of Municipal Arborists Nolan Rundquist [email protected]
International Society of Arboriculture Richard Hauer, PhD [email protected]
American Society of Consulting Arborists: Torrey Young [email protected]
Professional Grounds Management Society: Gene Pouly [email protected]
Utility Arborists Association: William Rees (410) 291-3633
USDA/US Forest Service: Ed Macie (404) 347-1647
Alliance for Community Trees [email protected]
A300Part10-IPM-Drft1-V1 140821
