National IPM- It Could Happen

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.