[MAIPC] does Chlorox work on cut stems?

Wed Apr 15 20:07:11 PDT 2015

Thanks, Steve, I think you are making some really good points, and indeed, where do these points get discussed? Could there be a session or two at conferences where invasive plant management is discussed? Such as the MA-IPC conference this summer? Where else?

And this reminds me in a way about the large gap between environmentalists/land managers/etc. and the horticulture industry. WE want to ban the sale of any invasives; THEY think we are after their livelihood and those plants are not really so bad and besides they are what the public wants to purchase. I don’t think we are going to bridge the gap without our all sitting down and talking to each other and working together on such topics as creating more demand for native plants that the horticulture industry can grow and sell in significant quantities. It’s my impression that there is a lot of distrust on both “sides”.

Ruth

From: MAIPC [mailto:maipc-bounces at lists.maipc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen L. Young
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:20 PM
To: maipc at lists.maipc.org
Subject: Re: [MAIPC] does Chlorox work on cut stems?

The following is not in support or defense of any one technique or method but a broader discussion on this whole topic. Some will say it is hogwash, but I’m only sharing what I think is the larger issue, which is how can we do things better without knocking one technique or another and ending up being divided instead of being drawn together?

In these discussions, what always seems to happen is that when the topic of alternatives to pesticides comes up, the pesticide people feel like they’re getting picked on and the alternative folks feel like they’re being made fun of. I’ve seen it happen again and again and I think the issue is really how can we do things better instead of knocking one technique or another.

Yes, we’ve made advances in our tools for management, but there are still a lot of problems associated with how inefficient and ineffective we’ve been in their use and many invasive plants are doing quite well with or without our intervention. This is not an attack on pesticides or any other method or even on invasive plant management, but instead a way of thinking differently in an effort to find ways to do things better. Think of the fast food industry – it is not sustainable to constantly eat unhealthy food. Numerous scientific studies show this to be true. Does it mean we should avoid fast food completely? No, but some do. Should we be critical of them? Others choose to eat nothing but fast food. More than likely, their health reflects this choice. This is just an example. I am not suggesting pesticides are like fast food, but instead any technique that is overly relied on is like fast food. If our society was more science literate and didn’t pay so much attention to the media, then they would have the information to make good choices or at least know what are good choices with regard to their health and in this case, managing the environment. 

What I find especially disturbing is that no one ever talks about the long-term affects from putting things into the environment and I don't just mean pesticides, but plastics, cosmetics, synthetic products of all types, and even spent uranium. Why can’t manufacturers, companies, and even government agencies just admit that they don’t know what is going to happen? I think this is what frustrates a lot of people. Where is the humility in being able to admit that we don’t have all the answers and we don’t know if in the long-term what we’re doing now is actually safe? Why are we so confident in agencies and regulations that are not perfect and have yet to provide long-term protection? In the early 1900’s, kudzu was introduced for erosion control and to improve soil fertility. It was promoted by the government. That turned out to be not the best choice, but we thought it was then. A long, long time ago, it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat. Those who thought otherwise were laughed at, made fun of, or worse.

Why do we defend a certain practice or approach and then either show why we think we’re right or why we think others are wrong when there is no clear answer? Wouldn’t it be wiser to see that we’re all trying to achieve the same goal and that each of the techniques we support or contend for based on our personal views has a weakness and that we need to be inclusive and not exclusive? Why pick apart each others’ approaches when none by themselves are the answer? If we believe the use of all of the "tools in the toolbox” principle, then shouldn’t we be allowed to pursue new tools or new ideas of how to better use existing tools that results in us getting better overall? 

There are more philosophical and idealogical underpinnings that need to be included in this topic, instead of just focusing negatively on each others methods that we choose to use or have an interest in. Not sure if this is the right venue or listserv for this type of discussion, but it should be happening more often than it does.

Steve

From: <Tasker>, Alan V - APHIS <Alan.V.Tasker at aphis.usda.gov>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:06 PM
To: Tom Zaleski <TZaleski at Newark.de.us>, Richard Johnstone <ivmpartners at gmail.com>, Ruth Douglas <cvilleruth at embarqmail.com>
Cc: "maipc at lists.maipc.org" <maipc at lists.maipc.org>
Subject: Re: [MAIPC] does Chlorox work on cut stems?

Here, Here, Rick, you just said what I have been thinking reading this email chain.  Constant reinvention of the wheel to dodge imaginary hazards while ignoring real ones.  And vinegar & Clorox are _NOT_ benign to the environment.  Nor to humans if used at effective rates.   

Alan V. Tasker, Ph.D.  

Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist

USDA  Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection & Quarantine 

Regulations, Permits & Manuals;

Plants for Planting Import Policy Staff

4700 River Road, 4C01.23

Riverdale, MD 20737

 <mailto:Alan.V.Tasker at aphis.usda.gov> Alan.V.Tasker at aphis.usda.gov

Desk     301-851-2224 Mobile 301-346-7207

Fax        301-734-8692

 <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/planthealth/nappra> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/planthealth/nappra

Subscribe to the PPQ Stakeholder registry at: <https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new> https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new

From: MAIPC [mailto:maipc-bounces at lists.maipc.org] On Behalf Of Tom Zaleski
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:49 PM
To: Richard Johnstone; Ruth Douglas
Cc: maipc at lists.maipc.org
Subject: Re: [MAIPC] does Chlorox work on cut stems?

Bravo Rick! I could not agree more!

Tom Zaleski
Parks Superintendent
City of Newark
220 South Main Street
Newark, Delaware 19711
302-366-7059 Shop
302-561-5017 Cell

  _____  

From: MAIPC <maipc-bounces at lists.maipc.org> on behalf of Richard Johnstone <ivmpartners at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:29 PM
To: Ruth Douglas
Cc: maipc at lists.maipc.org
Subject: Re: [MAIPC] does Chlorox work on cut stems?

Ruth, 

It is such a disservice to natural resource managers that fear mongering over the word "pesticide" leads ill-informed groups, townships, etc to consider banning pesticide use; and what wise expert decides what constitutes an "emergency"?  I have also heard proposals to use steam to kill weeds, not mentioning that the steam will kill unsuspecting insects, amphibians, birds and other wildlife that happens to be at the receiving end of the boiling water.

Pesticides that are available for our use have gone through years of testing and research and are licensed by the EPA and State Departments of Agriculture for specific uses and application rates, as noted on their labels - which constitute federal law under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act or FIFRA.  Most of the problems we hear in the media are caused by individuals using pesticide products in violation of the label instructions, which is a criminal act; i.e. recent bumble bee kill in Oregon.  An herbicide probably used in your town for broadleaf weed control, 2,4-D, just celebrated its 70th birthday and the sky did not fall.  If you want to be concerned about chemicals, take a look at the label warnings on cosmetics and the cleaning products you have under your sink.

I am attending the Trilateral Conference (Canada, US, Mexico) in San Diego, CA as I write this, where I just gave a presentation showing how we are restoring milkweed and other wildflowers to benefit Monarch butterfly, bees, birds, and other pollinators using herbicides judiciously applied to control invasive plants and problem species.  We need to restore millions of acres of prairie habitat in North America over the next few years to insure the survival of Monarchs, native bees and songbirds.  Herbicides are a "tool in the tool box" to allow successful habitat restoration to occur.  So to you and others on this list serve, do us all a favor and speak out against unnecessary bans on the use of pesticides, and only use them according to label instructions.

Rick Johnstone

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Ruth Douglas <cvilleruth at embarqmail.com> wrote:

Hello, there is a group locally that wants to ban pesticides in parks except in emergencies. It has been suggested that Chlorox will do the work of Roundup in painting cut shrub etc. stems, maybe in other situations as well, not sure. Anyone have any comments on this?

Thanks in advance.

Ruth Douglas

_______________________________________________
MAIPC mailing list
MAIPC at lists.maipc.org
http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org

-- 

IVM Partners, Inc.

P.O. Box 9886

Newark, DE 19714-4986

www.ivmpartners.org

IVM Partners is a 501-C-3 non-profit corporation operated exclusively for charitable, scientific, literary, and educational purposes to develop, educate professionals and the public with respect to, and apply best vegetation management and conservation practices and related activities.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20150415/5e444450/attachment-0001.htm>