Parks, pesticides and people

by Richard Stumpf
Park District
of
Highland Park

It is a beautiful spring morning. The sky is clear and a faint breeze touches the faces of a mother and her son as they stroll to the neighborhood park. He runs ahead to join other children on the playground equipment. "What a beautiful day," she thinks as her eyes drink in the green grass, full shade trees and small flower garden near the water fountain. But, what she sees next sends a bolt of cold fear through her body. Not more than 100 yards away from where her son is playing is a park employee equipped with a small backpack, rubber boots and gloves as he sprays something on the ground and trees.. .pesticides! Immediately her thoughts turn to sickness and cancer. Her son may be exposed to the harmful chemicals used to make the pesticides.

Although the reaction to this situation may be exaggerated, the mother's underlying concern is justified. Like many other products we use or by-products we are exposed to on a daily basis, pesticides can be toxic. Pesticides are dangerous when misused.

We are in a period of heightened public awareness in regard to pesticides. The environmentalist point of view has often been that or an extreme position with little regard given to the assessment of the risk/benefit relationship. The general public, unable to distinguish between pesticides, may believe the hazards to people and animals with regard to the pesticide DDT apply to all pesticides. To some, the word pesticide is synonymous with environmental disaster.

What is the future relationship among parks, people and pesticides to be? It is certain that pesticides will not be eliminated in the foreseeable future. To the park or golf course manager, the use of pesticides is part of a sound cultural program ensuring quality turf and a healthy park environment. Despite the associated fears, pesticides assist the manager by helping control the balance of nature in order to benefit the public's recreational and leisure pursuits.

Education seems to be at the root of all answers to the questions this dilemma poses; education of, not only the public, but more importantly, that of park employees. Focusing on our own education will leave us in a better position to provide the most informative answers to the questions of the public.

Our education should start with a psychological understanding of the type of patron we are serving. More specifically, what are the expectations of the patrons? What is their visual and physical definition of a park, golf course or forest preserve? For most of us, the range of interpretation is broad. But the general feeling may change from area to area, community to community or neighborhood to neighborhood. To park patrons in one area, a weed-free park or golf course is essential. Some may feel that the sight of a weedy park or the thought of insects inhabiting a park restroom is unacceptable. The use of pesticides in this case provides a feeling of cleanliness. The benefits outweigh the risks. To the manager, failure to provide this kind of "feeling" is a failure to fulfill the objectives of the department.

To patrons of another area, the sight of this same weed-free park or golf course represents the notions of an affluent, regressive community. The view may be that pesticides are foreign to nature and should be avoided in the park situation where the benefits are not tangible but primarily aesthetic. Here the benefits are viewed to be only aesthetic and are outweighed by the risks. Each community differs to some degree in perspectives and levels of acceptance.

Continued education should include a thorough understanding of the park environment. We should always consider ourselves as managers of the outdoor environment within or surroundings our communities. Being environmental managers requires us to be environmentally literate. This should include an understanding of the biotic communities within our parks and how they are interrelated. This includes our turfs, soils, trees, insects, and wildlife. Although complex, without a basic knowledge of this science, we are resigned to treating a problem symptomatically rather than preventing the problem from occurring.

Secondly, we need to know and understand the pest. We must recognize the entire problem. What is the duration or life span of the pest? What possible losses may occur? What is the location,

the cost efficiency of treatment, and other means of eradication or prevention? Is an application really necessary?

If the problem leaves no option other than the use of a pesticides, the user should make the choice considering all options available, and use the pesticide that has the least potential for harm to the public and environment, yet will provide the desired results. It is very important to remember that effective pest control does not have to mean complete eradication. By applying only as necessary in an amount to control the pest only and using the correct type of equipment under ideal weather conditions, we can help obtain our desired

Pesticides are an integral part of a well-rounded turf management program. (Photo by Richard Stumpf)

results in a more environmentally acceptable manner.

Cultural practices should play a big role in minimizing the amount of pesticides we use. Proper turf care should include timely irrigation, fertilization and core aeration. Park facilities that are well maintained will greatly reduce the risk of insect infestation. Advances in genetics and breeding of turfs and trees have produced healthy, vigorous and resistant varieties. This area seems to hold great promise for the elimination, or at least the substantial reduction, or plant susceptibility to disease and infestation.

Lastly, it is our responsibility to educate the public. The Lawn Care Products Application and Notification Act takes the initial step in making the park user aware of pesticide application. The concerned user is given a choice and an avenue for having questions answered. We as pesticide applicators and park stewards must earn trust and gain confidence in our decisions. To do this we must answer the user's concerns immediately, have a well justified need for the application and offer product information if requested. It is essential to be as pesticide literate as possible.

At the Park District of Highland Park we have a Pesticide Policy which is a policy governing the use of pesticides in parks. It has made our community aware that our park board and park district employees have been, and will always be, concerned about the types and frequency of use of pesticides in public parks.

Pesticides will not be eliminated as a tool for park managers. However, we must continually broaden our background and understanding of pesticides. Gone are the days when pesticides were extolled for their wonders without regard for their effects on the biological community. It is our responsibility to ensure that the benefits from our applications are maximized. This can only occur if we understand all implications of their use, follow all laws and guidelines concerning their use, and use them with such discretion that the potential undesirable aspects are avoided. In this way we can use these products to assist the park professional in providing for safe and enjoyable recreational opportunities in our communities.

About the Author

Richard Stumpf is Assistant Superintendent of Parks at the Park District of Highland Park.