Doc: I can't stay on the sidelines any longer. I have to address some of your comments:
1) The OMISSION of information, rather than TOO MUCH information, produces more confusion and discouragement (esp. when undesired or catastrophic results occur due to an improper treatment).
2) Restricting chemical access (through licensing requirements) is comparably effective as our present narcotics laws (nuff said). Better educational efforts are crucial in both areas.
3) Ironically, rotenone is a naturally occuring substance (produced from roots of the cube tree). Only rotenone's aquatic-labeled formulations are "restricted-use"; more than likely due to past malicious uses (harvesting fish from a trespassed pond by the light of the moon???). The small-package formulations of rotenone are "general-use" insecticides for many types of ornamental garden pests.
4) At least in TX, commercial applicators of general-use herbicides to private ponds/lakes outside of incorporated city-limits do not require a applicators license. However, if I were hiring someone for such, I'd AT LEAST make certain that they were licensed (although that piece of paper no more guarantees a proper pesticide treatment than a drivers license guarantees proper driving habits).
5) In many situations, treatment "suggestions" may be accurately dispensed on boards such as this, but only IF a qualified person takes the time to ask the right questions BEFORE firing off a recommendation. Never shoot from the hip!
6) When properly and appropriately employed, these so-called "harmful chemicals" are very useful and environmentally compatible tools (BC: let us avoid another debate here. The thread is already too lengthy.)
My earlier posts may be too wordy; maybe not. But, if anyone reads my posts and is "confused" by what I've said, I guess I've either grossly failed OR they probably shouldn't attempt feeding themselves without supervision. KD
