The council of this British Columbian town are set to follow some of their colleagues in other Canadian provinces and ban the cosmetic use of pesticides.
Here’s one PMP’s thoughts on the matter:
Tom Broad, with Bugs-Gon Pest Control, isn’t thrilled with the signage requirement, maintaining it will mean an extra 8,400 trips to client properties.
He also argued the industry is already adequately controlled and regulated through the Integrated Pest Management Act.
It’s another example of government regulations that would make doing your jobs more difficult. While I understand the other side’s position (and by “understand” I mean I get it, though I don’t agree with it), would they rather have pests running around attacking their homes and health? I’m thinking not.
I wonder if this group has taken an official position on this.
Tags: ban, British Columbia, Bugs-Gone Pest Control, Canada, Canadian Pest Management Association, cosmetic pesticide uses, IPM, Kamloops, pesticide ban, pesticides, Tom Broad
April 26, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
I wonder if this new law would prohibit residents from buying pesticides for do-it-yourself applications. This would actually benefit the industry.
One of the advocates for the ban seems confused about toxins. Everything is toxic in a certain quantity. I’m not sure what pesticides she would ban. I see the Canadians going to an “approved list” of exempt pesticides that would avoid the ban, if imposed.
It seems that rational moderate Canadians will prevail. Sensitivity bans cause major problems in the arena of property rights. I also noticed that while these advocates what to ban pesticides that are “toxic,” they simultaneously want to impose a 24-48 notification. It doesn’t really seem necessary if they are going to ban toxins.