By Ken Cousineau
The golf industry has managed to retain its ability to use
products that are approved for use on golf courses to control insect, disease
and plant pests. These are pests that would otherwise threaten the livelihood
of over 341,000 individuals and the future of this $11.3 billion/yr industry.
It would have a negative impact on the $439 million raised annually for
charities. It would endanger the $3.1 billion in property, income and sales
taxes paid each year by the sector. All these benefits risked because of the
dysfunctional approach used in Canada to regulate pesticide use.
Why dysfunctional?
Well, the products that are available in Canada are approved
and deemed safe to use by the Federal government.
The use of these products is then regulated by provincial
governments, who, in some cases with seemingly no additional research, deem
them unsafe to use.
Municipalities, in most provinces, also have the legislative
authority to ban the use of approved pest control products. However, they also
lack the scientific resource and the enforcement ability to do so with any
level of competence.
Governments would seem to be prompted to take this course of
action by admonishments from other groups with little or no scientific
background and even less justification for their cries to ban or control the
use of products. Political decisions trump scientific fact in these cases and
entire industries are demonized for political gain.
For me that says dysfunctional with a capital “D”.
Fortunately, this has not been the case in all
provinces. British Columbia has opted
for a more balanced approach. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and PEI are
all currently using legislation that has been in place for some time. Nova Scotia has approved a golf course
protocol developed by the industry which is consistent with best practices.
The constant defence of the golf industry and the vagaries
of politics being what they are have resulted in a patchwork quilt of
regulations.
In Ontario and New Brunswick, detailed and costly IPM
regulatory provisions have been adopted for golf and in Ontario the use of
approved products has been banned for homeowners and landscapers. There have been different requirements
imposed, but with similar results for golf, in Quebec. In Manitoba, the
politicians are getting public input before deciding on what course of action
to take. In all cases, thanks to vigilance and diligence golf has preserved its
ability to judiciously use approved products.
IPM is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it is widely
practiced by golf course superintendents and that is why the industry supported
its use in Ontario in 2007 during discussions with the Ontario government
rather than face a ban on product use. The Ontario approach requires disclosure
of product used, for what purpose and in what area of the golf course. It also
requires those decisions to be made by a qualified individual.
Based on the acceptance of those principles by
superintendents and provincial governments across the country, a national IPM
program should be a slam dunk. It would put an end to the often confusing and
inconsistent hodgepodge of programs and requirements superintendents must spend
time and money to navigate through.
If you are interested in joining the discussion on a CGSA effort to develop a national IPM program please let us know what you think in the comments, on Twitter, Facebook through email or volunteer on one of our committees or special committees. You can help shape the future of our industry and keep it strong for generations to come.