www.oakvillebeaver.com The Oakville Beaver Weekend, Saturday February 3, 2007 - 15 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Pesticide issue requires due diligence by Town Council Gail Volterra's letter to the editor What will it take to get people to stop using pesticides?, Oakville Beaver, Jan. 31 was well written. But having said that, what seems not to be understood is not the points that she is making, but rather that the pesticide issue is a complex issue that requires due diligence before putting a bylaw into practice, a bylaw that might very well be a cause of increased problems not a decrease. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but often when you are on the other side you are often just faced with a different, but equally difficult set of problems. So before jumping, it would be prudent to carefully examine at what one is getting into. Before going further, let me state that this is not an argument for keeping pesticides nor is it an argument for banning pesticides. It is an argument for due diligence. It is an argument for intelligent decision making so that what we end up with is as close to the right action as possible. The pesticide issue is a complex issue. Take the case of Etobicoke, which implemented a blanket pesticide bylaw and who now are faced with tree blight, which even after all efforts to eradicate it by environmentally friendly means, is now faced with using pesticides as means of last resort. Except for the fact that they have an ill conceived pesticide bylaw that did not allow for this contingency. So while they argue about spraying, the environment that they so dearly wished to protect is in fact threatened with extinction because they banned the very products that would help. And so the public is forced to simply watch as the trees die before their eyes, while the debate goes on. How does that apply to our situation, Oakville? Imagine for a moment that council passes the upcoming blanket pesticide bylaw, your property is threatened by a blight of some kind, and what if the Town had also implemented a tree bylaw which prohibits you cutting down your trees? After all other means, you still cannot spray and you are also faced with difficulty in removing your trees because of a tree bylaw that requires fees, permits, arborist certification to name a few. Are you to just stand and watch while everything dies around you? Do you not have a right to protect your own property? And if you happen to be one of the first to discover this blight, would you not have the moral responsibility to eradicate this threat so as to minimize the risk to your neighbors? How is this different from the policies that we as a society demand are in place to respond to a pandemic outbreak of an infectious disease, except that one affects our environment and the other is much more up close and personal? The issue is not simple. The debate on pesticides makes no distinction between herbicides and insecticides. Nor is their any distinction "The reality is that we live our lives trying to maintain a balance of what is good for us and to minimize the use of what is bad, but always recognizing that sometimes we have to live with the bad because it is necessary." between the types of the problems they address. Nor is there any definition of what constitutes cosmetic versus necessary use of pesticides. The point is that it is far too simplistic to be saying pesticides are toxic, therefore we should ban all pesticides. This is a syllogistic fallacy. If this argument was accurate, then one could reasonably say that all medicinal products in your your drug store are all toxic (and they are if taken in excess) therefore all drugs should be banned. This logic and reasoning is clearly flawed and far too simplistic. The reality is that we live our lives trying to maintain a balance of what is good for us and to minimize the use of what is bad, but always recognizing that sometimes we have to live with the bad because it is necessary. My only point is this: we need due diligence on this issue to find that balance. To sort through what is true and what is untrue, not based upon what we have read, not based upon simplistic reasoning but by first answering the very questions that Gail Volterra has raised. What is the evidence? Which evidence is truly scientific and which is conjecture. Is the evidence accurate and true or is it biased? Or is there a perception of bias? From many sources not just the ones we select. By insisting that the municipality do due diligence and in an objective, open minded and unbiased way, we the public can have the confidence that the proposed solutions will find the balance that might very well serve the needs of all the residents of Oakville. The alternative is that we end up with decisions that are in no one's best interests and who wants that? PETER SWIRZON TY TYPE 1 DIABETES YPE S GUEST SPEAKERS: Chris Jarvis INFO NIGHT! Olympic Athlete with Type 1 Diabetes Dawn Pearson, Certified Diabetes Educator Dr. Twum-Barima, Endocrinologist Come learn about diabetes management and view the latest technology, the Paradigm® REAL-Time System the world's first insulin pump with continuous glucose monitoring. WindowFashions for the beauty of your home by Sun Shades window fashions ·Blinds ·Draperies ·Shutters CELEBRATING 25 YEARS DATE: TIME: WHERE: 50% OFF * To add elegance an Imagination · Innovation · Inspiration SHUTTERS *Valid only on 4 1/ Sh Offer expires Fe2" 28 utters b. /07 d style to any hom e COST: Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 6:308:30pm Burlington Convention Centre Tyandaga Boardroom 1120 Burloak Dr. Burlington, ON FREE! Please RSVP to minimed.info@medtronic.com or call 1-866-444-4649! 466 Speers Rd. (between Dorval & 4th Line) Oakville 905 827-1341 www.sunshadesblinds.ca TORONTO 416 924-5060 ALLISTON 705 435-3055 RICHMOND HILL 905 770-9705 AURORA 905 713-2862 BOLTON 905 951-8400 1-866-444-4649 · www.pumptherapy.ca