Search results for query: *

  1. treelooker

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

    "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. :? Sorry to offend. Just looking for balance. And thankfully it's not the 'new' standard yet; there will be...
  2. treelooker

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

    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.
  3. treelooker

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

    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...
  4. treelooker

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

    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...
  5. treelooker

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

    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...
Back
Top