Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Published: January 12, 2010 7:00 PM
Plans to restrict chemical applications on nuisance weeds are having a difficult time taking root. Vernon council refused to endorse a cosmetic pesticide control bylaw Monday, and instead sent it back to staff so more information can be compiled. “When I have to tell my neighbour he can’t spray on his own property, I have a problem with that,” said Coun. Jack Gilroy. “There are people taking care of their yards and they’re immaculate and I can’t see telling them they will have to have dandelions.” Under the draft bylaw, pesticides would be reduced for public lands either owned by the city or contracted by the city to maintain within Vernon. It also calls for the residential component of the bylaw to be enacted in 2012. “How can we enforce it on private land?” said Mayor Wayne Lippert. Staff indicated there’s no proof that broad-leafed weeds have created safety risks on sports fields, but Coun. Shawn Lee disagreed. “I’ve seen a soccer career end on a plantain (weed) at Marshall Field,” he said. There were also concerns that switching from chemicals to integrated pest management could be expensive. As an example, weed control at Lakeview Park now costs about $50 a year, but that could soar to $9,000. “It’s a big amount,” Lippert said of the price tag that could face taxpayers with parks.
However, the bylaw also has its supporters. “If you are taking care of your lawn with watering, aeration and fertilizing, you can dramatically reduce your weed issue,” said Coun. Buffy Baumbrough, who questions the need for chemicals to control cosmetic weeds. While he has concerns about the potential costs, Coun. Patrick Nicol believes the bylaw is a positive move. “A lot of people wanted this for the health reasons and a number of jurisdictions have gone this route,” he said. In her report to council, environmental planner Brooke Marshall stated the draft bylaw is based on regulations in other jurisdictions. “Twenty-two communities in B.C. have cosmetic pesticide bylaws,” she said.
---------------
A balancing act Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Published: January 12, 2010 7:00 PM
Perhaps it’s because of my time spent on an orchard, but I am neither afraid of pesticides or entirely crazy about them. I fully understand that when applied incorrectly they pose a risk to human health as well as the environment. But when the rules are followed, they can be an appropriate way to address some difficult situations. Generally I ignore weeds in my yard because it can be an endless fight and because my family and pets don’t need to be exposed regularly to chemicals. But I also have a jug of Round-Up for the more challenging plants, such as thistle, which is prickly on the toes, and the broad-leafed plantain, which is a tripping hazard. I believe I have found a balance in my yard and that is why I have concern about the bans on cosmetic pesticides being considered in Vernon and Coldstream.
First off, how is banning pesticides on private property enforceable? Are municipalities going to hire dozens of staff to drive up and down streets in the hopes of finding someone nuking a dandelion, or is Big Brother simply going to encourage residents to snitch on their neighbours? There should also be a concern that if the purchase and use of commercial pesticides becomes frowned on, that some residents will whip up their own home remedies, using some nasty stuff. How is this good for human health or the environment? In defending a draft bylaw Monday, Vernon Coun. Buffy Baumbrough stated that, “If you are taking care of your lawn with watering, aeration and fertilizing, you can dramatically reduce your weed issue.” Such an approach may be true, but for any of us on the former Vernon Irrigation District, strict restrictions were in place for much of the year and that meant opportunities to water dropped to a trickle. And given where water rates have gone in the last few years, just letting the taps run so the grass can turn green is extravagant. Large chunks of my yard don’t get water unless it rains and that means the grass turns a nice shade of brown in the summer and the weeds conquer more territory. Beyond private property, these proposed bylaws would apply to public lands such as sports fields and parks.
Once again, chemical applications should be limited, particularly where children congregate, because of the potential hazards. But ignoring weeds can also create health problems, whether it is tripping over those broad-leafed plants or a patch of dandelions attracting bees, which could sting a child that is allergic to them. They stop being cosmetic when someone gets hurt. It should also be pointed out that not only have commercial pesticides gone through considerable testing by government agencies, but the commercial companies that apply them have gone through training and licensing. Obviously improvements can always be made to the regulatory process, but anyone spraying weeds in a local park lives here and they probably want to ensure the health of both themselves and their family. Those pushing for a ban on pesticides always cite integrated pest management as the answer, but it could see weed control at Lakeview Park skyrocket from $50 to $9,000 a year. When all parks are factored in, that could hit taxpayers hard, particularly when many of them have lost their jobs and wages have been frozen.
Ultimately I have no problem with pursuing alternatives to weed control, but the reality is that even once they’ve been used, a squirt of Round-Up may still be required to get weeds under control.But the real focus should be on educating people to make decisions that are right for them and the specific weed situation facing them, and not just an arbitrary ban that will serve no one
No comments:
Post a Comment