PDA

View Full Version : pesticide ban


steck
05-19-2008, 09:07 AM
my area has been considering a pesticide ban for some time now. in fact it looks like by next year, there will be a province wide ban for all pesticides, herbicides etc.

has anyone really thought what the consequences of this would be. - will there be any grass left ??

ie, grubs will take over, than only a weed will grow where the grubs are, only weeds that grubs wont eat will grow, than the grubs will die (they'll ultimately die anyway?!)

anyone else have a pesticide ban in place already ??

Frontier-Lawn
05-19-2008, 11:38 AM
my area has been considering a pesticide ban for some time now. in fact it looks like by next year, there will be a province wide ban for all pesticides, herbicides etc.

has anyone really thought what the consequences of this would be. - will there be any grass left ??

ie, grubs will take over, than only a weed will grow where the grubs are, only weeds that grubs wont eat will grow, than the grubs will die (they'll ultimately die anyway?!)

anyone else have a pesticide ban in place already ??

once city hall gets infested with roaches and rats, ect they will re think there moronic idea.

tlg
05-19-2008, 04:29 PM
my area has been considering a pesticide ban for some time now. in fact it looks like by next year, there will be a province wide ban for all pesticides, herbicides etc.

has anyone really thought what the consequences of this would be. - will there be any grass left ??

ie, grubs will take over, than only a weed will grow where the grubs are, only weeds that grubs wont eat will grow, than the grubs will die (they'll ultimately die anyway?!)

anyone else have a pesticide ban in place already ??

I have followed the pesticide controversy in Canada for some time and find the whole issue an unjustifiable attack on the use of pesticides. The limitation on pesticides for cosmetic use is completely unfair to one segment of the pest control industry while others may continue to apply their control products. Lawn care is the primary segment under attack while agriculture appears to be untouched by the pending new laws. The science behind the ban is flawed. The issue is an emotional response to a problem that really is not a problem. The pesticide haters are fear mongers. They say these products are bad and most people will go along with it out of fear. These people preach the evil of pesticides and those who fail to check the facts for themselves are buying into it like never before. There will be more property and lives hurt by not using pesticides than there will ever be by using them correctly. The use of pesticides is a complex issue that most people will never understand. How they work, when they are needed, and the benefits of their use should be based on sound science. Not on some emotional battle cry.

greg6775
05-19-2008, 05:41 PM
hope they leave kentucky out of the banned area

Daner
05-19-2008, 06:26 PM
I'm In Ontario as well...yes next summer the Ontario Pesticide band will start...and be enforced. Its not the end of the world...there are other ways of taking care of your lawns without spraying poison on them...all my lawns are organic and they do just fine...There's a bit of a learning curve...but a Interesting change...IMO the problem with Pesticides/herbicides is your trying to fix the problem with the problem.
On the other hand I can understand the chem guys getting upset over this...but there has been lots of heads up warning...Its not like It all shutting down next Friday...Its next summer...My advice would be to start to make the change over to organics now...and wean the lawns and the customers to the new way.

Daner

steck
05-19-2008, 09:35 PM
i'm kinda wondering how they are going to enforce it...hhmmmm?? from the skies with special camera's which will pick out the lawns who sprayed? :laugh:

i think the only way they can ban pesticide use is ban selling and buying it. Should be interesting tho....

i think a licence for homeowners would be great - say an 8 hr course on a saturday?? than you can spray your property, with proper application rates etc....

coyoteman
05-19-2008, 09:39 PM
I don believe it is a matter of if the lawns will servive or not, it's a matter of a province thinking they are smarter then the PMRA of Health Canada. Why is a golf course not effected by the ban? Ontario must be a sad place to live when activists are believed over 290 scientists.

tlg
05-19-2008, 09:41 PM
[QUOTE=Daner;2330708]I'm In Ontario as well...yes next summer the Ontario Pesticide band will start...and be enforced. Its not the end of the world...there are other ways of taking care of your lawns without spraying poison on them...all my lawns are organic and they do just fine...There's a bit of a learning curve...but a Interesting change...IMO the problem with Pesticides/herbicides is your trying to fix the problem with the problem.
On the other hand I can understand the chem guys getting upset over this...but there has been lots of heads up warning...Its not like It all shutting down next Friday...Its next summer...My advice would be to start to make the change over to organics now...and wean the lawns and the customers to the new way.

Daner[/QUOTE
Of course you are entitled to your opinion about pesticides. But your comment about poison on our lawns is way out of line. In fact, some of your organics are pretty nasty concoctions. Some smell just awful and in reality could be in your words a "poison" if applied wrong. I know plenty of people who would prefer a nice clean synthetic fertilizer over some dried chicken crap in a bag. Just how many lawns do you take care off with your organic program.... and they look fine. Define fine for me please. You organic guys amaze me. Anybody that uses a chemical is bad for the environment and should be stopped just because you think that they are in some way harmful. You use chemicals everyday of your life. From gas in your vehicles to bleach in your laundry. Ever brush your teeth? Fluoride is a chemical. In fact fluoride can kill you if you ingest to much. When you quit using chemicals in your everyday life feel free to bash an entire industry because you would be entitled. Butt naked, homeless, and stranded on the side of the road, but entitled.

FdLLawnMan
05-19-2008, 11:40 PM
[QUOTE=Daner;2330708]I'm In Ontario as well...yes next summer the Ontario Pesticide band will start...and be enforced. Its not the end of the world...there are other ways of taking care of your lawns without spraying poison on them...all my lawns are organic and they do just fine...There's a bit of a learning curve...but a Interesting change...IMO the problem with Pesticides/herbicides is your trying to fix the problem with the problem.
On the other hand I can understand the chem guys getting upset over this...but there has been lots of heads up warning...Its not like It all shutting down next Friday...Its next summer...My advice would be to start to make the change over to organics now...and wean the lawns and the customers to the new way.

Daner[/QUOTE
Of course you are entitled to your opinion about pesticides. But your comment about poison on our lawns is way out of line. In fact, some of your organics are pretty nasty concoctions. Some smell just awful and in reality could be in your words a "poison" if applied wrong. I know plenty of people who would prefer a nice clean synthetic fertilizer over some dried chicken crap in a bag. Just how many lawns do you take care off with your organic program.... and they look fine. Define fine for me please. You organic guys amaze me. Anybody that uses a chemical is bad for the environment and should be stopped just because you think that they are in some way harmful. You use chemicals everyday of your life. From gas in your vehicles to bleach in your laundry. Ever brush your teeth? Fluoride is a chemical. In fact fluoride can kill you if you ingest to much. When you quit using chemicals in your everyday life feel free to bash an entire industry because you would be entitled. Butt naked, homeless, and stranded on the side of the road, but entitled.

Thank you tlg. I could not have said it better myself. As far as I know there is no organic product for weed control except corn gluten meal which works kind of, but is expensive and you have the chance to has to much nitrogen the wrong time of year. And then try to over-seed a lawn that is full of CGM. Give me a nice synthetic fertilizer then people can afford over the organics any day.

whoopassonthebluegrass
05-20-2008, 01:20 AM
While this ban is ******ed, to question "will there be any grass left??" is naive.

Do you think "lawns" were invented in the test tube neighboring pesticides?

People have had lawns for centuries without the benefits of pesticides...

Daner
05-20-2008, 10:02 AM
[QUOTE=Daner;2330708]I'm In Ontario as well...yes next summer the Ontario Pesticide band will start...and be enforced. Its not the end of the world...there are other ways of taking care of your lawns without spraying poison on them...all my lawns are organic and they do just fine...There's a bit of a learning curve...but a Interesting change...IMO the problem with Pesticides/herbicides is your trying to fix the problem with the problem.
On the other hand I can understand the chem guys getting upset over this...but there has been lots of heads up warning...Its not like It all shutting down next Friday...Its next summer...My advice would be to start to make the change over to organics now...and wean the lawns and the customers to the new way.

Daner[/QUOTE
Of course you are entitled to your opinion about pesticides. But your comment about poison on our lawns is way out of line. In fact, some of your organics are pretty nasty concoctions. Some smell just awful and in reality could be in your words a "poison" if applied wrong. I know plenty of people who would prefer a nice clean synthetic fertilizer over some dried chicken crap in a bag. Just how many lawns do you take care off with your organic program.... and they look fine. Define fine for me please. You organic guys amaze me. Anybody that uses a chemical is bad for the environment and should be stopped just because you think that they are in some way harmful. You use chemicals everyday of your life. From gas in your vehicles to bleach in your laundry. Ever brush your teeth? Fluoride is a chemical. In fact fluoride can kill you if you ingest to much. When you quit using chemicals in your everyday life feel free to bash an entire industry because you would be entitled. Butt naked, homeless, and stranded on the side of the road, but entitled.

Do your Chem containers not say Poison on them???...do you not apply the same to your lawns??? I'm not out of line

Some customers don't know all about fertilizers...and there not expected to.

Did I say anything about chickens LOL bok bok:laugh:...You will see fine In the dictionary, and how many lawns I take care of has nothing to do with the Pesticide ban... Brushing your teeth and using fluoride also has nothing to do with a Pesticide ban.

There was no bashing in my first comment ...just facts

tlg
05-20-2008, 09:40 PM
[QUOTE=tlg;2331090]

Do your Chem containers not say Poison on them???...do you not apply the same to your lawns??? I'm not out of line

Some customers don't know all about fertilizers...and there not expected to.

Did I say anything about chickens LOL bok bok:laugh:...You will see fine In the dictionary, and how many lawns I take care of has nothing to do with the Pesticide ban... Brushing your teeth and using fluoride also has nothing to do with a Pesticide ban.

There was no bashing in my first comment ...just facts

Just to set you straight none of our labels for any of our pesticides has the word poison on them. I guess you like that word for the shock factor it implies. Customers know more than you think about fertilizers and pesticides applied because we inform them. If you don't think calling our chemicals poisons is out of line you must be kidding. We are professionals applying pesticides for the betterment of our customers. The number of properties you service and the size of those properties is a legitimate question as I am doubtful that any all organic program would be less than successful for any large scale operation. We service millions of square feet each month with our program and do thousands of applications each year. Even the best lawns get weeds and they don't "look fine" until we kill them with a herbicide. We also service some very large properties, some up to 9 acres. Show me an organic weed control for that property that works and I will look into it. Just out of curiosity how do you kill the weeds, prevent crabgrass, and grubs? Our customers expect their lawns to be free of these pest. Do your fine lawns have any of these problems? My comments on the use of other chemicals in your daily life like toothpaste was also a legitimate point. If your going to be against chemicals why not all of them? You really should not pick and choose the chemicals you are for and against. It does nothing for your argument. Or is it only pesticides that are bad? If that's true then there is nothing more to say!

ICT Bill
05-20-2008, 10:01 PM
Just to set you straight none of our labels for any of our pesticides has the word poison on them
Post a picture of the label, or several, and stop this nonsense, its simple. Blabber all you want about this and that, post a picture and lets see what you apply. No camera? tell us what you apply

You can't justify applying toxins just because you do XXXX amount of square footage, big deal. I'll show you 25 acre estates in New York that have not had one pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer applied for 15 years

Look at Pepsico world headquarters in New York. Not one pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer in over 3 years. How about Marriott properties and McDonalds in the NE. I don't buy it, its BS, you are not thinking out of the box.

Meanwhile a lot of other people are............... you had better move quick or your customer base will be shrinking soon

tlg
05-20-2008, 10:12 PM
Post a picture of the label, or several, and stop this nonsense, its simple. Blabber all you want about this and that, post a picture and lets see what you apply. No camera? tell us what you apply

You can't justify applying toxins just because you do XXXX amount of square footage, big deal. I'll show you 25 acre estates in New York that have not had one pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer applied for 15 years

Look at Pepsico world headquarters in New York. Not one pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer in over 3 years. How about Marriott properties and McDonalds in the NE. I don't buy it, its BS, you are not thinking out of the box.

Meanwhile a lot of other people are............... you had better move quick or your customer base will be shrinking soon

Once again there is no label on any product we use that STATES THAT IT IS A POISON.

ICT Bill
05-20-2008, 10:16 PM
If you are so set about this why don't you just take a picture and post it or tell us the product that you are using

There are some really smart people on here that have used these types of products for a long time, lets see

DeepGreenLawn
05-20-2008, 10:34 PM
I knew I was missing out on some good trad VS organic battles. I actually use both, they both have their good points and uses. Bill and Daner know all about this, everyone has their theories. But the ultimate goal is to go all organic.

What part about getting the lawn to grow the way it is suppose to naturally does not make since?

LushGreenLawn
05-20-2008, 10:43 PM
There is an entire forum dedicated to organics. It is right below this one.

This thread has nothing to do with organics.

ICT Bill
05-20-2008, 11:04 PM
LushGreenLawn

This thread has nothing to do with organics.

Never said that it did, TLG is making such a point I was just interested in what was being applied. TLG is the one that brought it up

Show me an organic weed control for that property that works and I will look into it.

tlg
05-20-2008, 11:58 PM
The original post was about a pesticide ban in Ontario, Canada. Daner stated that my company is applying poison and it is on our label. The poison comment was made to incite and imply that we are doing something very wrong with our chemicals. Which we are not. All chemicals play an important part in our everyday lives. Without them we would not have the quality of life that we all enjoy. The organic guys would like you to believe that chemicals are inherently bad and must be stopped. I had a customer a few years back that died from West Nile Virus. She was 87 years old. A damn mosquito bit her a killed her. She was a avid gardener. I taked to her husband the other day. He really misses her. If somebody would have just sprayed a little insecticide (poison for you organic guys) maybe she would still be here. I'm done with this post. In memory of Josephine Spatafora. I miss her too. She was a great lady.

LushGreenLawn
05-21-2008, 07:11 AM
Post a picture of the label, or several, and stop this nonsense, its simple. Blabber all you want about this and that, post a picture and lets see what you apply. No camera? tell us what you apply

You can't justify applying toxins just because you do XXXX amount of square footage, big deal. I'll show you 25 acre estates in New York that have not had one pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer applied for 15 years

Look at Pepsico world headquarters in New York. Not one pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer in over 3 years. How about Marriott properties and McDonalds in the NE. I don't buy it, its BS, you are not thinking out of the box.

Meanwhile a lot of other people are............... you had better move quick or your customer base will be shrinking soon

I've always wondered why all of our McDonalds have weeds. I figured they were to cheap to have their lawns sprayed.

LushGreenLawn
05-21-2008, 07:13 AM
LushGreenLawn



Never said that it did, TLG is making such a point I was just interested in what was being applied. TLG is the one that brought it up

You brought it up, TLG responded. Go back and read the thread from the beginning.:hammerhead:

Daner
05-21-2008, 10:15 AM
I can see I'm going to have competition here In Ontario next summer with the Chem guys making the change :weightlifter:
I'm glad the ban is taking place...there are other ways of taking care of lawns without adding cancer causing products. Like I said In my first post wean the lawns and customers off the chemicals early It will give You a head start on the new , better...safer way to take care of your lawns and gardens.

Daner

JohnnyRoyale
05-21-2008, 11:06 AM
Daner, our properties have taken a turn for the worst since we stopped spraying them last year. I have done some research online and have talked to a few of my bigger clients and they are all onboard for a nautral, organic program. They all realize the costs are going to be huge, and the results will take some time, but they all tell me its the 'corporately responsible' thing to do. Any suggestions as to what works best, ie: product line, system, etc. BTW-Turf Revolution is the product line I have looked into.

Daner
05-21-2008, 12:30 PM
Daner, our properties have taken a turn for the worst since we stopped spraying them last year. I have done some research online and have talked to a few of my bigger clients and they are all onboard for a nautral, organic program. They all realize the costs are going to be huge, and the results will take some time, but they all tell me its the 'corporately responsible' thing to do. Any suggestions as to what works best, ie: product line, system, etc. BTW-Turf Revolution is the product line I have looked into.


Johnny: Turf Revolutions products imo are just fine and yes I use them ...maybe you already know that theres not just some fancy organic spray to apply on the weeds and your all done...Its a whole diferent program.
I don't want to get off the Ban topic...so I can only sugest to slide over to the organic fourm, and you will get your questions answered there.

D

JohnnyRoyale
05-21-2008, 12:58 PM
Johnny: Turf Revolutions products imo are just fine and yes I use them ...maybe you already know that theres not just some fancy organic spray to apply on the weeds and your all done...Its a whole diferent program.
I don't want to get off the Ban topic...so I can only sugest to slide over to the organic fourm, and you will get your questions answered there.

D

I realize its a whole different program, and theres no miracle organic spray. Although the ban and its reasoning suck in many ways, I see a big money making opportunity here-and thats one of the reasons I get out of bed every morning.

DiyDave
05-21-2008, 02:30 PM
I can see I'm going to have competition here In Ontario next summer with the Chem guys making the change :weightlifter:
I'm glad the ban is taking place...there are other ways of taking care of lawns without adding cancer causing products. Like I said In my first post wean the lawns and customers off the chemicals early It will give You a head start on the new , better...safer way to take care of your lawns and gardens.

Daner
Its too bad we can't ban environmentalist whacko smugness along with the chemicals, now there's something I could support!:laugh::laugh:

Harley-D
05-21-2008, 03:51 PM
Seriously,
That's the most wacked out statement i've heard on here in awhile. "taking care of lawns without adding cancer causing products." Wow. Not starting anything, just suprised that's all.

In my past i've learned that making assumptions shows shallowness and uneducation.
Ofcourse, i assume our EPA is doing it's job and protecting us...until everyone start coming down with cancer, i'm spraying.

Marcos
05-21-2008, 06:03 PM
Daner and whopass are absolutely right. :)

Business owners in the turf industry right now who aren't seeing the worldwide "shift" in general public opinions away from traditional pesticides, and more toward progressive organic approaches...are, frankly, choosing to walk the Earth with blinders on.

The faster any LCO can implement some type of 'green' component(s) to their marketing, and actual programs...the easier it will be on them as time goes by.

Otherwise, there will very likely be a time in the not-too-distant future...where there's not enough "traditional" types of lawn chemical application BIDS left out there any more, to feed the mouths of the traditional LCOs, their employees, and their families.

JohnnyRoyale
05-21-2008, 08:02 PM
Prior to starting my business 15 years ago, I had put a few summers in pulling hose and spreading fert for a lawn care company. At that time, they serviced approx 3000 accounts and only 100 or so were on organic programs. We would get service calls if even 1 weed existed on their lawn after our app. Nowadays it seems as though the ideas of having weeds grow amoungst the turf is generally accepted, and people dont mind living with them, and their feeling good knowing they are doing the politically correct thing and not have herbicide applied on their properties. In my opinion, this organic approach could create easy revenue streams without the instant results and accountability we have been used to, as long as the client realizes and understands the end result of a picture perfect lawn doesn't happen overnight.

FdLLawnMan
05-21-2008, 08:29 PM
I'm glad the ban is taking place...there are other ways of taking care of lawns without adding cancer causing products. Like I said In my first post wean the lawns and customers off the chemicals early It will give You a head start on the new , better...safer way to take care of your lawns and gardens.

Daner

That is one of the most irresponsible statements I have ever heard on this site. Herbicides, that we use currently have never been shown, and I mean never, to cause cancer. The EPA just finished a 25 year study on 2,4-D and could not find one case of it causing cancer. Please, will you guys go over the the organic side and spew your nonsense. I know I should ignore this stuff but when someone says something so stupid I just have to respond.

DiyDave
05-21-2008, 08:38 PM
Hey Mike I agree with you in spades. These greenie weenies talk big, but never show any results... They say it takes longer, you understand to do things organically. Just like socialism takes longer to accomplish anything! Let us alone and go back into your own smug little self satisfied world, reinsert head into touchas, and tell us about the great view. OK rant off.:laugh::laugh:

LushGreenLawn
05-22-2008, 07:09 AM
I can see I'm going to have competition here In Ontario next summer with the Chem guys making the change :weightlifter:
I'm glad the ban is taking place...there are other ways of taking care of lawns without adding cancer causing products. Like I said In my first post wean the lawns and customers off the chemicals early It will give You a head start on the new , better...safer way to take care of your lawns and gardens.

Daner

Please show us the research showing that the products we use cause cancer. If you cannot, stop posting non-sense, and go back to charging people to much to grow weeds in their lawns.

Daner
05-22-2008, 09:17 AM
What products(Chemicals) are you spraying on the lawns to Kill the weeds???... You can all stamp your feet If you like ,but the hard facts are that the Pesticide Ban Is going to take place, and be enforced whether you like It or not.

D

steck
05-22-2008, 09:27 PM
What products(Chemicals) are you spraying on the lawns to Kill the weeds???... You can all stamp your feet If you like ,but the hard facts are that the Pesticide Ban Is going to take place, and be enforced whether you like It or not.

D


i'm still interested in how ontario is going to 'enforce' the ban.

we can't light fireworks off in town...but the kids still do.

we can't burn yard waste in our back yards...but we still do.

we can't water our lawns on 'even' days...but many still do

we can't speed, but we all do.....


point being,, i just cant see the police (OPP) being remotely interested in writing provincial offence tickets to those who are using a pesticide...let alone, how the h3ll they are going to prove it in court

they will need a sample of what you sprayed...how are they going to get that - walk into your garage and seize the stuff?? they are going to have to send that sample away for expert analysis..to prove it does contain a pesticide for a conviction...and also prove who sprayed..the house owner...or who?? who gets the ticket??

steck
05-22-2008, 09:53 PM
in ontario, i think the ban will be more of a moral issue. just like watering the grass during a watering ban...most comply, but some will go out after dark and water...there's always the one guy in the neighbourhood who still has deep green lawn during the watering ban, and the neighbours get the chance to snub their noses at them !!

theres no way to prove it,, unless you get caught in the act...by whichever by-law officer is lurking around your backyard that night to catch ya!

i can see bigger cities having the by-law people to somewhat enforce this - but out in the county, the townships wont have the man-power to hire a bunch of by-law officers to enforce this ban. no way.

even with the ban, people will still use pesticides.

and like i said in the OP, unless it is illegal to buy or sell the stuff, people will get it and use it.

DeepGreenLawn
05-22-2008, 10:56 PM
will they be allowed to sell it? if there is a ban, why would there be a need to sell the stuff?

Marcos
05-23-2008, 12:05 AM
will they be allowed to sell it? if there is a ban, why would there be a need to sell the stuff?

I'll bet the Canadian 'Ag' side will be exempt from alot if not all of this...so what will probably happen is that many LCOs will make a beeline to try to buy Ag formulations of whatever and use them very quietly 'off label' in turf / landscape / golf.

Fred B
05-23-2008, 12:09 AM
Unfortunatley the people to blame for the ban come from our own industry. Companies applying weed and feed every month. No wonder when a soil test is taken there are residuals in the soil. Most labels for broadleaf weed control state apply twice yearly. With the most effective application being in the fall. Liquid fertilizer with the amount of nitrogen you put in is pathetic when compared to a slow release granular say a 30 -15 -15 -15. It is in my opinion only that the companies that do weed control only are the ones to blame you do not need to blanket spray a property every month.

Marcos
05-23-2008, 01:42 AM
Unfortunatley the people to blame for the ban come from our own industry. Companies applying weed and feed every month. No wonder when a soil test is taken there are residuals in the soil. Most labels for broadleaf weed control state apply twice yearly. With the most effective application being in the fall. Liquid fertilizer with the amount of nitrogen you put in is pathetic when compared to a slow release granular say a 30 -15 -15 -15. It is in my opinion only that the companies that do weed control only are the ones to blame you do not need to blanket spray a property every month.

Frankly, Fred...(or is it Fredly, Frank ?:confused:)
:laugh:

The one crucial thing that many 'traditional' LCOs, both in the U.S. and Canada, seemed to have forgotten, is that the BEST strategy for turfgrass selective weed control doesn't come from any bag, bottle, or jar...:nono:

Instead it has to come from the implementation of any given number of mowing cultural practice habit-changing / renovation / seeding programs that can and will serve to increase the density of the turf, in general.

Increasing the turf 'competition' against weeds throughout any given area of turf, if successful , is certainly enough so that multiple annual "blanket sprays", as you describe them, become not only illogical but also IMPRACTICAL to perform, cost-wise.

Thus....the true meaning of 'IPM', as far as selective weed control is concerned, this should be every LCOs goal with EVERY customer they have:
At some reasonable designated point in time in the future (a timetable 'goal' set between customer & LCO) any applicator should be able to run just a hand tank / backpack sprayer / injection system to apply whatever weed control on a "spot" basis only.

Why set this mutual goal with a customer's handshake?
Customers usually love it when they sense that what they're absorbing; and later contributing back in terms of KNOWLEDGE INPUT from you....actually starts to make a difference vs. the Lawn Care Co's A, B & C they fired before you got there; all of which likely "over promised" lots of stuff !! :rolleyes:.

Then....
Your gradual education of this new customer begins....
...as well as a kind of 'partnership' in getting things done together !

Because if there's another co doing the mowing and it's not the homeowner doing it...the homeowner has to 1st "buy into" your principles of mowing height / frequency /sharpening / not mowing during extreme heat stress / not running around on ZTRs on frozen turf, etc....in order for them to INSIST to the mower vendor that takes care of their lawn that they need to correct their poor habits if they want to remain vendors !!

Harley-D
05-23-2008, 09:39 AM
I had a long post but the page had to refresh and kicked me off.

My point is that homeowners are the problem, not the LCO's. I'm suprised at canada:canadaflag: to be honest. That's a little more gov't than i would care to have. I'm all for the environment but they don't seem to know what's going on huh? There's 100 homeowners for every applicator. 90% of the homeowners are overapplying and not reading the label. Even after reading the label they'll use more than recommended. You want to protect the environment, it isn't about using organics or going green, it's about lobbying the big box stores from selling professional strength products. Because it's the general public causing the problem, not the guys on this site or any other licensed or even unlicensed applicator. If someone buys chemical to do a job, it makes sense that you only use what you have to. Not a blanket app. It's a waste of time and money.

You green guys need to understand better what applicators are doing and why. Don't assume that we're doing blanket apps because you read a label. I'ld say that 1 in 100 do a blanket app and that may only be once a year. (That's of a selective post emerg)
I'ld like to learn more about organics but i'm keeping an open mind and not making assumptions.*trucewhiteflag*

Daner
05-23-2008, 10:40 AM
Harley are you telling us that all applicators are angels and go by the book all the time...and Its all the home owners that don't do application correctly, come on :hammerhead: brush the hair from your eyes you may do your applications to the book...that I don't know...there's also room for mistakes as well with the licenced applicator

As far as enforcement Is concerned like the speeders and the waterers who water during the ban...sure there not going to catch everyone that breaks the law. Now lets say that your job Is a bylaw enforcer...and your well aware of the new pesticide ban...how would you go about catching the ban breakers?...I bet many of us would have a tricky way to catch them...for one...you can smell 24D a mile away...do you think the neighbors have there blinds closed...oh and what about Video...OH boy that would not be good...what about your Insurance now after you get caught:confused:
IMO It not worth Its to try and sneak around this ban...Make the switch...
In the long run the lawn will be happier

Daner

Harley-D
05-23-2008, 10:51 AM
I'm just saying for every applicator that doesn't apply correctly there's about 100 homeowners not doing it correctly. You do the math and that's alot of mis-application all done by the homeowner. I know your goal is for everyone to be organic but lets stop drinkin the kool aid. Win them over one at a time and your doing a good job.
Ask yourself why your happy about the ban. Is it so the environment is healthier? What about all those out of work doing apps. Can they just switch to an organic program? Will all the people who pay for synthetic lawncare be satisfied with that? They didn't have a choice right? Point is they banned pesticides, but for what reason? They're bad...got it. Specifically, doesn't make sense. Ban the homeowner from using pesticide...i'm all for it. Leave it to the professionals. The use of pesticides isn't bad, the mis-use of pesticides is bad.

ICT Bill
05-23-2008, 10:56 AM
Harley D, I agree with almost everything you say. Lawn and landscape professionals are just that professionals (well mostly), it is financial suicide to put down extreme amounts of fertilizers and pesticides and most know better.

It is the fertilzer companies that have done it to themselves. they have the US at large believing that if a little is good more should be better. The farming practices over the last 50 years have not helped either

Better practices and less inputs, as Marco's points out, is not only a good practice but much less expensive in the long run for the lawn and landscape company

What is happening stems from a study funded by the EPA and USDA from 1999 to 2005 on municipal water sources, it found that 18% of the wells and 24% of the streams were so contaminated by pesticides and fertilizers that they should not be used as a water source. The EPA has told the states to control this ASAP or they will step in with federal guidelines

the report is here and is stunning in its results http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

Hey my 1000th post Kewl

Marcos
05-23-2008, 11:45 AM
You green guys need to understand better what applicators are doing and why. Don't assume that we're doing blanket apps because you read a label. I'ld say that 1 in 100 do a blanket app and that may only be once a year. (That's of a selective post emerg)

I'd like to learn more about organics but i'm keeping an open mind and not making assumptions.*trucewhiteflag*


Your last sentence is the first solid step I took in the winter of 2003 when I began to see and more and more public sentiment toward 'green' lawn care...especially as this younger generation of Americans and Canadians coming along now gradually become homeowners and businessmen.

However, I'm still not 100% organic, since going out on my own in 1997.
I simply look my customers square in the eye and explain that I represent a "bridge" from traditional chemical lawn care to that of the world of organics; which is the 100% truth.

Yet....if I sense that they're 'wavering' from going with us after being presented with our offerings...because of the 30-40% traditional fertilizer & largely dominant IPM weed & insect component, I'm still flexible enough to provide 100% organic fert & spray vinegar apps if requested...at obviously, an inflated $$ rate.

But this happens maybe four or five times per every 100 customers.

And this whole new ball-of-wax got started for me in the late summer of 2002 when it was requested of me by three neighbors, all side-by-side, to do relatively massive renovation / seeding & compost topdressing job at that time.

Even more referrals took over from there.
I was pretty much :dizzy: 'thrown' :dizzy: into coming up with an organic bridge program of some type that winter...or else I'd've LOST alot of those referrals !

Harley-D...it may, or may not be slow to happen in your neck o' the woods, but this type of public pressure, both residential AND commercial, will completely change the face of the professional lawn care industry, as we know it, within the next 10-20 years.

This doesn't have to be an "us vs. them" thing...in terms of trad. LCOs vs. organics.
Rather, this is an issue of gradually adapting to public trends ....or face the very real possibility sometime down the road that what you 'do' and what you 'know' will become largely obsolete as far as earning a living is concerned.

WILLIAMS
05-30-2008, 04:04 PM
Will we be able to use up our stocks of 24-D etc. next year?

Ducke
05-31-2008, 07:36 PM
We have been Pesticide free here in Halifax Nova Scotia Canada for the last 5 years.We now have some very nice lawns, some of our best ever.
It is a complete new learning curve and those that can adapt and are willing to learn new tricks will survive,if not well you know what happens.
We have seen a lot of companies close up but a hand full grab the challenge and made the changes
We are busier now then we have ever been and we now have more staff then ever before. organic do work and it may take two or three tries to find the right products but they do work and some just as well as the pesticides.
Don't knock the ban It makes sense.
It make our job safer 9Not breathing in the toxins all day)and cleaner (not spraying a toxic cloud on someones lawn) for you the applicator and your customer who lives on their lawn.

Ducke (Graham)

cantoo
05-31-2008, 10:44 PM
Not trying to be a smart azz but does anyone here know anyone that got sick from spraying? You know something that you could prove, not the old friend of my cousins uncle's brother in law thing? Or is it like the huge fines you hear about but no one actually gets? I've been legal for 5 or 6 years and never seen hide nor hair of any kind of inspector or lawn cops. Tons of guys around here spray and are not licenced or insured. Granted I live in farm country not the City, maybe there are inspectors there but none here.
Any newspaper proof? I see guys spray in clouds of drift doing 100 acre fields. My father in law sprayed apples for years with no breathing apparatus at all. He's had asthma his whole life and is still kicking. We only spray Par III, Tri-Kill and round up and nothing else. I fell safe enough using the gear we do.

cantoo
05-31-2008, 10:49 PM
Ducke, got an pics of those lawns? What are you using for weed control? Can you give me a price guesstimate for a normal lawn, something around 1/2 acre of grass? We've got lots of customers asking what's going to happen and I'm not really sure what to tell them. I'm not going to go broke wasting my time trying to sell a program that is too expensive or takes too long to get results. I'll just do other things.

DeepGreenLawn
06-01-2008, 12:38 AM
If that is the outlook that people have about it how do I get a ban started here in GA?

Daner
06-01-2008, 08:39 PM
There are a ton of people supporting this ban...not just individuals...but organisations.
I honestly don't know how exacting how they will enforce this ban...I just know I would not want to get caught. I know there were some on here that threw a few darts at me...but just to get things straight...I'm no Green activist In any way...I switched over to organic lawn care because It was more Interesting and I though It would be better for the turf In the long run ,and less chance for misapplications of pesticides

D

Ducke
06-01-2008, 10:38 PM
Well for fertilizer we are using a 26-0-16
palletized Lime, standard core aeration and for weed control Sarritor.

A basic package of 1 lime 2 ferts and 1 weed control and a summer inspection for a 2500 sq ft lot would be about $350.00 to $450.00

cantoo
06-02-2008, 12:44 AM
Ducke, my math isn't so good so correct me if I'm wrong.
1/2 acre is 21,780 square feet
2500 square feet is $350 to $450 so 21,780 would be $3915
We have around 30 customers but not all are fert and spray customers but if we could convert them to full service it would be $91,350 to $117,450 in billing. Not more grass cutting for me. Might have to give them a bit of a better deal because it's more square feet per stop but still sounds like good money to me. And it's good for the environment too.
Daner, are you getting anywhere near this kind of rate?
PS, I read the info for that Sarritor, interesting but it also sounds like you have to be pretty careful using it too. Sure it's organic? Almost sounds like ParIII is the same or easier to use.

Daner
06-02-2008, 06:25 PM
Ducke, my math isn't so good so correct me if I'm wrong.
1/2 acre is 21,780 square feet
2500 square feet is $350 to $450 so 21,780 would be $3915
We have around 30 customers but not all are fert and spray customers but if we could convert them to full service it would be $91,350 to $117,450 in billing. Not more grass cutting for me. Might have to give them a bit of a better deal because it's more square feet per stop but still sounds like good money to me. And it's good for the environment too.
Daner, are you getting anywhere near this kind of rate?
PS, I read the info for that Sarritor, interesting but it also sounds like you have to be pretty careful using it too. Sure it's organic? Almost sounds like ParIII is the same or easier to use.

Hi Cantoo...my program Is different then Ducke's...I have no props that are under 1.5 acres...and sometimes I start right from scratch...then some are weaned off the drugs...the pricing Is up there I can tell you that much...I don't work for bargain shoppers, and most wont like my price anyway...all my customers like what I'm doing...I'm honest with them and make sure they know that there will be some weeds...and It will take some time for the lawn to adapt to the change. I bet some customers say forget It...let the dandelions grow...some will try to do It themselves...there will be more seeds flying around In the wind as well...It will be a mixed bag for at leased to first summer and the one after that.

Daner

cantoo
06-02-2008, 10:24 PM
Daner, that's a bit of a problem that I have. Very very few of my customers are going to be interested in paying that kind of money for weed removal.They don't want the weeds but they don't want to pay either. I have lots asking if I am going to stock up on chemicals now. What good would that do, it will be illegal to apply not buy? I will be able to buy all the 2 4 D I want it's just that I won't be able to use it.
Does anyone know what the actual wording is going to be? I've heard we are still going to be able to use round up.
Say you are redoing a poor lawn, will we be able to kill the weeds (broadleaf) with ParIII then seed in the new grass? Or will round up (total kill) be our only option? This is our current method for new lawns, broadleaf spray then till up and reseed. I don't want to have to go the roundup route.
What's this going to do to my insurance rate? If I'm only able to apply round up then my liability rate should go down, especially considering that my chemical use is going to be really down compared to now.

Daner
06-03-2008, 10:39 AM
Daner, that's a bit of a problem that I have. Very very few of my customers are going to be interested in paying that kind of money for weed removal.They don't want the weeds but they don't want to pay either. I have lots asking if I am going to stock up on chemicals now. What good would that do, it will be illegal to apply not buy? I will be able to buy all the 2 4 D I want it's just that I won't be able to use it.
Does anyone know what the actual wording is going to be? I've heard we are still going to be able to use round up.
Say you are redoing a poor lawn, will we be able to kill the weeds (broadleaf) with ParIII then seed in the new grass? Or will round up (total kill) be our only option? This is our current method for new lawns, broadleaf spray then till up and reseed. I don't want to have to go the roundup route.
What's this going to do to my insurance rate? If I'm only able to apply round up then my liability rate should go down, especially considering that my chemical use is going to be really down compared to now.

As far as I understand Roundup Is the only herbicide you may use...and like you say why stock up when It will be illegal to apply . If your only doing organics...I would say your Insurance rates should come down.

cantoo
06-03-2008, 10:25 PM
That's the thing, I likely won't be doing any organics.
As for my insurance I'll be willing to bet it won't drop any unless I stop all chemical apps completely. I'm sure they are going to say there is still some type of risk even with organics.
Wonder how long it is going to take to develop roundup ready grass? Likely already sitting on the sidelines ready to hit the market.

DeepGreenLawn
06-03-2008, 11:04 PM
Ummmm, I kind of doubt that one. How are you planning on treating lawns with a pesticide ban and not use organics? Walk up to the lawn and say look there are weeds and the grass isn't a full green. OK, my job here is done, that will be $50 please. :D

cantoo
06-03-2008, 11:36 PM
Deep green, I don't plan on treating them organic. We are likely only going to be cutting whatever is growing, grass weeds whatever. I'm ony going to be doing what I am getting paid for and that is to cut whatever is there. I don't have a single organic treated lawn as it is now. I live in farm country, a green weed few lawn isn't high on the list of priorities of most of my customers. We do spray and fert lawns but not all of them.

DeepGreenLawn
06-04-2008, 01:03 AM
Oh, I am more in the city where everyone has to outdo their neighbor. Makes for good money for me.payup

Ducke
06-04-2008, 10:34 PM
Look guys we thought the same way no one would want to pay more no one would want to go organic But we have more customers now the we did 5 years ago yes we lost some at first who thought they could do it them selves but once their lawns got BAD They came back. it seem like every year we loose one or two but we always gain three or four.
I hope I uploaded these pictures right.
The first one is from 2000
the second one is from 2007 with 3 years of pesticide free treatment.
I'm no professional Photographer.

Jeffrey Lowes
07-04-2008, 12:04 PM
As an industry spokesperson for professional applicators in the pesticide industry I would like to provide a little perspective on the issue. Any question please contact me directly at the numbers listed below.


Jeffrey Lowes


Science should dictate policy not Emotions

We would encourage the activist and councilors to pursue court actions. It is unfortunate their feelings are hurt as the provincial ban will not live up to their emotional reasons of the issue.

What I mean, and I apologize if I am not clear but when regulating an industry such as ours, the disciplines of toxicology, epidemiology, environmental biology and plant physiology should provide direction and meta-analyst of epidemiological studies, endogenous or exogenous carcinogenic factors even if they are contradictory or of debatable value because of methodological problems or lack of sufficient statistical power. The industry should Not be ruled by public opinion, as activist and councilors will soon realize that hearsay and conjecture will not be tolerated in court.

The Ontario College of Family Physicians are not experts on the issue as their work did not stand up in a peer review both inside and outside of Canada. Municipalities should not waste taxpayers’ money trying to support the superficial findings. Just as family doctors should not be practicing plastic surgery, they should not be dabbling in toxicology or epidemiology.

Regardless if a pesticide is organic or synthetic, all data is correlate with any statistically significant association including studies with methodological limitations. All data develop has to submitted to the regulatory body.

As an industry we take all information generate and have it review by an international group of peers in Clinical and Occupational Toxicology, epidemiology to reflect on exposure or discern causative environmental factors or pathological breakdowns. From that analyst we develop data to support a submission for chemistry, environmental assessment, efficacy, occupational exposure and toxicology to the PMRA. From the science procedure is develop based on guiding principles.

Activist suggest using the “precautionary principle” which is a license to bypass risk analysis and justifying popular opinion as fact. This would be ignoring comprehensive evaluations and the harmonization of environmental data requirements to develop technological evolutions, new methods and materials, new quality and safety requirements. It’s the equivalent of throwing out the flat screen and dish for a black and white and rabbit ears.

But if you don’t understand the science just find a group of politicians, tell them it’s bad, throw in a few true believers and they will ban it.

Overall I fail to understand why junk science and a public relations campaign outweigh studies from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). I apologize again to councilors who believe that their qualifications in social science or ethnography outweigh the scientific community, of the rest of the world.

But again delusional stories of conspiracy only require three things; a keyboard, self appointed titles and a person with to much time on their hands.
There is a solution to the perceived problem regarding pesticides. Just as we have dog parks, we should have two kinds of people places.

The first kind of place would look the same as boulevards, sports fields and city parks devoid of grass and covered with yellow "flowers," plantain and knotweed. These places would have high-tech climbing systems not more than two feet off the ground. There would be rubberized flooring and carefully selected stones would be evenly placed to prevent any contact with the green stuff. We would make sure there was no dirt or green stuff to soil the children's matching outfits. Parking would be close by so parents would not have to haul their organic snacks, and seaweed-impregnated yoga wear very far.

We would call this "Chicken Little Place" and it would be a place where people could discuss how banning something else would allow them to impose their superficial way of life on everyone else.

The city needs to build is a place where kids, dogs and families can play under a healthy canopy of trees whose root system is protected by the natural filtering of healthy, thick turf -turf otherwise known as grass -and free of weeds and thistles. It is where a kid can get grass stains and roll around without his parents breaking out in hives.

Who knows? Maybe some dirt might be transferred from the environment to the skin of the kids. We should be able to solve this problem with a soap-and-water mixture later at home without consulting medical advice. There would need to be wooden climbers, sandboxes and trees to climb so that later, kids could compare their bumps, bruises and scrapes after a tough day of being kids.

This would be a place where kids and parents could play a game or two without consulting a City Rule Book on How to Play. We would call it "outside."

I, as well as our industry trust the science further then the politicians or activist.

As a spokesperson for an industry, science should dictate policy and the politicians should listen.

Jeffrey Lowes
Director of Government &Industrial Relations

Ducke
07-04-2008, 02:42 PM
As an industry spokesperson for professional applicators in the pesticide industry I would like to provide a little perspective on the issue. Any question please contact me directly at the numbers listed below.


Jeffrey Lowes


Science should dictate policy not Emotions

We would encourage the activist and councilors to pursue court actions. It is unfortunate their feelings are hurt as the provincial ban will not live up to their emotional reasons of the issue.

What I mean, and I apologize if I am not clear but when regulating an industry such as ours, the disciplines of toxicology, epidemiology, environmental biology and plant physiology should provide direction and meta-analyst of epidemiological studies, endogenous or exogenous carcinogenic factors even if they are contradictory or of debatable value because of methodological problems or lack of sufficient statistical power. The industry should Not be ruled by public opinion, as activist and councilors will soon realize that hearsay and conjecture will not be tolerated in court.

The Ontario College of Family Physicians are not experts on the issue as their work did not stand up in a peer review both inside and outside of Canada. Municipalities should not waste taxpayers’ money trying to support the superficial findings. Just as family doctors should not be practicing plastic surgery, they should not be dabbling in toxicology or epidemiology.

Regardless if a pesticide is organic or synthetic, all data is correlate with any statistically significant association including studies with methodological limitations. All data develop has to submitted to the regulatory body.

As an industry we take all information generate and have it review by an international group of peers in Clinical and Occupational Toxicology, epidemiology to reflect on exposure or discern causative environmental factors or pathological breakdowns. From that analyst we develop data to support a submission for chemistry, environmental assessment, efficacy, occupational exposure and toxicology to the PMRA. From the science procedure is develop based on guiding principles.

Activist suggest using the “precautionary principle” which is a license to bypass risk analysis and justifying popular opinion as fact. This would be ignoring comprehensive evaluations and the harmonization of environmental data requirements to develop technological evolutions, new methods and materials, new quality and safety requirements. It’s the equivalent of throwing out the flat screen and dish for a black and white and rabbit ears.

But if you don’t understand the science just find a group of politicians, tell them it’s bad, throw in a few true believers and they will ban it.

Overall I fail to understand why junk science and a public relations campaign outweigh studies from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). I apologize again to councilors who believe that their qualifications in social science or ethnography outweigh the scientific community, of the rest of the world.

But again delusional stories of conspiracy only require three things; a keyboard, self appointed titles and a person with to much time on their hands.
There is a solution to the perceived problem regarding pesticides. Just as we have dog parks, we should have two kinds of people places.

The first kind of place would look the same as boulevards, sports fields and city parks devoid of grass and covered with yellow "flowers," plantain and knotweed. These places would have high-tech climbing systems not more than two feet off the ground. There would be rubberized flooring and carefully selected stones would be evenly placed to prevent any contact with the green stuff. We would make sure there was no dirt or green stuff to soil the children's matching outfits. Parking would be close by so parents would not have to haul their organic snacks, and seaweed-impregnated yoga wear very far.

We would call this "Chicken Little Place" and it would be a place where people could discuss how banning something else would allow them to impose their superficial way of life on everyone else.

The city needs to build is a place where kids, dogs and families can play under a healthy canopy of trees whose root system is protected by the natural filtering of healthy, thick turf -turf otherwise known as grass -and free of weeds and thistles. It is where a kid can get grass stains and roll around without his parents breaking out in hives.

Who knows? Maybe some dirt might be transferred from the environment to the skin of the kids. We should be able to solve this problem with a soap-and-water mixture later at home without consulting medical advice. There would need to be wooden climbers, sandboxes and trees to climb so that later, kids could compare their bumps, bruises and scrapes after a tough day of being kids.

This would be a place where kids and parents could play a game or two without consulting a City Rule Book on How to Play. We would call it "outside."

I, as well as our industry trust the science further then the politicians or activist.

As a spokesperson for an industry, science should dictate policy and the politicians should listen.

Jeffrey Lowes
Director of Government &Industrial Relations


Very well said I like that new Park idea sounds also true poor little Johnny might hurt himself if he plays outside :laugh:BUT I have seen it all before and the local tree hugger,s will talk circle around you and bring out their pictures of puppies and kittens that have been exposed to nuclear waste and everyone will go AAAAAHHHHHHHHH poor things and then the minority will out vote the majority and the pesticide ban:wall will be in effect and there is nothing that anyone can do other then to find better ways to do things with in the new laws and if you try to do or say anything against the tree hugger's they make you out to be the BIG puppy and kitten killing companies that are financed by the big pesticide conglomerates.
We have been there and done that and are still tiring to find the Grey areas and walk the fine line between legal and illegal use of product and yes there are GREY AREAS in all laws you just have to look for them.
Its amazing what can be archived when your industry hooks up with the local political candidate that owns the local Sod Farm or Greenhouses or Plant Store etc.... certain conditions can then be made once they understand what its going to do to their livelihood and big Grey areas will be included in the new law, We have plenty here (Halifax, Nova Scotia) none that I'm going to state right now but we use them everyday and so far so good the activists have not been able to do anything about what we are doing, They keep tiring crying to city council but nothing has been changes yet. The law is the law good or bad for both sides of the battle,
Good Luck in your fight.

Jeffrey Lowes
07-04-2008, 05:51 PM
Please consider the following:

1. Hockey skates and a stick will not do you any good in a basketball game. So ask yourself before going to a public meeting are you capible of handling what is going to happen and do you have what you need?

2. Video Tape any and all meetings and carry a pocket voice recorder.

3.Opening statement:

"We have been advised to video taping these proceedings to order to have proper documentation in the event that our reputations or the goods and services we offer our clients is damaged by false or misleading statements. We have been informed that material presented in other municipalities to support a bylaw restricting the use of pesticides has been fabricated by individuals posing as medical doctors."


4. Get professional help, including a lawyer (not your bother-in-law's friend) and talk with other members of you industry (like here, this is a great website)

5. Understand you are not trying to influence the public just the members of the committee or council.

6. Always use factual information do not try and make things up for example this is fact:

As to medical claims by organizations and politicians: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recently released a report on attributable causes of cancer in France. This study is the first of several IARC will be undertaking into the subject matter; France just happens to be the first. This builds on earlier work in this area. The summary table you will find on page 170 of the report which provides the results of these earlier studies (Doll & Peto, 1981; Olsen, 1997; Doll & Peto, 2005; Danaei, 2005). Each of these studies has concluded that most cancer cases are attributed to tobacco, alcohol, infectious agents, obesity, occupation and physical inactivity.

With specific regard to pesticides, on page 139 IARC concludes:

“Given the lack of evidence linking pesticide exposure to human cancer risk, no cases of cancer can be attributed to either occupational or non-occupational exposure to this group of agents.”

This is because -- as the report states -- "Very few currently available pesticides are established experimental carcinogens, and none is an established human carcinogen."

7. If the Medical Officer of Health is involved, ask the following:

I understand your bylaw defines what a “pesticide” is and allows the use of products not registered with Health Canada. If your bylaw stands lawn care companies will be required to violate current federal and provincial laws. As this is your bylaw I would assume you are taking on all fiduciary and legal responsibilities for the off label use and any use of your “pesticides” that may cause injury or damage.

Can you please supply a copy of the products that the Town of XXXXXX registered for lawn care and the label directions set out by your medical officer of health?

8. If any of the following people or organizations make presentations, get professional help and contact me directly.


Dr. Meg Sears
Dr. CR Walker
Dr. RHC van der Jagt
Dr. P Claman
Dr. Gideon Forman
Dr. K Jean Cottam
Dr. Susan Rhodes
CAPE Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
OCFP Ontario Colledge of Family Physicians
David Suzuki Foundation
Dr Chicken Little


9. Alway follow step 2 even if you are not speaking.

10 Collect any handouts by activist and keep a detailed record of any newspaper articles or editorials.

Jeffrey Lowes
Director of Government &Industrial Relations

Jean Sergent
12-17-2008, 12:33 AM
Regarding Dr. Richard Doll, originally, in his younger years, he was a highly respected British scientist, known for his studies about the harm done by tobacco. In his later years, however, his acceptance of large sums of money from big manufacturers of chemicals gave rise to some doubts about the impartiality of his writing.

I was amused by the reference to Chicken Little. Quite funny, but somehow doesn't fit in.

HayBay
03-28-2009, 11:40 PM
Quebec said in 2003 they would Remove 2,4-d from the prohibited pesticides list after a re-evaluation of the product deemed it safe. Canadian PMRA reevaluation in 2008 says 2,4-d is safe for everyone including children rolling around and putting their hands in their mouths.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/24d/index-eng.php

We may see a change in the Banned products list this week.

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 08:27 AM
The problem with the PMRA is that they don't do independent research, thus lacking credibility. Herbicide 2,4-D was one-half of Agent Orange--the other half was 2,4,5-T, banned since 1983. Both are known to be contaminated by toxic dioxin--2,7-DCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDD respectively. A whistle-blower from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that dioxin is still present in 2,4-D. It is generated by high temperatures in the reactor, while lowering temperatures makes the manufacturing process highly inefficient, i.e. raising temperatures is impractical. There is absolutely no doubt that Agent Orange killed and crippled millions in Vietnam; it also sickened and eventually killed many Canadian soldiers in Gagetown, N.B. Currently, 2,4-D is not tested for cancer, as well as immune, neurological, reproductive and developmental harm. There are worse problems with 2,4-D than children putting their hands in their mouth, as the herbicide is then filtered out by the liver, the cleansing organ. Inhalation and dermal contact are by far the worst exposures and for that there is no remedy except being far, far away from the sprayed area. Staying off the lawn is not enough. In light of the above, Quebec's decision not to reintroduce 2,4-D reflected the inability on the part of the PMRA to prove this herbicide safe.

Jeffrey Lowes
03-29-2009, 09:46 AM
Jean Sergent is also know as Dr. K Jean Cottam or K. Jean Cottam PhD

Ducke
03-29-2009, 10:11 AM
Jean Sergent is also know as Dr. K Jean Cottam or K. Jean Cottam PhD


Hmmmmmm funny how she and or he had to hide.
Just more of their misleading representation of their supposed cause.:confused:
Funny how misleading these people can be. :nono:

HayBay
03-29-2009, 11:08 AM
EPA has 2 products with 2,4-d that are registered for aquatic use. The toughest registration to get.

AquaKleen® and Navigate®

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 11:28 AM
EPA under Bush was extremely lax, with politicians, influenced by lobbyists, having the upper hand. I am on a pesticide committee in Washington as honorary Canadian observer, and we meet on their website or via telephone conference calls frequently. During our recent national conference call for pesticide experts throughout the U.S., we discussed a document for change to be presented to the President. It includes an item about strengthening the impact of independent science on EPA's decisions and diminishing the political influence of lobbyists. EPA has a new head who is committed to improving the evaluation process. U.S. scientists are again petitioning the Obama Administration to ban 2,4-D completely.

Jeffrey Lowes
03-29-2009, 11:59 AM
Jean Sergent

"I am retired federal intelligence analyst who is also a published professional writer bringing recent findings of independent science on pesticides to the general reader. Most of my time in the past seven years has been spent on researching information on pesticides, consulting experts in this field and writing. Several hundred of my contributions, mainly on pesticides, have been published in recent years in Canada's newspapers coast to coast."

http://www.plcao.on.ca/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=154

K.J. Cottam

"I am retired federal military intelligence analyst: I worked in this capacity for both DND and Foreign Affairs. My PhD has nothing to do with Russian literature. I published several books on Soviet women in combat in WWII, because of my familiarity with military history and military affairs, including chemical warfare. A professional writer, since my retirement I have been devoting a great deal of time to doing research and writing on the cosmetic use of pesticides and am published in newspapers coast to coast. I am also honorary Canadian observer of the Pesticide Working Group based in Washington. We meet via periodic conference calls."

http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1907&page=2

Jeffrey Lowes
03-29-2009, 12:08 PM
As Submitted to the Newspaper in Response to Cottam:

Critics making unsubstaniated claims


There are misunderstandings fueled by individuals like K. Jean Cottam. These individuals sometimes present themselves as doctors and reference unsubstantiated claims in an effort to damage the image of the lawn- and tree-care industry. I am surprised that the writer didn’t refer to herself as Dr. K. Jean Cottam. This has never stopped her in the past even though we know her PhD is in Russian and East European history. Individuals that need to alleviate their personal phobias or anxieties may be helped by writing. These writings and conspiracy theories should be kept in a journal for the next therapy session and not vetted in newspapers.

I would hope the council of Salmon Arm did not rely on any information from this individual. Dr. K. Jean Cottam’s claims are border line delusional in layman’s terms. If you do a Google search on this self appointed expert with a keyboard, you will find an interesting response from Art Drysdale.

Our experts at MREP Communications have been able to ascertain the medical reports presented to the public are false or misleading. These reports have fueled Dr. K. Jean Cottam’s claims. In fact they may be the basis for a fraud push on the public by individuals that abused their credentials in an effort to sell a substandard product. We continue to explore this issue through the courts and different government agencies.

As to the question of principle or principal, we have made corrections to our voice recognition software. There are enough people from Ottawa area affecting our lives; people really don’t need another. Since the doctor lives in a condo, I wonder what part of the grounds is her “lawn”?

Since most people don’t eat dandelion salad, they should not be force to grow them. Maybe the activist should lay off the poor weed; the issue seems to be clouding their judgment. It would be safe to say this is not the last time we will hear from the good doctor and her rant.

Jeffrey Lowes
M-REP Communications

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 12:39 PM
I am wondering how Jeffrey's MREP Communications' experts determined that medical reports in question are false and misleading? Do they have advanced medical/chemical training? And surely there is more behind the activities of people like myself than just a desire to cause trouble for trouble's sake? After all, no one pays me for doing all this work for the past seven years and my position on the pesticide committee in Washington, D.C. is purely honorary. Moreover, no one has ever declared me mentally challenged. Far from it. I fully agree, however, that no one should be forced to grow dandelions; I don't grow them either. However, there are methods for getting rid of them without turning suburbia into a toxic battlefield. And I don't mean pulling them out by hand. I seldom do. But there is something about how I look after my lawn that discourages dandelions from invading my weedless turf.

Jeffrey Lowes
03-29-2009, 01:46 PM
"Moreover, no one has ever declared me mentally challenged"

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (the Queen from Shakespeare's Hamlet Act III, Scene II)


"I am wondering how Jeffrey's MREP Communications' experts determined that medical reports in question are false and misleading?"

M-REP Communications started with the fake doctor's from there it got easier.


4.1 Dr. Gideon Foreman, Canadian Association of Physicians CC2007-16.4.1
of the Environment (C.A.P.E.)
Proposed By-law to Regulate the Use of Pesticides

Dr. Gideon Foreman, Canadian Association of Physicians of the Environment, spoke in support of a by-law to phase out the cosmetic use of pesticides. He explained some of the disturbing health risks of pesticide exposure found by the Ontario College of Family Physicians in various studies. He appreciated that many lawn care operators in the area may have concerns regarding their business operations, but stated that the future is in pesticide free lawns. He requested Council to pass a strong, non-essential pesticide control by-law. A written copy of Dr. Gideon Foreman’s deputation is available in the Clerk’s department.

Moved by Councillor Warren, seconded by Councillor Luff,

RESOLVED THAT the deputation by Dr. Gideon Foreman, Canadian Association of Physicians of the Environment (C.A.P.E.), regarding the proposed by-law to regulate the use of pesticides be received.
CARRIED CR2007-568


http://www.city.kawarthalakes.on.ca/CityHall/Council/CM/docs/2007-06-05_minutes.doc

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/bu/bgrd/backgroundfile-18290.pdf

http://www.collingwoodconnection.com/collingwoodconnection/article/32110

HayBay
03-29-2009, 01:51 PM
Lets be honest here. There is no viable alternative or direct replacement for 2,4-d at this time. I realize people think there is and they feel it would benifit the public, but in order to maintain a weed free lawn at a reasonable financial cost to everyone 2,4-d is the answer. Once there is an alternative product that is deemed safer and at a reasonable cost, the new product will be used by the majority im sure of it.

Remember we are talking about science and the law and there is no evidence of Endocrine Disruptor or Carcinogenic effect with 2,4-d or 2,4-db acording to the WHO,EU,PMRA,EPA.

The link below talks of a person drinking 2,4-d for 3 weeks straight and no ill effects.

http://npic.orst.edu/RMPP/rmpp_ch9.pdf

I also read that 1 researcher tried to use Dandelion Extract as a possible weed control agent. The problem was that Dandelion Extract is much more toxic for humans than 2,4-d

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 02:22 PM
My lawn has been maintained by myself toxin-free for many years and is totally weedless. I get about a couple tiny dandelions per year and pulling them out takes a second. A substantial percentage of Canadian homeowners already look after their grounds without 2,4-D. Their lawns are not drowning in weeds--I speak on the basis of my observation of some neighbourhoods, including mine--an upscale area with some condos, where I have sufficient grounds to ascertain that people don't spray.

As to 2,4-D, those government agencies that rely on industry's rat data avoiding 2,4-D testing for the appropriate cancer-causing dioxin, as well as for neurological, immune, reproductive and developmental human health damage, get the kind results the industry is looking for. I am on a pesticide committee in Washington, D.C. and I was told that under the Bush Administration the EPA did whatever they were told by the industry to do, including pronouncing 2,4-D harmless, even though for a long time independent American scientists have been demanding an unconditional ban of 2,4-D. By the way, how can dandelion extract be toxic to humans when dandelion is an edible plant and this is why it was imported to North America from Europe? Interestingly, I met a relatively young American woman whose husband used to drink 2,4-D to prove it was safe. I asked her how was he, to which she replied that "the bloody fool died many years ago."

Let's be honest--what kind of law we are talking about in dealing with pesticides? The law of the jungle, a law that uses blatant, unscrupulous misinformation as a tool. Money talks and ignorance is bliss. 2,4-D was invented for military purposes and prior to WWII, before 2,4-D existed, lawns did not drown in weeds, as I recall myself.

HayBay
03-29-2009, 02:31 PM
Dow vs Quebec (Nafta) Law.

We will know very shortly if the ban is maintained.

You have to admit Mr. Foreman (CAPE)passing himself off as a Doctor doesn't look good.
Thank gosh we don't have a jungle law making him accountable for his actions.

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 02:53 PM
Oh, what a patriotic Canadian you are--you ought to be congratulated! So you want foreign nationals to overturn our Canadian laws intended to protect those who cannot protect themselves! Would you like to have this can of worms opened--I am sure the vast majority of Canadians are going to rise to the occasion--It's high time to discredit Chapter 11 with its dubious tribunals.

As to Gideon Forman, he is the executive director of a doctors' organization and he has the right to pass on his employer's views--undoubtedly he was directed to do so. To my knowledge, he has never pretended to be a doctor!

I am sure the Quebec ban will be maintained--already Quebecers are rising to the occasion. They love their province, they love their country and will not be pushed around by foreign vested interests.

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 04:48 PM
Whoever is making these accusations against Gideon Forman had better get his facts straight. Do provide verifiable evidence of your claim that Gideon allegedly lied about his being an MD. When, where and on what documents it was recorded that Gideon supposedly said he was a medical doctor? And if the accuser can't cite his sources, then it is hearsay, and anyone spreading lies and innuendo can get himself into a very serious trouble. At no time did Gideon ever say that he was a medical doctor. However, he has the right to represent and does represent the medical doctors who are members of CAPE. This blogger will not tolerate any vicious, unconfirmed gossip behind anyone's back.

exe weedman
03-29-2009, 04:55 PM
Just so our American Friends know, Jean Seargant is obviously one of the vocal minority Canadians that unfortunately always seem to cry and get their way. He by no means reflects the opinions or views of an average Canadian. I am so tired of listening to the crying from your type in our media and I really wish that I did not have to hear it from you here. The whole pesticide issue is "fishy" and frankly I don't care about the debate anymore! For me, its gone and I have to move on...the minority has spoken and now it is law.

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 05:36 PM
Who is this "wicked" and tiresome Jean Sergent; it is a "she" who has
been asked two years ago to represent Canada on the Pesticide Working
Group based in Washington, D.C. Our American friends do know her and
respect her. There is nothing fishy about this debate. Since WWII many
new synthetic chemicals have appeared on the market. There is valid evidence
that they are poisoning this planet and its environment, sickening the
new generations of children with cancer, asthma and developmental
problems. There is an urgent need for remedial actions without any further delays.

HayBay
03-29-2009, 05:37 PM
Jean is a elderly woman. I have her picture here right in front of me. She seems to be a very nice person from the image. I will not post it out of respect.

Jean read post #74 by Jeffrey. There a 3 links to Council meetings where evidence was presented by Dr. Gideon Foreman. Kawartha,Collingwood,Toronto.

Jeffrey Lowes has gone to great lengths to get these facts out to the public.

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 05:58 PM
I have not been present at these meetings. A mistake may have been made by those introducing Mr. Gideon Forman, which may or may have been corrected. The fact remains that it was abundantly clear that Mr. Forman was speaking on behalf of CAPE, his employer and a doctor's organizations, and therefore was not expressing his personal opinions but those of CAPE. One doesn't have to be a doctor to put forward and cite doctors' views. As an employee of CAPE, he was authorized to speak on behalf of CAPE--obviously CAPE approved beforehand what he was going to say. So anyone attacking him because he is not a doctor, and allegedly attempted to mislead the audience in this connection, is petty, misinformed and misguided indeed. Forman is not allowed to advance his personal views; he was not speaking on his own, personal behalf, but on behalf of CAPE, and this was bound to be made abundantly clear.

Jeffrey Lowes
03-29-2009, 06:12 PM
"Whoever is making these accusations against Gideon Forman had better get his facts straight. Do provide verifiable evidence of your claim that Gideon allegedly lied about his being an MD. When, where and on what documents it was recorded that Gideon supposedly said he was a medical doctor? "

I Did!

http://www.city.kawarthalakes.on.ca/...05_minutes.doc (minutes of the meeting after the fact, he was also listed as Dr. Gideon Foreman in the agenda)

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-18290.pdf

http://www.collingwoodconnection.com.../article/32110

We will be posting on Utube a video shortly. Where Dr. Gideon Forman admits he is not a real doctor.

Check out the Doctor in this NEWS Clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI1D448rCCo

The Doctor is Dr. Daniel Keyes

Is he one your medical experts?

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 06:50 PM
Strangely enough none of the first three links work--the pages don't exist at the moment at least. As to U Tube, I opted out not to have audio in my computer, but we are back to square one. This controversy about whether or not Forman pretended to be a doctor, which he is not, is beside the point. It doesn't make any difference: it doesn't add to or diminish what he is saying. He was authorized by CAPE to speak and put forward doctors' views, not his own. He must have been able to do this, or else his employer would fire him! He is not his own agent. Don't you understand that? Don't you do what your boss tells you? I don't know anything about Dr. Daniel Keyes, perhaps some one among my friends does. You are holding onto a dog's tail and can't let it go. Forman was speaking on behalf of CAPE--this is what counts.

HayBay
03-29-2009, 06:50 PM
Hey thats you in there.

Ducke
03-29-2009, 08:06 PM
You know its real funny reading this thread he said she said.
I just finished a three day Home Show.
We gave out over 1000 copies of our lawn care packages I had close to 400 people sign up for lawn analysis, I had approx 300 of those people ask me if I could still spray pestiside on their lawns because what ever the other guys were using last year didn't work. Sadly I have to tell them I can't spray 2-4D and then you can see the air deflate from them.
I am so tired of having to explain to customers the rules and regulation on pesticide spraying and that it was a body of a couple of hundred that changed the rules for millions in this province. It was because most people as usual think "Oh someone else will do something" Well we the Operators tried but we need the voice of the people, Its a little late now.
Now we have a population of approx Million going out to the hardware store and buying pesticides and spraying their lawns under the cover of night.
All you need to do is take a walk at night the stink of Pesticides is everywhere and these people are untrained God only knows how much and how strong they are putting this stuff on their lawns. We are now worst off then before we had a ban.
To all you tree luggers out there I hope your happy You are now the ones to blame for the Toxic waste dump in our neighborhoods. It is you that are killing the dogs, cats Field Mice, Honey bees and butterfly's. I hope you can sleep tight with that thought on your mind tonight.

HayBay
03-29-2009, 08:17 PM
Dam Ducke thats a lot of lost sales revenue. Not to mention from a product that is safe.
I hope it turns out for you.
There is still hope if we justify with Factual science, you wait and see.

Jeffrey is not the only consultant working on this. Once Quebec is ordered to comply with their own decision regarding 2,4-d , Ontario will follow.

Ducke
03-29-2009, 08:58 PM
Well the good thing is we are offering the only real alternative. "Sarritor"
Things are good overall.
lots of Grey areas in the Law.
But I won't get into that here.:rolleyes:
I just get all wound up when I here all this political crap over my livelihood.
If only these people would put as much effort into things that are productive.
this country wouldn't be in the mess its in.
Most of these activist wouldn't know a pesticide if it feel on them.
They just pick a topic, be it Seals, Pesticides or Beef and they will Lie cheat and threaten anyone or anything till they have gotten their way and ruined thousands of lives, Lives that they know nothing of or care anything of.
Narrow mined self centered fools is what they are.
I like the fact that I am out there slaving away to earn a buck and Jean Sergent is sitting (on her FAT ass) on a board getting paid by the tax payers (who she is screwing over) for what wasting tax money that's all one dinner one drinks one ball at a time. But you don't here her protesting that do you.
I could rant on for days but I must get to bed I have another 12+ hour day of labor ahead of me on Monday.

HayBay
03-29-2009, 09:07 PM
Ducke, could you pm me some sarritor prices as examples. Im glad you have that to work with for now. I hope the customers still understand the results. Are you broadcasting or using Rittenhouse type Backpack Unit to spot Apply.

As for Jean she is not Fat. hehe (I realize what you mean)

HayBay
03-29-2009, 09:45 PM
Is is really true that our own Canadian Government has funded many organizations (millions of dollars) who in turn question Health Canada's Decisions.

Ontario College of Family Physicians
Canadian Cancer Society
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. (CAPE)
........to name a few

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 11:04 PM
I am not just sitting on my fat ass, and I am not getting paid for writing about pesticides and my work on the U.S. committee, because it is an honorary position. Well, I have had more than enough of your crap. Moaning and groaning, because they are in-love with poisons and their favourite toys are taken away. If you were spraying in your own houses it would be your prerogative to poison your own family and children, but you have no right to penetrate (rape!) bodies of innocent bystanders. You insist your poisons are safe, but you really don't know enough about them and how they function. If you had an ounce of decency in you, you would comply, cooperate and prosper, instead of attributing ulterior motives to others that you have yourselves. You think you are so smart and want U.S. industry to tell Canadians what to do, whether or not to be exposed to the chemicals more and more of them know enough to stay away. Tell me, where is your patriotism? Why don't you move to the U.S.--they are still spraying there. Oh, how money talks and ignorance is bliss. If you were looking after your customers' lawns properly there would be no weeds. I have observed how they handled our common condo grounds before the owners told our board of directors to quit poisoning us. All that was done was to cut grass and spray. No wonder there were many weeds only a month or so after the tonnes and tonnes of PAR III or Killex were sprayed. The toxic stink persisted for three weeks. The men came dressed in flimsy shirts and ordinary footwear pretending the spray was non-toxic. I am curious about their health, whether they are still alive. For more than twenty years I have been looking after my large lawns, both front and back--where I have a composter. Each spring I apply topsoil, compost and overseed. There is no room for weeds to grow. I mow weekly with a reel mower. In the fall I aerate. That's the secret: healthy soil, healthy grass, no room for weeds to grow. You should know this by now, but apparently you don't.

Jean Sergent
03-29-2009, 11:16 PM
Health Canada is supposedly wonderful, according to the lawn care industry. Health Canada is not independent--doesn't do independent research. They merely pass information received from the industry. There is no control in Canada whatsoever of the quality or quantity of industry research. They don't study people--only rats. Rats are different from people--they are used to living and prosper under filthy conditions. Most people don't.

HayBay
03-29-2009, 11:29 PM
If the government maintains its position or unbans 2,4-d I will feel very sad for alot of people including myself. (I am too sensitive)
Why would they pit us against each other like this. We rely on them, they are our elected officials, leaders, peirs.
Why can't they help educate all of us to the same degree of understanding on an issue like this.

Grass Happens
03-30-2009, 12:01 AM
I am not from Canada, nor have I visited there, but the comment about Quebecois (is that the correct term?) being patriotic amused me. I was under the impression that a sizable minority of its citizens wanted to succeed from Canada?

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 12:33 AM
Response to HayBay. There is no room to go into too many details here, but the last evaluation of 2,4-D by the PMRA was inadequate. There is only one epidemiologist (human specialist) on staff and no mechanism to search for and review epidemiological studies systematically, with no bibliographies of independent data compiled. A prominent independent scientist tried to persuade the PMRA that they can't ignore competent human studies, but they just don't know how to handle them. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the same boat. I quote from the website of the highly respected independent Washington source, Beyond Pesticides, February 18, 2009: "Extensive important scientific evidence pointing to the dangers of 2,4-D has been ignored by the agency during its risk assessment process. These include scientific observations that 2,4-D is an endocrine [hormone] disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities." In addition, only the so-called active portion of ready to use product is industry tested; the formulant portion that may be cancer-causing and amounts to up to 90 percent of the product is untested. In PAR III, each component is tested individually, even though a synergistic effect of the combination is suspected, i.e. that chemicals 2,4-D, mecoprop and dicamba reinforce each other, magnifying the effect of the mixture. You say "why would they pit us against each other like this. We rely on them, they are our elected officials, leaders, peers. Why can't they help educate all of us to the same degree of an understanding on an issue like this." Few of our MPs have sufficient understanding of the PMRA evaluation process and the latest findings of science. It would be much more expensive for the PMRA to do their own testing and employ a sufficient number of competent epidemiologists. Thus municipalities and provinces are forced to step into the "regulatory void."

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 12:41 AM
Response to Grass Happens: The number of people in Quebec who want to leave Canada has been decreased substantially in recent years. Separatism is no longer a problem in Quebec.

HayBay
03-30-2009, 01:25 AM
Jean,
1st lets get you an audio device for your computer. They are included with new computers now.
2nd 2 of the 3 links provided above are
regarding council meetings with So called DR. Gideon Foreman and are in .PDF and .DOC format, these files require Adobe Acrobat Reader (.pdf) and some type of Microsoft Word (.doc) to read. You will need to install these programs ontop of your Windows operating system as they are not usually included with the purchase of your computer operating system. There are alternate programs to decipher .pdf and .doc formats available online.

This link was provided earlier:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/24d/index-eng.php

Quote
In addition to the 2,4-D-specific animal toxicity data, Health Canada considered the large body of
epidemiological studies and reviews pertaining to 2,4-D and human health. The extensive body of
scientific information examined included relevant data used by non-regulatory groups, such as the
Ontario College of Family Physicians in its April 2004 report. While that report focussed on a
subset of epidemiology studies from the public literature, Health Canada reviewed the extensive
body of information available for 2,4-D to conduct a full human health risk assessment. The
examination of animal toxicity data from internationally accepted guideline studies using doses
well above those to which humans are typically exposed, combined with exposure data obtained
from well designed studies, is currently the best methodology available for assessing risks to
human health.
Health Canada also consulted an independent Science Advisory Panel comprised of government
and university experts/researchers in toxicology, epidemiology and biology. The Panel agreed with
Health Canada's assessment that 2,4-D can be used safely when used according to label
directions, with some uses requiring additional protective measures.
/Quote

I love reading Beyond Pesticides News Blog on a Daily basis. But I do consider them a "Militant Activist Group".

I stole that term from a W. Gathercole

exe weedman
03-30-2009, 07:08 AM
Why should I believe that a group of liberals and liberal supporters know more than health Canada? If things are so bad then why are farming and golf courses exempt? These products are being put on the food we eat for crying out loud! How many people use a golf course in a single day that may have been treated with a fungicide or for insects the night before? The whole thing makes no sense to me what so ever. In my area people are flocking to the many hardware stores and buying up every last bit of these products. In 3 separate quotes I did last week, after the new alternatives to weed control were explained, each homeowner asked if they can still buy the "old" products until the ban is implemented. When I said yes, they very quickly lost interest in what I was saying. I just do not understand how something that is not safe enough for use on a lawn, is safe enough for a public or private golf course and safe enough to apply on the food that I am eating. The whole issue is fueled by lies and either way it makes me shake my head!

exe weedman
03-30-2009, 07:24 AM
For grass happens:

I think that the reason the majority of quebecers don't want to leave now is because they basically have their own little country there. When I visit the US I don't feel as out of place as when I visit Quebec. Political groups over the years have bought their vote by providing them with what ever they want. English Canada ( which is the majority ) are forced to take french through out most of our time in the public education system. Everything has to be in french and English food labels to government phone message recordings. I spent a few months working in Nevada last year and the majority of the people I met were surprised that I did not speak French. Just to clarify, most people in Canada don't speak French.

Jeffrey Lowes
03-30-2009, 08:07 AM
If you have trouble with the following links, send an email to info@mrepcommunications.com and a fully copy can be sent.

JPL


http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/bu/bgrd/backgroundfile-18290.pdf

Agenda
http://www.city.kawarthalakes.on.ca/CityHall/Council/CM/docs/2007-06-05_agenda.pdf

4. DEPUTATIONS
4.1 Dr. Gideon Foreman, Canadian Association of Physicians CC2007-16.4.1
of the Environment (C.A.P.E.)
Proposed By-law to Regulate the Use of Pesticides

Minutes
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:YfDYI1e_eroJ:www.city.kawarthalakes.on.ca/CityHall/Council/CM/docs/2007-06-05_minutes.doc+Dr.+Gideon+Foreman+Kawartha+lakes&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

4.1 Dr. Gideon Foreman, Canadian Association of Physicians CC2007-16.4.1

of the Environment (C.A.P.E.)

Proposed By-law to Regulate the Use of Pesticides


Dr. Gideon Foreman, Canadian Association of Physicians of the Environment, spoke in support of a by-law to phase out the cosmetic use of pesticides. He explained some of the disturbing health risks of pesticide exposure found by the Ontario College of Family Physicians in various studies. He appreciated that many lawn care operators in the area may have concerns regarding their business operations, but stated that the future is in pesticide free lawns. He requested Council to pass a strong, non-essential pesticide control by-law. A written copy of Dr. Gideon Foreman’s deputation is available in the Clerk’s department.


Moved by Councillor Warren, seconded by Councillor Luff,

RESOLVED THAT the deputation by Dr. Gideon Foreman, Canadian Association of Physicians of the Environment (C.A.P.E.), regarding the proposed by-law to regulate the use of pesticides be received.

CARRIED CR2007-568


Newspaper
http://www.collingwoodconnection.com/collingwoodconnection/article/32110

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 09:09 AM
I am retired federal public servant, I know all about the so-called independent panel that judged 2,4-D. They were privately quite unhappy about some aspects of PMRA's assessment. Qualifying "safe", with "when used according to label directions" is frequently cited by the industry but is not based on science. Even our drug regulator is not so arrogant as to consider licensed pharmaceuticals safe. To its credit, Health Canada regularly reconsiders drug registrations, and, in the U.S., the odds that products licensed by the FDA will be taken off the market or have a blackbox warning placed with 25 years of licensure is at least 20 percent. Sweden and Norway have de-registered 2,4-D and Denmark has severely restricted its use. The PMRA relies heavily on toxicological risk assessment employing "safety factors", better termed uncertainty factors. The scientific basis for giving each factor a value up to 10 is not clear and the process to arrive at the number is not transparent. Many would say that a fundamental flaw of industry-run studies is that there is an inherent and inevitable bias in favour of any product being examined. However, PMRA is able to ask for the specific studies it wants. Yet the PMRA chooses to ask or not ask. Industry critic Meg Sears, who has a chemical engineering degree, notes that the PMRA does not require testing for contaminants on real batch conditions, the equivalent of random drug testing. Complex breakdown products may be even more toxic than the original product. Sears asserts that PMRA has ignored data on 2,7-DCDD, a potentially carcinogenic contaminant, primarily because it is produced in such high amounts that they would not know how to evaluate it. A high level of expertise is required to interpret relevant data. Unfortunately, until recently, the PMRA did not have a single epidemiologist on staff and made several fundamental errors in the 2,4-D decision. Unlike Europe's requirement to use the least toxic product for a particular purpose, Canadian regulations default to needing to demonstrate definitive harm before a product is dissallowed. Whether harm is found depends on what you look for and with what tools. PMRA was willing to re-register 2,4-D with incomplete data, only requiring developmental neurotoxicity studies later on. Canada is also lacking a systematic process to look at the synergistic effects of pesticides of the same class (e.g. organophosphates, operating on the same organ, or having the same effects on neurons). This information comes from an article in The National Post, August 13, 2008, by Dr. Neil Arya, a medical doctor and an adjunct professor of environmental and resource studies at the University of Waterloo. Of course, if one's authority is Mr. Gathercole, we know where one is coming from. I happen to be a former member of the Progressive Conservative Party, not a left-wing extremist. None of the people I associate with are. As to science, one's political affiliations should be beside the point. One should look at objective criteria; that's what honest science, independent of monetary considerations, is about. I can't understand the confusion about this cosmetic ban. These pesticides are banned because THEY ARE UNNECESSARY, not worth the risk. We cannot as yet dispense entirely with pesticides in agriculture, although organic farming is growing. Besides, food residues are cleansed by liver. Lawn chemicals, when inhaled, go directly to the brain, by-passing the liver. Golf courses are businesses, with some use of pesticides still necessary. As a rule children don't play golf and it is children that are especially at risk. Besides, golf courses are expected to substantially reduce their pesticide use.

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 09:46 AM
March 30, 2009

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

Some tips for creating a healthy lawn

By ELAINE KENNEDY

Those of you who love your lawn and want to keep it healthy, happy and
chemical free are itching to go at it for another year.

So I thought I would pass on some steps to ecological lawn care again.

1. Rake. Don't rake too soon after the thaw while the grass feels
spongy since the roots will be damaged and rot when heavy seeder weeds
germinate. Use a rake to gently remove thatch, the compacted layer of
clippings and dead grass which prevents water from percolating to
roots,

2. Fertilize in the spring -a slow-release, granular, organic
fertilizer. Not the highly-soluble chemical ones which leach natural
soil nutrients, stress the soil and grass, and may induce disease
outbreaks which then require chemical pesticides to correct. Organic
fertilizers include compost, manure, processed sewage, top dressing,
rock mineral fertilizer, bone -and blood -meal and kelp, to name a
few. If you fertilize with soluble nitrogen, it stimulates soft, lush
growth, which is more susceptible to diseases, contributes to the
build up of thatch and makes more frequent mowing necessary.

If really concerned, make use of the soil testing service provided by
some garden centres to check the soil pH. Apply dolomite lime as
needed to maintain the soil pH between 6.5 and 7.0. This makes the
soil nutrients available to plants.

3. Overseed. Stressed areas and bare patches invite weed invasion.
Loosen the soil, spread compost or peat moss, sprinkle grass seeds of
a hardy species, press in and water. The best choices for grass in our
area are bluegrass which needs lots of water and sun, red fescue for
shady areas, creeping red fescue for dry areas, perennial ryegrass if
you regularly have insect problems.

4. Mow high. A lawn mowed high discourages weed and insect invasions.
Set the cutting height at six to seven centimetres or 2.5 -three
inches and mow regularly, never removing more than one-third of the
leaf length at a time. Keep the cutting blades sharp; don't mow wet
grass and mow in evenings or on cloudy days. Roots grow stronger while
at the same time shading fallen weed seeds and preventing them from
generating.

5. Mulch clippings. This reduces the need for organic fertilizer.
However, if you are "detoxifying" a previously chemically-treated
lawn, don't mulch for a year or two because thatch may build up. If
cutting regularly and less than 1/3 of leaf length, it does not
contribute to thatch accumulation.

6. Control weeds and insects ecologically. A healthy, well-cared-for
lawn outcompetes most weeds. I will do a complete column on that soon.

7. Water deeply. Lawns need a deep soaking (six to eight centimetres,
two or three inches) not during rain, and preferably before 8 a. m.
Water only after the surface has dried out. This promotes deep
rooting, drought resistant turf. To know if you have watered enough,
put a can under the sprinkler and time how long it takes for the
desired amount to accumulate. Frequent light sprinklings waste water
and encourage shallow root growth.

Also, try to water, if you believe you have to, only on the lawn. When
the water runs down the driveway, you are wasting your tax dollars.

8. Aerate. Aeration is best done in June or the fall to avoid times
when heavy seed weeds germinate and may group in the plug holes. In
compacted or heavy clay soils, after aerating, top dress the turf with
size sand (0.25 to one millimetre) which is available from local
gravel companies. This is especially recommended for lawns subjected
to heavy use to improve drainage and aeration. For large lawns, rent
an aerator; for small lawns repeatedly spiking the soil at a slight
angle with a garden fork will suffice.

9. A thriving earthworm population is important for a health lawn.
Earthworms burrow in the soil, breaking down organic material into
rich fertilizer, mixing it deeper into the root zone and aerating the
soil. If large accumulations of casings make bumps in the lawn, they
should be raked or scattered over the grass.

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1501105

=================

Optimum Lawn
03-30-2009, 10:34 AM
The new religion....ECO RELIGION
No matter what you say to discredit these people they will not sway from there religious beliefs.
It is rampant in all forms of nature protectionism which is getting very scary.
Few people have any understanding of Mother nature IMO....and with more people growing up in cities that understanding is coming from glorified text books and teachings that have little to do with reality.
The only eco religious group I'll listen to are the ones that are off the grid, on the horse and living off the land directly....the rest of you are puffing out both sides of your mouth.

Personally I want all options for lawn care available including "chems" ...each has its place.
Even "organics" is based on chemical reactions...so on that it to should be banned...lol

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 11:13 AM
It is impossible to reach those whose minds are closed and who, for all intents and purposes believe the Earth is flat. I am not the one that goes overboard on the "Eco" stuff, ether. However, facts are facts and will remain facts, despite denials on the part of those who cannot face up to them. Time will tell and time is merciless! There is sound evidence some species are indeed threatened by a) global warming (e.g. polar bears) and b) human extermination (lyons in Africa). So you are among those who fear "nature protection"? I feel sorry for you. Hopefully, you are in a minority, otherwise the prospects of human race's long-term survival would be slim indeed. The "glorified textbooks and teachings" cannot all be crap. The people who wrote them usually are well educated and compassionate. There is more to life for most people than money and material things. As to pesticide-free lawn care, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is all around me to see, i.e. how prudent horticultural methods make pesticides entirely rendundant. After all, herbicides were invented only after WWII and there is no evidence, whatsoever, that previous generations were drowning in weeds.

Optimum Lawn
03-30-2009, 11:35 AM
Yep ...eco religion...point proven

....Your against Chems period....
Nothing will sway you:hammerhead:

I want the choice of BOTH

For environmental protectionism .....I'm not for the slash and burn slash greed slash utter destruction nor am I for the lock it up and throw away the key.....would like to see a balance of BOTH worlds/sides

A balance of BOTH worlds/sides keeps my mind OPEN ...not one sided
Government should sit in the middle...but are usually moved to one side or the other.:cry: and thats when it all goes wrong:laugh:

:waving:

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 12:03 PM
I am not going to waste any more time on this thread. Have you any children? Do you want them to grow up healthy? These chemicals have been convincingly linked to child cancer, autism, and developmental problems passed to future generations, among other serious consequences of exposures to synthetic and other chemicals. Tested newborn babies have been found to have many chemicals in their bodies passed from the mother via the umbilical cord. Why use these products on grass? What the hell is grass? Grass is grass, not something to go ballistic about! However, you don't believe this because you were conditioned to think that pesticides are God's gift to mankind. Moses came down from on high and said "Though shall spray or else you are going to roast in hell!" Pesticides are toxic poisons, and we already have too many poisons in our bodies, period. Time to reduce the toxic load in humans, time to give children the prospect of growing up healthy, not to speak of the poisoned wildlife and water bodies.

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 12:54 PM
Jeffrey, please note: I just talked to Gideon Forman on the phone. He insists that he never pretended he was a doctor. At all times, when he was by mistake introduced as "Dr." at public meetings, he immediately corrected the person introducing him. He also made it absolutely clear he was speaking on behalf of CAPE, his employer, not himself.

Jean Sergent
03-30-2009, 05:47 PM
By the way, government is there to protect our health and maintain order--not to sit in the middle like a referee. We live in a supposedly civilized society, and not in a jungle, we are prevented from doing as we damned well please, doing harm to others and telling government to go away.

HayBay
03-30-2009, 07:35 PM
Comments from independent epidemiologists on the Pesticides Literature Review published by the Ontario College of Family Physicians
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/acp.asp?id=1388

cantoo
03-30-2009, 10:55 PM
Jean, I was interested in what you had to say until you really started to lay it on. Do you really think they out "tonnes and tonnes of PARIII" on the condo lawn? Just how big was this property? Then you said "I mow weekly with a reel mower. Again how big was your "large" property? Pictures maybe?
Quote: Interestingly, I met a relatively young American woman whose husband used to drink 2,4-D to prove it was safe. I asked her how was he, to which she replied that "the bloody fool died many years ago."
Got any prooof of this, I'm sure someone as keen as you would jump on this tidbit of research. But I'll bet you never got her name, I think it was someone's cousin's neighbours best friend, you remember the one who had red hair and drove the green car?

And to finsih it off throw in the " rape" word for real effect. but you have no right to penetrate (rape!) bodies of innocent bystanders.

But finally I did read something I was really waiting to hear from you.
Quote: I am not going to waste any more time on this thread.
Now please do as you say and leave. Oh wait less than an hour later you show up again. Come on be reasonable and just leave. Most of us here are trying to learn how to do things correctly we really don't need someone like you here. Maybe move to the States, you're in Washington by invite anyway, just stay there.
thanks, Jack of all trades master of none but at least I'm not trying to drive my sheite down other peoples throat.

Jean Sergent
03-31-2009, 01:04 AM
The British scientists who pronounced 2,4-D "safe" while attacking the monumental study by the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) were hardly independent. The notorious Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) were/are not an independent body. A majority had/have a very cosy relationship with the pesticide industry. Some agencies of the UK government are notorious for obediently protecting industry's interests to the detriment of British nationals' health. (See my letter re Georgina Downs versus DEFRA, published in The Western Morning News, Plymouth, UK, on 16 December 2008.) This was another blatant case of health versus profit. The ACP's critique of the OCFP study was not unanimous, a substantial minority refused to abide by the opinion of the majority. Among other things, the OCFP researchers were attacked for making the study's starting point 1992--this criticism was entirely unfair and foolish--the monumental epidemiological study had to have a reasonable starting point. I am convinced that other criticisms of the study were just as worthless. True, the sacred rodent-based methodology, i.e. toxicology, was rejected for this particular study by the OCFP and with good reason; the OCFP study was intended to be a strictly epidemiological study. By the way, Sweden and Norway, believing themselves no less scientific than the British, have both de-registered 2,4-D, and Denmark has severely restricted its use.

Jean Sergent
03-31-2009, 01:11 AM
The above was indeed my final post!

Jean Sergent
03-31-2009, 10:23 AM
I am aware that already twice I announced I was quitting, but I just can't forego the latest attack. So, if you want me to shut up, quit attacking me! 1) Details on American woman whose deceased husband was in the habit of drinking 2,4-D are as follows: I met her on a holiday in Costa Rica (January 21 to February 1, 2009) and she was a member of my group of Canadians and Americans travelling with Colette Vacations and 2) Regarding the sarcastic remark about the size of my condo front lawn I look after: it is about the size of an average suburban lawn, divided by a pathway; my daughter owns her own home (not a condo) in Kanata and her front lawn is the same size; in addition, I volunteered to look after the turf on an adjacent hill and some other common element turf in nearby areas. Bear in mind that I, too, want to do things correctly. What I am saying is not intended to annoy anyone; I am suggesting that there are possibilities for lawn care businesses to comply with Bill 64 and be highly successful.

HayBay
03-31-2009, 05:56 PM
Jean, Would you be so kind as to put together a few pictures this year of the properties you are maintaining. Alot of us post images of our work on this site.
I am sure a lot can be learned with your organic lawn care tips and techniques.
Before and after pictures are the best.
Thanks.

Jean Sergent
03-31-2009, 06:29 PM
Our snow is not yet fully gone and the hill near my house and the strip facing my house on the other side of the pathway are still partially covered with snow. These grounds tend to be damaged by the snow removal equipment and need to be repaired every spring--topdressed and overseeded. I insist on looking after the lawn in front of my unit entirely myself, although strictly speaking I don't have to do this. I look after other common elements in my vicinity partially. Currently, everything is brown and sad looking. How do I pass these pictures to you--by regular mail? I don't known how else to do this. What is the regular mail address of your magazine?

Jeffrey Lowes
03-31-2009, 08:29 PM
Medical Experts peer reviewing the Report are experts in a lot of areas.


"I am convinced that other criticisms of the study were just as worthless"

MREP Communications' criticism of the report starts with the people that endorsed the report and the individuals that wrote the report.

Page 3 of the Report

http://www.ocfp.on.ca/local/files/Communications/Current%20Issues/Pesticides/cover_contents_acknowledgements.pdf

"Finally, we are deeply indebted to those who volunteered their time to provide reviews and
editing of reference lists or chapters of the report. Our peer and expert reviewers and editors
provided important comments and suggestions and new perspectives during writing of the report.
Peer reviewers were Alan Abelsohn, Neil Arya and Kathleen Finlay. Expert reviewers were Tye
Arbuckle from Health Canada, Patricia Harper from Sick Childrens’ Hospital Toronto, Linn
Holness from University of Toronto and Judith Kaur from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester."

Dr. Alan Abelsohn Click on "view details" for all the board's findings

http://www.cpso.on.ca/docsearch/details.aspx?view=4&id=%2029948

MREP Communications also contacted other peer reviewer listed in the report including Dr. Tye Arbuckle.

Dear Mr. Lowes,

I want to clarify that I was NOT a peer reviewer of this report. I did not see it until it was released and was quite disturbed to see that I was listed as a reviewer. I notified the authors of this error. Unfortunately for me, this error has not been corrected in their publication.

____________________________________________________
Tye Arbuckle, PhD
Senior Epidemiologist & Research Scientist Population Studies Division Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau Chemicals Management Directorate Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch Health Canada Rm 139, Environmental Health Center 50 Colombine Dr.
Tunney's Pasture, AL 0801A
Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9

Most of people (doctors?) refused our questions and we were refered to their lawyers about the paper. Some of our other findings are even more interesting.

If you wish to question our abilities or our integerty I would suggest you contact a lawyer. You will need one.

MREP Communications

HayBay
03-31-2009, 10:08 PM
Jean, Follow this link to show you how to upload pictures to the site from your camera. If you dont have a digital camera you can get pictures from you camera film put on CDs or DVDs from the local photo shop(grocery store).

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=239489&highlight=upload

Remember to post your new Thread in the appropriate section I.E "Organic Lawn Care Section". I look forward to seeing them. A photo diary or portfolio of your lawn adventures would be awesome.

You can use the PM system here to send me a private message as well.
Just left click on my name (top left corner)on this post and you pick "Send a private message to HAYBAY"

HayBay
03-31-2009, 10:22 PM
Alan Abelsohn is in deep Doodoo. He must have been searching for answers for his peer review.

On August 3, 2004, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Abelsohn committed acts of professional misconduct in that he sexually abused a patient (touching and behaviour of a sexual nature), engaged in acts relevant to the practise of medicine that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional (various boundary violations). In addition, the Committee found Dr. Abelsohn to be incompetent as defined in subsection 52(1) of the Code.

Jean Sergent
04-01-2009, 12:31 AM
It is unfortunate that Dr. Tye Arbucle, PhD, was not consulted prior to the publication of the OCFP study, but I don't see any connection between sexually abusing a patient and failing to be a competent peer reviewer; what was the nature of this man's incompetence? (Reference to Dr. Abelsohn.) Moreover, there were five other expert/peer reviewers. (When I was working for the federal government and had a conflict with my director, she sent me to a psychiatrist, but I had no intention to go, so the psychiatrist phoned me shouting like a madman, to which I calmly replied: "please control yourself." I ended up not seeing him, because I am not known for tolerating any nonsense. Subsequently, I found out from a neighbour that he was in a habit of sexually abusing his patients. Soon I managed to get my director demoted and out of my hair.) By the way, I am not going to take any pictures of my condo turf. How would you know whether the pictures are genuine or not! Besides it seems like a lot of needless trouble to me. Anyone is welcome to inspect my turf. HayBay, please note: your link doesn't work.

Jeffrey Lowes
04-01-2009, 08:36 AM
"It is unfortunate that Dr. Tye Arbucle, PhD, was not consulted prior to the publication of the OCFP study"

Adding her name was fraud.

"but I don't see any connection between sexually abusing a patient and failing to be a competent peer reviewer; what was the nature of this man's incompetence?"

Issue #3 – Allegation of Incompetence

The Committee found Dr. Abelsohn to be incompetent, in that his care of a patient displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of the patient of a nature or to an extent that demonstrated that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted.

There is a good selection of psychiatrists listed in Ottawa's yellow pages

Jean Sergent
04-01-2009, 10:01 AM
"There is a good selection of psychiatrists listed in Ottawa's yellow pages." What is this supposed to mean? This writer once happened to witness a psychiatrist abusing a stranger on the phone in Toronto. The psychiatrist got the kind of dressing down that was going to last him a lifetime! By the way, "pesticides" is a general category including all the "cides". It doesn't mean insecticides specifically. (Please see a general comment pertaining to the nature of the discussion.)

Kiril
04-01-2009, 10:46 AM
Compost does a soil good!

HayBay
04-01-2009, 11:48 AM
Quote:
By the way, I am not going to take any pictures of my condo turf. How would you know whether the pictures are genuine or not! Besides it seems like a lot of needless trouble to me. Anyone is welcome to inspect my turf. HayBay, please note: your link doesn't work.
/Quote

Jean, Organic lawn maintenance is much more labor intensive. If you are going to hand weed,topdress,aerate,reseed and water a hillside religiously whats an extra few minutes taking a picture. Pride of ownership and curb appeal are important issues even to the pesticide users.

A hillside will be a very big challange compared to a flat lawn.

Kiril
04-01-2009, 12:00 PM
Organic lawn maintenance is much more labor intensive. It seems to me that taking care of a lawn is too much trouble for people who are busy trying to change the world. If you are going to hand weed a hillside all day whats an extra few minutes taking a picture. Pride of ownership and curb appeal are important issues even to the pesticide users.

Sustainable lawn care is NOT more labor intensive if done right.

Example below ... no pesticides, no fertilizers. Compost in fall of 2007, and about 10 lbs of left over alfalfa pellets in May 2008 was the only input for the entire growing season other than irrigation. Lawn was cut every 3-4 weeks, with minimal, if any hand weeding done. Pic was taken in August I believe.

http://www.lawnsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=120115&d=1221572090

This is an example of what proper land management can do..

HayBay
04-01-2009, 12:02 PM
Also, the link I provided does work. The link the anti-pesticide users have been associating to endocrine disruptors and carcinogenic efftects of 2,4-d is not working.

Anti Pesticides is based on the "Precautionary Principle" which is a joke.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 12:08 PM
Ah irrigation. That is a task in itself unless mother nature was helping. Hill side irrigation is another issue.

The lawn looks very nice Kiril.

Wait you cut that lawn every month. Boy can i see the before picture . You are also telling me you cut more than 1/3rd the length of grass at 1 time? Where is all the grass clippings you are returning to the ground for Nitrogen. Did you bag?

Jean Sergent
04-01-2009, 12:14 PM
I am tired of this discussion which resembles talking to the wall. This doesn't apply to Kiril, who is a breath of fresh air. I spend a minimum time tending to my lawn, as I write a lot almost every day. As to the hill, I make sure that it is dandelion free and that it is not mutilated by grass cutting machines. When I first moved here 25 years ago the hill was infested with dandelions, despite PAR III or Killex being sprayed regularly. It took me at least an hour to pull out the weeds periodically. Now it takes no more than 5 minutes, without any chemicals. Organic lawn care, once a healthy turf has been established, takes minutes, not hours, per week.

Kiril
04-01-2009, 12:17 PM
Ah irrigation. That is a task in itself unless mother nature was helping. Hill side irrigation is another issue.

Nothing SDI can't handle. :)

HayBay
04-01-2009, 12:28 PM
The picture quality is hard to see in detail:
Is this a tall fescue variety or mix.

Kiril
04-01-2009, 12:34 PM
Wait you cut that lawn every month. Boy can i see the before picture . You are also telling me you cut more than 1/3rd the length of grass at 1 time? Where is all the grass clippings you are returning to the ground for Nitrogen. Did you bag?

Proper nutrient & irrigation management leads to adequate growth rates to maintain turf health while minimizing labor inputs. That turf (fescue) is maintained at 3.5 - 4 inches in the summer, which means I can let it go to nearly 5 - 5.5 inches before cutting.

That lawn is the only lawn I actually maintain (family of sorts). When I do bag, it goes into the on-site compost pile to provide my green component.

BTW, I despise maint. which is the reason why I don't do it anymore.

It is a tall fescue mix of many different varieties.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 12:42 PM
Kiril, Tall fescue here is not a lawn grass. Its too thick of a stock and blade, almost like hayfields after they are cut. Fescue is a great and hardy grass for drought conditions but its clumping mannerism is not desirable. I can see up close that you have alot of space between the grasses them self. The length of the grass is what is making it look full. I am calling BS on the lawn height within 1 month. unless your in drought conditions. When walking on KBG barefoot you will see a big difference.
This is my opinion.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 12:47 PM
It almost looks like your mower blades may need sharpening the way the grass tips look dead/torn. I do see some uneven growth in spots, may be differnt variety of grass mixed in .

We seed, seed and reseed with Certified Grass Seed so that the seed we are using is the dominant one. This keeps uniformity.

Kiril
04-01-2009, 12:49 PM
Kiril, Tall fescue here is not a lawn grass. Its too thick of a stock and blade, almost like hayfields after they are cut. Fescue is a great and hardy grass for drought conditions but its clumping mannerism is not desirable. I can see up close that you have alot of space between the grasses them self. The length of the grass is what is making it look full. I am calling BS on the lawn height within 1 month. unless your in drought conditions. When walking on KBG barefoot you will see a big difference.
This is my opinion.

Actually you are wrong about the fescue. Perhaps you need to research the different varieties available. There is nothing clumping about this turf and the reason it looks dense is because it is.

Drought conditions ..... my area gets 0" precipitation for about 9 months of the year, every year. That particular lawn gets irrigated every 3-6 days depending on the time of year and average temps.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 12:52 PM
take a closer picture we will see.
I am sure there is a watering ban with no precipitation.

Anyhow lets just say you are right
makes things easier.

Kiril
04-01-2009, 12:57 PM
It almost looks like your mower blades may need sharpening the way the grass tips look dead/torn.

Probably needs sharpening. The pic was taken right after it was mowed.

I do see some uneven growth in spots, may be differnt variety of grass mixed in

Not likely given it was just mowed. Growth is more or less uniform believe it or not. Even if it is not, this is a residential lawn, not a sports complex or putting green. In all honesty, I would prefer to get rid of the turf altogether and put in an all native no mow mix of grasses/annuals/perennials.

The problem here isn't so much pesticides/fertilizers as it is poor landscape design.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 01:20 PM
The lawn looks great Kiril.

Kiril
04-01-2009, 01:23 PM
Your close-up ..... doesn't look like it is clumping to me. This pic was taken at the same time as the one above.

Kiril
04-01-2009, 01:25 PM
The lawn looks great Kiril.

You should have seen it before it was mowed. It was at 6-7 weeks, and I broke the 1/3 rule as well.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 03:50 PM
I am going under the assumption you are in California zone 9

We are in Ontario Canada Zone 5b

Here is a link to your State IPM Resource page:
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/TOOLS/TURF/TURFSPECIES/tallfesc.html

This is an ideal grass for your area.
This is also a course textured bunching (i said clumping) type grass in the link provided.

Low inputs of fertilizer need as well.

It is not cold weather tolerant below -10 degrees Celcius.

We use Kentucky Blue Grass and Perrenial Rye with some thin bladed type Fescues. (creeping red or chewing)

Here is a link to Ontario Lawn Factsheet. they talk about Tall Fescue and KBG.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/08-025w.htm

However, tall fescues are prone to low temperature injury in some areas of Ontario. In areas where they are not winter hardy, they will thin out into unsightly clumps.

If you look at your first picture closely you can see where you walked forward/backwards from where you took the picture. The indentations in the lawn. (Traffic)
It is very minor looking.

Tall fescue is known to be slow recovering from divots/damage.

KBG is quick in divot/damage recovery


A link to Tall Fescue on our Ontario Ag. Resourse site indicates Tall Fescue as a weed.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/ontweeds/tall_fescue.htm

I am glad we discussed this Kiril. From now on I will remember to take into account where we all live when we discuss the best options for our lawns.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 04:04 PM
Kiril, Just to keep with the OP.
I am reading that 2,4-d is still a registered product in California. Meaning it can be sprayed on anyones lawn if needed.


Is that correct or is 2,4-D banned there?

Kiril
04-01-2009, 07:22 PM
I am going under the assumption you are in California zone 9

We are in Ontario Canada Zone 5b

Here is a link to your State IPM Resource page:
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/TOOLS/TURF/TURFSPECIES/tallfesc.html

This is an ideal grass for your area.
This is also a course textured bunching (i said clumping) type grass in the link provided.

And how did you come to that conclusion? That pic comes from the identification tool for all types of turf grasses.

The TTF I use averages 6 on the NTEP texture scale. FYI, I see just about every type of cool season grass around here, plus wome warm season as well.

If you look at your first picture closely you can see where you walked forward/backwards from where you took the picture. The indentations in the lawn. (Traffic)

Really man? That lawn is cut at 4" and the pics was taken right after walking on it. KBG at that height would show it too.

A link to Tall Fescue on our Ontario Ag. Resourse site indicates Tall Fescue as a weed.

Any plant that is undesirable can be classified as a weed. I classify Poa as a weed in some situations.

You might take a gander at what types of fescue are native to your region.

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=FESTU

Kiril
04-01-2009, 07:46 PM
Kiril, Just to keep with the OP.

Not following you there .... especially considering some of your other posts.

The original post .... nothing about a certain type of grass, actually the topic is pretty wide open IMO.

my area has been considering a pesticide ban for some time now. in fact it looks like by next year, there will be a province wide ban for all pesticides, herbicides etc.

has anyone really thought what the consequences of this would be. - will there be any grass left ??

ie, grubs will take over, than only a weed will grow where the grubs are, only weeds that grubs wont eat will grow, than the grubs will die (they'll ultimately die anyway?!)

anyone else have a pesticide ban in place already ??

-----------------------------------

I am reading that 2,4-d is still a registered product in California. Meaning it can be sprayed on anyones lawn if needed.

It is not restricted.

You realize people had lawns LONG before there was ever synthetic ferts and pesticides. If you can not grow grass without them, then it is because:

1) You do not know what you are doing.
2) It is not suitable for the region you live in.

If people stop using regional inappropriate landscapes, most of the problems surrounding synthetics would go away.

In any event, my point in this thread was to demonstrate that you can maintain a great looking lawn with no synthetic inputs.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 08:07 PM
Boy oh boy. We are discussing Ontario Pesticide Ban. How to maintain Ontario Lawns.

Undesirable is different than a Grass that cannot be sustained because of climate.
We cannot successfully grow Tall Fescue types as a Seasonal Lawn where I am in Ontario Bro. it gets really patchy clumpy. It doesnt like the cold weather here. Its colors are different from our other grasses, it really stands out.

The link you provided does show me several fescues we could plant but we want lawns not hay fields. We could grow wheat at least we can make some flour out of the clippings.

Someone should start a company and sell selective Tall Fesuce grass seeds just for the Ontario Climate, cause it sounds like nobody else was able to figure it out here in Ontario.

These links are from your local Resources Dept. and My local Resources Dept. Are they lying to us? The picture they use is a general picture, you still have Tall Fescue.

I identified your grass type with with a medium quailty picture before you told me what it was? Pretty good for a dummy.

Your the first guy I know that can hack off more than 1/3 of the grass blade with a dull mower blade and have no yellowing at the new mowing height and no visible discharge. You must have a secret. It looks like a 24-32" deck on that machine you cut with and discharge 2 plus inches of material that disappears into thin air and leaves behind strips.

Where did you say Kentucky Blue Grass was a weed or were you playing it safe and saying some types of "Grass" is a weed in California

Do you have a ban on Pesticides or not Kiril. Jean and I both want to know I bet.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 08:08 PM
OP = Original Poster.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 08:16 PM
Im calling the EPA right now. What were they thinking letting us dummies try and grow grass with chemicals. I can see the headlines now.

Kiril says:

Quote:
You realize people had lawns LONG before there was ever synthetic ferts and pesticides. If you can not grow grass without them, then it is because:

1) You do not know what you are doing.
2) It is not suitable for the region you live in.

If people stop using regional inappropriate landscapes, most of the problems surrounding synthetics would go away.
/Quote

But you need to water 3-6 days a week and its drought tolerant. With a water ban I bet.

HayBay
04-01-2009, 08:33 PM
Correction:
The watering you said was every 3-6 days not 3-6 days a week as above

exe weedman
04-01-2009, 09:41 PM
I wish we could grow tall fescue lawns here. They do look very resilient! I have talked to my seed rep and he told me that research is being conducted to improve turf-type tall fescue's ability to handle our colder climates. The older or "wild" varieties are what we commonly see here and they look poor when found in our lawns. They are extremely coarse, fast growing and patch forming. They are however really really tough and drought tolerant and I hope that quality can be inherited or maintained with turf-type advancements.

Kiril
04-02-2009, 09:18 AM
Boy oh boy. We are discussing Ontario Pesticide Ban. How to maintain Ontario Lawns.

Undesirable is different than a Grass that cannot be sustained because of climate.
We cannot successfully grow Tall Fescue types as a Seasonal Lawn where I am in Ontario Bro. it gets really patchy clumpy. It doesnt like the cold weather here. Its colors are different from our other grasses, it really stands out.

The link you provided does show me several fescues we could plant but we want lawns not hay fields. We could grow wheat at least we can make some flour out of the clippings.

Why are you hung up on fescue? Do you think fescue is the only grass type that can be managed sustainably? It is not about what type of turf you are growing, it is about managing your soil and water resources and turf density in a manner that requires few inputs and out competes most all weeds.

These links are from your local Resources Dept. and My local Resources Dept. Are they lying to us? The picture they use is a general picture, you still have Tall Fescue.

I identified your grass type with with a medium quailty picture before you told me what it was? Pretty good for a dummy.

When did I say I didn't have a tall fescue? What I said is the turf was not "clumping" as you claimed, but was in fact a dense stand of turf.

Would you like to know the varieties in the TTF blend I used this year?

http://www.sroseed.com/Products/PDF/SR_8650_TS.pdf

http://sroseed.com/Products/PDF/guardian_TS.pdf

http://www.sroseed.com/Products/PDF/Grande_II_TS.pdf

Your the first guy I know that can hack off more than 1/3 of the grass blade with a dull mower blade and have no yellowing at the new mowing height and no visible discharge. You must have a secret. It looks like a 24-32" deck on that machine you cut with and discharge 2 plus inches of material that disappears into thin air and leaves behind strips.

:laugh: Bagged and composted ..... once again, as stated I sometimes do.

Where did you say Kentucky Blue Grass was a weed or were you playing it safe and saying some types of "Grass" is a weed in California

ANY type of undesirable plant is a weed.

Do you have a ban on Pesticides or not Kiril. Jean and I both want to know I bet.

Does it matter if there is? Does it matter if I think there should be a ban? Fact of the matter is, people can't be trusted to use these products responsibly ..... and this is what you get.

Are you going to whine and complain on this forum about it, or are you going to find ways of managing your properties without pesticides? Seems to me the only thing you are interested in doing is the former. Either you get innovative or get left behind .... your choice.

Oh and BTW, the before pic, as a visual aid for your foot traveling into your mouth.

Kiril
04-02-2009, 09:26 AM
Correction:
The watering you said was every 3-6 days not 3-6 days a week as above

Yes ..... plus

In all honesty, I would prefer to get rid of the turf altogether and put in an all native no mow mix of grasses/annuals/perennials.

Turf that is not used is essentially worthless IMHO. You want an effective ban .... then ban or severely limit all residential and commercial turf.

HayBay
04-13-2009, 01:21 PM
* Notice of Arbitration - March 31, 2009
* Notice of Intent - August 25, 2008

Dow is moving forward with the fight against the Government of Canada. Re- Quebec Pesticide Ban and NAFTA.

You can download the 2 PDFs (intent and arbitration) at the bottom of the page on the link provided below

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/agrosciences_archive.aspx?lang=en

HayBay
04-17-2009, 10:30 PM
This is a letter Dated Mar 25,2009 from the (Federal)Canadian Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency to the Ministry of Environment Province of Ontario (Provincial)

Link is Courtesy of Ontario Integrated Pest Management Association

http://www.oipma.ca/documents/SignedLettertoMOE0903251.pdf

Jean Sergent
04-18-2009, 03:27 AM
This is a letter, dated April 18, 2009, addressed to Mr. Jason Flint, Director, Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, 2720 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9.

Re your letter addressed to Mr. Dale Henry, Director Standards Development Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Government of Ontario, and dated March 25, 2009.

You say that it is the mandate of the Health Canada to register only those products that do not pose unacceptable risks to human health and environment. This is a very subjective criterion to apply, as what is acceptable to you is not necessarily acceptable to me and in the case of cosmetic use of pesticides any risk whatsoever should be ruled out.

Indeed, under the Pest Control Products Act, a pesticide is to be registered “only if it meets stringent health and environmental safety standards and proves value in its application.” You refer to “the rigour of the evaluation process”, alleging that “Health Canada conducts extensive health and environmental scientific reviews, taking into account the available scientific information from governments, academia, industry and the public including epidemiolgical and incident reports both nationally and internationally.” This sounds very impressive but is hardly the reflection of reality.

How can one be sure that the PMRA only registers products that meet the
Agency’s stringent health and environmental safety standards when in fact this is not supported by evidence?

You claim to have 350 qualified scientists, but all but one are toxicologists and I am told that only a minority of the toxicologists are PhDs. Therefore, the PMRA’s capability to evaluate epidemiological studies and provide a balanced evaluation is in doubt.

Is it verified by PMRA’s scientists that industry’s toxicological data in fact pertain to the ready-to-use products and the tests are conducted under realistic emperatures in the reactor? In the case of the common herbicide 2,4-D, for example, such high temperatures required for product manufacturing in the reactor are conducive to production of toxic dioxins, such as 2,7-DCDD, but we do know on the basis of independent and reliable sources that your scientists find it too complicated to search for and recognize these applicable cancer-causing contaminants.

Clearly, 2,4-D was re-registered by the PMRA on the basis of toxicological studies almost exclusively, with some independent epidemiological studies seriously misinterpreted. No data on 2,4-D endocrine disruption potential, neurological disorders, neurodevelopment problems and damage to immune and reproductive systems were obtained from the industry, prior to pronouncing 2,4-D safe “if used as directed”, a vague and unhelpful formula.

I am surprised to learn from your letter that in fact the PMRA is scrutinizing all chemical products for its non-active ingredients. However, I must confess that I find this information of limited credibility, especially in application to 2,4-D, bearing in mind that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formulants as “possible, probable or actual” carcinogens.

I am aware that 2,4-D was classified by IARC as “D”–- a neutral category. There is too much doubt to exonerate 2,4-D; therefore the Precautionary Principle must be used as a criterion of applicability, at least when used for cosmetic purposes, as is done in Norway, Denmark and Sweden, and in Canada in Quebec and Ontario.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that herbicides such as 2,4-D are often applied in untested combinations, even though synergistic effects are suspected. To sum up, the uncertainties and gaps in the PMRA evaluation process are so compelling that it is necessary for lower-level governments to get involved.

HayBay
04-18-2009, 12:09 PM
Jean, did you send that letter to Mr. Flint.

Could you use your influence and contact the IARC. Ask them "why can't they retest 2,4-D without grouping it with products that have been voluntarily removed from the market years ago."

The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. is what some people in the media are referring to you as.

Jean Sergent
04-18-2009, 12:48 PM
The above is the essence of what I am planning to send this weekend to the appropriate parties with additional brief comment provided by friends. Unfortunately, I have no influence with IARC. I wish I did! By the way, what is the meaning of U.N.C.L.E? Sounds very mysterious, but unlikely to be positive.

HayBay
04-18-2009, 01:08 PM
Jean, You usually start all your correspondance with "As a retired military intelligence analyst"

Here is some Fun Laws/Bans possibly still in effect from Norway,Denmark,Sweden:

# Denmark - It is illegal to start a car if there is anyone under it.

* Denmark - The don’t make the horse feel inferior law - If a car is overtaking a horse-drawn carriage and the horse becomes agitated, the driver must pull over and if necessary cover the car from the horse’s view.

Norway
Licenses must be bought in order to own television sets and VCRs.


By law males must go off on expeditions of rape and plunder to nearby countries at least every 5 years.


If you challenge a man to a fist fight to the death, he must accept or pay a penalty of 4 deer.


On long winter days, when the sun does not rise, women must make themselves available to satisfy their husbands sexual pleasures.


You may not spray your female dog or cat. However, male dogs can be neutered.
Children over the age of 12 are prohibited from telling Knock-Knock jokes.
It is illegal to kill a mouse unless for consumption.

In Sweden bestiality lies under the same law paragraph as homosexuality.

In Sweden, it's illegal to repaint your house without a painting license or the government's permission.

Jean Sergent
04-18-2009, 04:53 PM
Ha! Ha! Very funny, I am really amused, but you didn't tell me what "U.N.C.L.E" means and my curiosity gets the better of me.

HayBay
04-18-2009, 05:56 PM
Jean, you surprise me with your investigative skills. I don't feel you try hard enough resourcing some things.

This was just a quick google search result:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_from_U.N.C.L.E.

My interpretation of the Girl From U.N.C.L.E. reference is: You are a Secret Agent on a Secret Mission for the Anti-Pesticide Revolution.

Jean Sergent
04-18-2009, 06:31 PM
I am extremely busy these days and I just didn't have the time to research The Girl from U.N.C.L.E today on Google. In 1960 I was attending Sir George Williams University (now Concordia) and had no time to watch the pertinent TV show, a friend just reminded me of.

HayBay
04-18-2009, 06:41 PM
Jean, Would you be offended if I referred to you now as "Secret Agent Double 0 J". If you are offended I won't refer to you as that.

Jean Sergent
04-18-2009, 07:01 PM
No, I am not offended, but isn't enough of this nonsense for today!

HayBay
04-18-2009, 07:11 PM
Ill see you back here when I have some more info regarding the Ontario/Quebec Pesticide Ban.
Bye for now Secret Agent Double 0 J

HayBay
04-21-2009, 10:11 PM
I received an email today from my Local Soil Testing Rep. He indicated he would be with John Gerritson in Toronto when he announces the Pesticide Ban Tomorrow April 22, 2009.
He owns Grass-Roots.Ca
He says he will help all of us thru this difficult time by offering his soil samples and amendment and organic Fert. strategies and suppliers.

HayBay
04-24-2009, 12:08 AM
http://www.southwesternontario.ctv.ca/news.php?id=4437

HayBay
04-27-2009, 10:37 PM
Hamilton Ontario looks into organic Lawn Burning of 100+ Class C Soccer Fields

http://www.stoneycreeknews.com/news/article/172107

HayBay
04-28-2009, 08:53 PM
A classic example of « DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE » by the « ENV IRONMENTAL
MOVEMENT » was displayed in 1971, during Congressional testimony
before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. The discussion focused on
the chemical alternatives to DDT. The substitutes may have been more environmentally
acceptable, but they were truly unsafe for use by applicators, such
as farm workers. The response from environmental defenders was shocking
! The following statement was attributed to an executive of the « ENV I -
RONMENTAL DEF ENSE FUND

Dr. Wurster is reported to have replied,

“It doesn’t really make a lot of difference, because organophosphate acts locally and only kills farm workers and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.”



Here is a link to some interesting info on DDT.
http://caosblog.com/6751

Jean Sergent
04-28-2009, 11:20 PM
I can't believe that an environmentalist associated with the Environmental Defense Fund would say such a thing. If this happened it was an aberration and if I had known about this and had my way Dr. Wurster would have been horsewhipped.

Oh, the wicked environmentalists, the world would be so much better without them!!! Spreading the myths about the DDT--I have a suggestion: perhaps we should all eat DDT for breakfast.

On a more serious note--any attack against Rachel Carson's achievement and reputation seems uncalled for and unfair--after all, the dead cannot defend themselves.

True, DDT is still alleged to be a highly effective weapon in the fight against malaria, but at what costs? This insecticide was banned because government agencies both in the U.S. and internationally had sufficient evidence to classify DDT as an agent likely to cause human cancer and nerve damage.

This insecticide and its metabolites have been identified as endocrine disrupters and endocrine disruption is a very serious consequence of DDT exposures. DDT acts as an estrogen mimic that seriously damages biological systems, causing severe damage to human organisms when exposed to very small amounts during the vulnerable stages of life.

DDT use is often ineffective. Resistance to DDT was identified in Africa as early as 1955, according to a study conducted for the World Health Organization (WHO). DDT appears to have the greatest effect in the formative years of life, predisposing children to development of cancer upon reaching adulthood. (See web site of Washington's Beyond Pesticides: www.beyondpesticides.org/DDT.)

And, by the way, there is no such thing as Global Warming; it is nothing but an invention of the wicked environmentalists that should all be burned at the stake.

HayBay
04-30-2009, 04:50 PM
From what I am reading about these dead people Rachel Carson(50Million) was indirectly responsible for more deaths than Stalin(30Millions) and Hitler (9-15Million).

Anyhow, Happy 79th Jean.

Jean Sergent
04-30-2009, 06:39 PM
So Rachel Carson was responsible for 50 million deaths--why not 50 trillion? Or even better--50 quintillion? HayBay, what do you really know about Stalin and Hitler? Tell me. You can't? Pesticides do soften the brain. HayBay, what you read is crap. Shame on you!!! Mend your ways.

HayBay
05-01-2009, 12:30 AM
Jean, would you like a time out, may be spend some time in the corner until you talk nice.

Jean Sergent
05-01-2009, 07:35 AM
HayBay, you are the bad boy--you should stay in the corner until you behave nicely and start making sense. I am merely the teacher that would like her class to behave and don't talk nonsense. It is not nice to accuse decent, well meaning, kind and downright wonderful people, to whom we owe a lot, of crimes they didn't commit, especially if they are dead and connot defend themselves.

HayBay
05-01-2009, 06:44 PM
Randy Hillier wants to reverse the pesticide ban.


http://www.hillierforleader.com/reverse-the-pesticide-ban/

exe weedman
05-04-2009, 05:28 AM
Wow that guy could really wake up the silent majority in Ontario or Canada for that matter. We are losing our rights way to quickly to stop the squeaking wheels. I am tired of it.

Jean Sergent
05-04-2009, 07:28 AM
I doubt it. This is not what I am hearing from people.

HayBay
05-06-2009, 06:46 PM
Exe Weedman, Don't let the SLACKTIVIST'S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism) get to you. I realize it is affecting your bottom line financially (I know its affecting mine) but it will work out sooner or later for us. Check out this Guy Anders Colding-Jørgensen

He created an experiment called No to demolition of Stork Fountain
http://www.socialhallucinations.com/people_consumers/
or English version from CBC Radio
http://www.cbc.ca/spark/
Some People (for example Jean Sergent) want to be part of something bigger than they are, basically.

cantoo
05-07-2009, 10:41 PM
So what are you guys doing about some of this stuff. Government took $200 from me for my operators license for this year, now I want that money back, insurance company got $800 and now I want that back too. Have about 1000 posting signs and wire brackets that are good for nothing. Been trying to call the government numbers and no success yet other than one person telling me we couldn't't spray roundup on gravel lots. He did say we could use Par III or roundup to treat poison ivy though. I have 3 properties that have it but $1000 for Operators license and insurance seems a little excessive. Not sure the customers are gonna be happy with a quadrupled bill this year. And now the local fire department wants an update location of any products I have on my property. Wonder if all the home owners who stocked up on the chemicals that TSC and Home Hardware sold in the early April fliers also have to provide the info. TSC has a sale on sprayers again this week..

Hey Jean, seeing as you never did as you said you were going to do and leave I have a job for you. We have customers calling wanting me to come spray regardless of the law but I'm not interested in the fine so you can go pick the weeds for them. We averaged around 35 acres so you might wanna get some comfy shoes to wear, you can start anytime. Oh yeah just bill the customers direct I don't need the paperwork.

HayBay
05-07-2009, 11:00 PM
Same here with the license/insurance issues Cantoo, I Just installed 2-13 foot Black Spruce Trees along a property line for a customer and he was out there with the Killex taking care of the weeds on the lawn. I just laughed and then cried to myself quietly. Then I went to town for some gas and there was another homeowner spraying weeds on his front yard. Boy did his lawn look good.

Several Customers neighbors are using roundup on their patios and driveways for weeds, I tried to explain but they don't care.

I got the ministry letter about submitting chemical lists to the Fire Department.

I also got the letter from Randy Hillier regarding unbanning pesticides at the provincial level.

I must say that this year I have never seen so many dandelions on peoples lawns.

Jean Sergent
05-07-2009, 11:40 PM
Sorry, I am unavailable, as I am pulling weeds from my condo's common elements. We have huge grounds; some areas have dandelions and some are dandelion-free. There are no weeds on my common element front lawn I look after myself. In recent years this turf gets damaged by the snow piled up on it, but each spring I manage to restore it, so by June it looks quite respectable. Anyone interested in knowing how to have a weed-free lawn maintained without pesticides, please contact me and I will explain to them how this is done.

cantoo
05-08-2009, 12:22 AM
Yeah, I was working in Gravenhurst this week and on the way home today seen a couple of sprayers out getting the early yellow flowers. They must have been spraying for poison ivy I guess. We do alot of monthly roundup spraying around chicken and pig barns not sure what they are gonna do now. They can't have any vegetation near the barns to prevent rats and mice from entering. Trying to find out if we can still spray for this or not, the guy said we could spray if it was a noxious weed only. Sounds pretty gray to me.

Thanks Jean I knew I could count on you, you've been pretty reliable so far. And I would like to know a cost effective way to do what I need done. A 10 acre gravel sales lot that can't have grass or weeds in it, several farms that require a 10' no green zone around buildings, and several other commercial properties with multi acre gravel lots. The farmers can spray themselves but I can't. I don't mind a few dandelions but no need to have a yellow lawn either, again these are multi acre properties not Toronto condo lawns. My own lawn is just under 3 acres, most of our customers only got sprayed every other year.

HayBay
05-11-2009, 01:26 PM
This is a little off the Ontario Ban topic but it does relate to Pesticides and False Claims, the way of the SLACKTIVIST.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lawyer-contempt9-2009may09,0,1347727.story

HayBay
05-28-2009, 10:35 PM
Jean Seargent AKA The Girl From U.N.C.L.E AKA Double OJ.

Uploading Any pictures of your lawns you maintain would be appreciated. The dandelions are dying off, you should be safe if you take the pictures from a distance.

The link above looks dead but it was about this Los Angeles Attorney bribing people to claim false injuries sustained while working with chemicals and the DOLE PINEAPPLE company. Someone came forward and admitted they had not even worked for DOLE, they were in it for the money promised by the Attorney.

garydale
05-29-2009, 10:14 AM
Couldn't happen to a better country.
Now lets get a US ban on Canadians.

Ducke
06-17-2009, 11:05 PM
Couldn't happen to a better country.
Now lets get a US ban on Canadians.

Well that's not hard because 99% of Canadians don't want to go to the US of A.

HayBay
06-18-2009, 11:51 PM
I Don't think GaryDale meant it like that Ducke.

Listen to what almost 1000 TOXiCOLIGISTS say to Chemicals and the MEDIA:

http://stats.org/stories/2009/are_chemicals_killing_us.html


A groundbreaking study conducted by STATS, and The Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, shows how experts view the risks of common chemicals - and that the media are overstating risk.

Make SURE you view the "Video highlights from the National Press Club discussion"

Ducke
06-19-2009, 11:45 AM
I Don't think GaryDale meant it like that Ducke.

Listen to what almost 1000 TOXiCOLIGISTS say to Chemicals and the MEDIA:

http://stats.org/stories/2009/are_chemicals_killing_us.html


A groundbreaking study conducted by STATS, and The Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, shows how experts view the risks of common chemicals - and that the media are overstating risk.

Make SURE you view the "Video highlights from the National Press Club discussion"

Ya and getting up in the morning is hazardous to your health so maybe we should all just stay in bed but oh no the bed sheets are toxic aaaahhhhhhh
what ever are we going to do? were all doomed doomed I say Doomed.:dizzy:
I've been spraying Par III for years and show no ill side effects from it.
I am very healthy for a man of my age and I have a very health 20 year old daughter.

HayBay
06-22-2009, 11:07 PM
Jeffrey Lowes will come to our rescue.

All the facts I have seen that he has compiled are spot on. These Activists are not going to look too good in court using the Precautionary Principal as their basis for our childerns safety. As well as explaining why they manipulate the truth in every statement they make pertaining to 2,4-d.

If you want to support the cause contact him at info@mrepcommunications.com

HayBay
06-22-2009, 11:15 PM
The local McDonalds has an irrigation system and was treated with Sarritor on June 2, 2009. We went to take a look at the results on June 21st and I would honestly say 2 weeds (dandelions) were affected by the weed control product. You could see the rotting.

The lawn was still 60% infested with weeds.

All of the other local neighbors buying ROUNDUP at the Cash Register of the Local CO-OP had much better control of their lawns, even if they looked like a spotted dog. Nobody is telling the public that ROUNDUP is not registered for Lawns and Patios. The Organic Products I am using for NonSelective Weed Control (EcoClear 25%vinegar and Citrus Juice and TOPGUN 3-5% Fatty Acids) are not providing satisfactory results and 3 times the price at the least.

cantoo
06-25-2009, 11:41 PM
Hay Bay, we're still getting lots of calls to spray and even some requests to borrow our machine. Still lots of lawns being sprayed around here too, twisted weeds everywhere. Got a letter back from my insurance company, Pesticide spraying not covered anymore and still no check back.

HayBay
07-12-2009, 10:09 PM
I just got a Proactive audit from the Ministry of the Environment the other day. It was an unannounced visit. (Complaint?) Oh boy, I will find out how well I did with storage compliance within a month. They want me to dispose of my diluted/undiluted 2-4,d as hazardous waste and I explained that it will be unbanned soon, so why bother. I also had the choice of sending it to another province for use, then he indicated possibly Quebec. I laughed, if he only realized that its already banned there too.

An Editorial from the Ottawa Citizen (Jean Seargents neighborhood)

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Randall+Denley+Laws+growing+wilder+than+lawn+weeds/1783165/story.html

Pesticide-banning Premier Dalton McGuinty deserves most of the credit here. The man's the best friend a weed ever had. The increasingly popular dandelion should be chosen as the provincial flower and renamed the Daltonlion in his honour. The fact that lion and lyin' sound the same is just a bonus.

HayBay
07-12-2009, 10:23 PM
Remember the post I made about the Dole Pineapple company being sued for Pesticides:

Check this out:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dole12-2009jul12,0,7930849.story

Those cases against Dole, Dow Chemical Co. and AMVAC Chemical Corp. were set to go to trial this year. Then, in April, Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney dismissed the claims, ruling that U.S. lawyers and their Nicaraguan partners had concocted the cases through an audacious fraud, recruiting plaintiffs who had never worked on banana plantations, training them to lie on the witness stand and then waging a campaign of intimidation to prevent the scheme from being uncovered.

Chaney's ruling could now affect hundreds of similar claims by plaintiffs from Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Ivory Coast that are pending in U.S. courts, legal experts said.

HayBay
09-17-2009, 10:38 AM
Ok, to bring an old thread back to life.

Jeffrey Lowes will be moving forwared with an information regarding criminal charges.

We have set a date to “ lay the information ” and are currently
in the process of drafting the document. We intend to lay
charges of fraud on Oct 6th, 2009 in Kingston.
Individuals that are to be charged will include: local councillors,
members of a local activists group, members of a national activists
groups, and individual members of certain health related groups.
This process will only cover the aspects as they are related to the
fraud in question that occurred in Kingston between February
2007 and March 2008.

If the courts feel this information is genuine the Crown Prosecutor may take charge of the case.

steck
05-28-2010, 12:56 PM
hate to say it, but i'm the thread starter !! 20 pages !



whats the coles notes here in Ontario. why is 2,4,d soon to be un-banned ??


i also notice on commercials "scotts eco-sense" spray for weeds ? is that just round up?

cgaengineer
05-28-2010, 02:49 PM
This is what comes when the government starts providing stuff for you...more government control. Yeah you got free health care, free this, free that....but ultimately it ends up costing you. If you notice this kind of thing always happens in states and countries with the most government control, NY, Cali...Canada.

I have no problem with organics, but the customer is not going to be happy with the cost or the effectiveness over traditional herbicides.

If you want to restrict pesticide use make homeowners have to take a course on how to apply pesticides correctly.