 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
EYE ON THE PROFESSION
Defending Your Home Turf Prepare to defend your use of pesticides and insecticides in the age of panic
It's spring. Do you know where your herbicides, fungicides and pesticides are? Most likely your patrons and village elders know - and you can do yourself, your staff and your commissioners a huge favor by arming everyone up-front for what could be a tough season of criticism if issues related to the chemicals you use to keep your soil, grass and plants up to snuff rear their ugly heads. Who's going to make these challenges? Consumers. TV and newspaper reporters. Village officials. You name it. To short-circuit potential assaults on your agency, wrap everyone in knowledge that's as solid, fact-based and sound as the turf you're trying to maintain and you can't go wrong. Use the contents of this article to create a fact sheet in the event the summer presents a litany of inquiring minds wanting to know what's being used on your grounds and whether community members should feel safe sending their hyper-allergic kids off to race around your playgrounds this summer. In todays media, if it bleeds, it leads, and nothing could be more compelling to consumers than a morning front page story or evening news bulletin broadcast across the airwaves about a tragedy blamed on pesticides. It could be your job to turn around those perceptions, so prepare early and know your facts. While some people can, Indeed, have reactions to a wide range of chemicals, in truth, available scientific and medical facts do not support concerns about pesticides as a cause for catastrophic disease, such as cancer. Even former surgeon general Dr. C. Everett Koop admonished the public about its paranoia when he unequivocally stated, "In focusing on a hypothetical risk like that of pesticides, people often neglect all the other things they could be doing, more legitimately and with greater effect..." Since Dr. Koop won't be hanging around your agency this summer to explain the facts of life to your patrons, we'd like to help by arming you with some information and figures that can't be refuted.
If you're challenged about the issue of whether pesticides harm animals, counter with this question, First up, pesticide-related deaths are extremely rare and the evidence of average residue left on the lawns of 20 million homes in a recent study (based on the average U.S. yard size of 10,000 square feet) was just two ounces of herbicide per 1,000 square feet. These facts and figures originated with the Environmental Protection Agency, which calculated the application of 70 million pounds of pesticides annually. The users? 48.5 million households, an estimated 20 million of them untrained in the application of these chemicals! In light of this fact, it should come as no surprise that trained landscape professionals employed by park and recreation facilities are careful to keep facilities under the USEPA approved herbicide rate of two ounces per 1,000 square feet because they have been educated to understand correct application procedures, chemical types and safeguards for proper use. Can those 20 million untrained homeowners make the same claim? Folks fearful of being poisoned by herbicides and pesticides should be doubly grateful to professional groundskeepers because they know exactly what to do to keep a dense leaf, extensive root structure and healthy thatch layer. This naturally occurring situation allows grass to trap and hold water and nutrients while keeping pesticides contained where they can perform the jobs they were designed to do. This means no infiltration of ground water sources, a goal trained groundskeepers take very seriously because their kids play on the turf they groom, too. Grass that's professionally planted and maintained means water supplies, air and skin contact isn't compromised because the chemicals put down to fight weeds and pests aren't in a position to do damage. Rumors of this are highly exaggerated and virtually groundless. Here are some other facts you'll want to include in your persuasive discussion of why pesticides are safe at your facility. While pesticides will not, by their very nature, be "safe," if this means totally free from danger, when prop- 8 Illinois Parks and Recreation
erly used they pose no greater health risk than does caffeine, aspirin, alfalfa sprouts or bananas, according to scientists who evaluate, approve and sanction their use. But, it's likely you'll still run into naysayers, despite a bevy of scientific reports featuring pages of empirical data. In these cases, you'll need to muster bare bones evidence that's easy to digest. Ask this question of anyone who challenges your agency's use of pesticides: "Ever had athlete's foot?" If they answer "yes," let them in on this truth: they probably treated it with micosin or miconazol, the same ingredient used in many turf fungicides. If you're challenged about the issue of whether pesticides harm animals, counter with this question, "Ever stick a flea collar on your dog? Then you've put lindane - a pesticide ingredient - around his neck." These are just two ingredients used in both medicines and pesticides, and you've probably never read about a death from athlete's foot or flea collars. In sum, there will never be a safer place for pesticides than at your facility, because you and your people have been trained to treat these chemicals with respect and caution. Making a case for your fact-based, well-researched and conservative viewpoint on the use of pesticides on your agency's properties probably isn't going to persuade everyone who challenges your grounds keeping protocols, but it will likely have an impact on many. As you are aware, education is the key to the issue, and as park and recreation professionals, we must be in a position to convince our constituents that our training, knowledge and understanding of the topic is extensive, comprehensive and current. Convincing consumers of our professionalism provides a bonus. They're less likely to turn a deaf ear to our needs when the time comes to pass referenda, muster enthusiasm and lend community support to your efforts. Remember this: the uneducated may need convincing, but who better to do an expert job of converting the non-believers than the people who know the environment better than most - you and your staff.
IPRA Spotlight on Commitment:
IPRA member Carrie Haupert has a new title to add to her resume: member of the NRPA Business Institute Board of Regents. The 34-year-old division manager of facilities for the Schaumburg Park District is already known as a hard-working colleague, friend, wife and mom to Delaney (7) and Kylie (2), but her application to serve on the NRPA Business Institute Board proves she's got the energy to take on other challenges, too. Elected to the board by half a dozen other regents from around the country, Haupert will spend the next three years planning curriculum and teaching at the NRPA Business Institute in Wheeling, where she graduated in the late 1990's. By the way, this won't be Carries first time up as a classroom leader. "I was a teaching assistant at the University of Illinois and I've spoken on several occasions in the past for IPRA and LERN," she said. Haupert also chairs the Recreation Council for LERN. A member of IPRA since her college days, Haupert received both her BS and MS degrees in Leisure Studies at the University of Illinois' Champaign-Urbana campus. Currently an active participant in the Facility Management Section, Haupert said she has enjoyed the volunteer roles she's assumed since becoming an IPRA member. "It's provided many networking opportunities, valuable information and the publications are really helpful," she added. Carrie is looking forward to representing Illinois alongside another local regent: IPRA's Teena Mackey, chair of the NRPA Business Institute Board of Regents and membership coordinator for the Orland Park Recreation and Parks Department. we're looking for unsung IPRA heroes. Please contact Gail Cohen (gail@il-ipra.org) to recognize a colleague for his or her efforts. May/June 2003 9 |
|
|
