Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar

Advice for the erradication of "pests"

I would like to draw attention to the exchange I had here . While I am a convinced advocate of free speach - I still think that our community at the bugguide can have a mission and work along guidelines. While chemical pestcontrol may be necessary in some cases - is this the forum to advocate it and give specific advice? (Which includes declaring an insect a pest because it happens to share the ornamental shrubs in a suburb)

Who's the bigger pest on this
Who's the bigger pest on this planet, them or us?

We should be very fortunate that all other forms of life aren't nearly as sentient as us and cannot create their own form of pest control.

Now, I'm not saying we should let ticks and fleas have their way with us, but for the most part, tread lightly. For in the end, what's the big deal? We'll be long gone someday and they'll still be running rampant. It's an uphill battle that we'll never win.

Brave enough to add my two cents...
I don't expect that there will be any consensus on this issue, especially as it seems that many knowledgeable people devoted to insect research are often employed by universities, government agencies or private companies that seek to understand how to limit or eradicate the populations of certain species. I do not believe that this duality of interests necessarily limits their love for the insect population as a whole. Pretty much everyone I have ever known seems to divide insects into categories of relative LIKE and DISLIKE (e.g., butterflies are almost always in the former and mosquitoes in the latter).

Personally, I fall along the lines of the extremist... I would prefer to see as few living things killed as possible. Period. The only animals I don't go out of my way to rescue or salvage are the fleas, ticks and blood-sucking conenose bugs that tend to infest my house in summer. But, when I do feel the need to kill something, I do it the old-fashioned way -- by hand (or possibly shoe). My biggest problem with the post that Magarethe is referencing here is the subject of chemical applications when dealing with insects. I may be incorrect in some specific instances, but my understanding is that most chemicals cannot really determine or limit which species will be affected. At best they attack a certain method of feeding, which in this particular case I assume would be insects which feed on plant juices. But that would include SO many more possible species than the infestation of Largus in question.

I think that given the large number of collectors and researchers who make-up the BugGuide community, it is obvious that some amount of death is accepted (and perhaps enjoyed as a hobby by some). For me, it is the indiscriminate nature and long-lasting impact of many chemicals that tends to leave me cold in discussions such as this. I'm sure I've left myself open for many people to disagree and/or be offended by what I've said, but it is only my opinion and I don't expect everyone to feel the same as I do. In general, I do believe that BugGuide tolerates the airing of all views and opinions -- but it also allows people the right to disagree and voice their objections.

We agree
and added our thoughts. We don't know that there is something official written anywhere yet, but that certainly has been our experience over the years at BugGuide. We hope Thomas and Natter understand. Natter has been a great resource here at BugGuide.

 
Thank you for your answers
you expressed more of what I wanted to say very clearly! I didn't want to get into a discussion with a person who was fast getting personal. I am a scientist and researcher, even an insect collector at times (Even though my photos are of life insects, specimen are often necessairy for true IDs). I also know that some of our most knowledgable contributors work for chemical companies and agricultural research. I just wanted to point out that this site is devoted to sharing our knowledge and hopefully spread some positive understanding about insects. If an exterminator is needed - there are lots of other sites.

 
Agreed, for so many reasons!
I had made a post similar to this at one time, advocating we collectively NOT make recommendations of any kind for pest control. That would make Bugguide (and probably Iowa State University, where the site is administered) open to liability if someone followed "advice" given here and something went wrong. The only insects that really do require professional help (in my opinion) are bed bugs, termites, carpenter ants, and sometimes bees and wasps.

 
insect control
I would just like to comment on chemicals in general and the hysteria involved around them. For instance chlordane used in control of turfgrass pests specifically grubs. This chemical is no longer in use because of leeching. Someone did tests and found that it's levels were too high to be safe, yet its ld50 number is around 400, higher meaning less toxic. Whereas coffee has an ld50 number of 300 and botulism 1 you know the stuff people inject into their face. Well chlordane when used to kill grubs only needs to be applied once every 5 years to be effective and can be up to 60% effective at ten years. But do you think the homeowners READ THE LABEL, no, they just kept putting it on every year thinking more the better. Of course there will be high levels when runoff is tested. Does that mean the chemical is inherently extremely toxic? All I am saying is dont buy into the hysteria that pesticides are all going to kill you. The ones made now are extremely safe and have half lives measured in hours and are less toxic than table salt and crayons. Check out the ld50 numbers. I am not saying this so everyone goes out spraying everything in sight, but I am saying this so people aren't so terrified of being poisoned by lawn care companies and the like. p.s. Last year a woman died from drinking too much water!

 
My $0.02 . . .
To me the issue is not so much the use of any and all chemicals but rather, as another poster already commented up the thread, the indiscriminate nature of both how the insecticides act in the environment, and also as you pointed out, how the humans using the insecticides apply them. My personal belief is that lethal means of pest control are only appropriate where the pest is a legitimate threat to human health or safety. This *would* include cases where a creature is destroying crops on a vast scale and is going to cause a famine; it *wouldn't* include indiscriminately eliminating anything with a stinger whether it's aggressive or not, just because it's capable of stinging, or any similarly-motivated bit of paranoia.

To address your example above - you've already pointed out the first problem with the use of this "safe" chemical, namely that anyone who thinks that anything is idiot-proof just hasn't met the right idiot yet. But more than that - why exactly does the average private property owner need to kill grubs in the first place? This is my big problem with the whole scenario; why do brown spots in the grass justify interfering on the level of trying to completely eliminate an organism from the property? (I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why there needs to be nothing but grass growing in a lawn, for that matter.)

 
I don't understand the allure of lawns either, Sonya...
As a society we strive to protect many life forms -- seemingly, first and foremost, ourselves. But beyond that, we have several organizations dedicated to the "humane" treatment of other animals. Personally, I have never really understood the general public's rules regarding how we as a people decide which life forms are deserving of protection and deference, and which are unnecessary, annoying, and/or destructive enough to warrant extermination. The unfortunate truth is that many people view insects as dispensable... perhaps because they are so numerous, or maybe because they are simply so different from us (and other mammals) that people have a hard time identifying with them and being concerned about their welfare.

Yet, for those who are interested in the subject, it seems obvious that the life and well-being of insects is very much tied-up with our own. The very plants that we feel we must protect from certain "pest insects" would not be unable to thrive without other insects which perform the invaluable task of pollination. Also, many "harmful insects" are most effectively and swiftly dealt with, not by pesticides, but by other helpful predatory insects. I could go on about the many merits I feel that insects have, but (I hope) I would simply be preaching to the choir.

Nature is indeed a complex and amazing system of organisms and it is my opinion (and only my opinion) that we are foolish if we believe that we can chemically intervene in the process and truly understand all the ramifications which come from that act. As John Muir so eloquently stated: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."

 
Lawns, weeds, etc.
I know that this is an old discussion but I want to bring up a couple of things that I learned about recently. The total surface of lawns in this country equals that of the state of Washington! It would be nice to reduce that surface.
Fortunately some people are trying to change the way we see lawns, for instance the Lawn Reform Coalition and the Safe Lawns Organization.
And this is my modest take on the subject: Lawns for Pollinators. The North American Pollinator Protection Campaign is trying to do something about this.

 
I don't even know where to be
I don't even know where to begin with this. First I would like to say I love insects and am constantly learning and collecting. I would just like to talk about turf for a minute. If you have a piece of land which assuming you are maintaining you have two choices; a healthy weed free or close as possible lawn or do nothing and it will be completely taken over by weeds. So assuming you want a lawn you have to maintain it properly which means getting rid of weeds and harmful insects. For those of you who say "I don't understand the allure of lawns" how about a simple list. Property value,Release oxygen and cool the air, control pollution by filtering, reduce soil erosion, purify and replenish water supply,absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, cools local environment reducing need for air conditioners, reduce allergens,fire prevention. By the way I am all for "organic" solutions {definition of organic is anything containing carbon by the way} but I mean the ridiculously expensive things people with too much time and money are talking about,but I can admit that there needs to be a balance of use of "chemicals" and whatever else will work. When I can buy an organic tomato for less or same as any other I will come over to your side but there is no way to feed the world organically. Instead of sending mosquito nets to malaria plauged Africa 3 million worth of DDT could wipe it off of the face of the earth forever. I guess its better to just let 700,000 kids under the age of 5 die every year. ok I'm tired and thirsty I think I will go get some chemical to drink you know H20.

 
Okay, I'll admit, this is an
Okay, I'll admit, this is an issue that makes people on all sides go off a bit . . my comment was not exactly warm and fuzzy to begin with. But how did we get from "What's the need for a golf-course lawn?" to "Save the mosquitoes and let the kids die!" I said that I think lethal means of pest control *ARE* appropriate where there is a threat to human health and safety - for example, where you've got an outbreak of malaria. There does have to be balance, and reasonable risk-benefit analysis.

As to your list of the allure of [grass-only] lawns, property value is the only factor that necessitates that your lawn only contain grass, and property value is a matter of human perception. There are an number of other low-growing ground-covers (weeds) that will also provide oxygen, prevent soil erosion, etc. If people liked lawns with a little variety, you'd get better property value if your lawn had a nice assortment of stuff that blooms, as opposed to based on its degree of monochromatic green.

My favorite example of what's wrong with our culture, in terms of the environment, is our attitude toward the dandelion - it grows just about anywhere with little to no maintenance, its leaves and blossoms are edible and nutritious, its root has some medicinal value when brewed into a tea, and it has a pleasant, bright blossom. So what do we do with dandelions, for the most part? Try to kill them off.

Of course, I'm also amused by the fact that we buy beef from South American that was grazed on former rain forest, and you can maybe find venison in some ritzy upscale supermarket, for $19/pound, imported from New Zealand - while (here in the Eastern US) white-tailed deer are so overpopulated locally as to be a traffic hazard. We're just generally brilliant at resource management.

The definition of "organic" in agriculture is different than the definition of the term in chemistry, by the way.

 
I'm not sure why
I feel the need to respond to this, but:
-Equating "healthy" with "weed-free" doesn't make any sense to me
-All of the functions in your list are accomplished equally well, if not better, by a lawn that's full of weeds. The exception is property value, which doesn't really address Harsi's wondering why anyone sees the allure of lawns. If people with money (and no appreciation for the ecology of their yards) didn't find lawns aesthetically pleasing, they would not increase the property value.

If, just theoretically, you were only interested in maximizing ecological value, and not property value, I don't see how you could argue that a lawn of pure Kentucky bluegrass is better--especially given the waste of water if you live in an arid area, and the runoff of chemicals into the water supply. I agree that a lawn is better than pavement, if that's what you're comparing it to.

As far as ridiculously expensive organic solutions go: try letting your lawn fill with dandelions and other "weeds." It's free, and it looks nicer, if you like flowers (and insects that like flowers).

 
Thank you Charley...
...for putting into words what I was not really sure how to go about saying. I happen to live in an extremely arid area and I can't even comprehend the amount of water that is wasted every day by individual property owners and business complexes in an attempt to maintain their lush, green lawns. Meanwhile, the state of California ponders and puzzles as to what to do about the impending (and scary) reality of water shortages. I would like to state for the record that there is a third option besides 1) a yard full of unkempt weeds or 2) a manicured lawn. Many homeowners in my area opt for a native plant garden. They can be quite lovely, are happily frequented by the local insect population, and are often more drought-resistant than non-natives.

I know that I should probably not bother addressing this as I feel the poster is being caustic and sensationalistic, but the last comment about DDT really bothered me. Rather than go on at length, I'd like to just point to this Wikipedia article on DDT. Yes, it does say that DDT can be very effective against malaria. It also has volumes of information on the the risks and concerns regarding its use -- including serious ongoing health problems for not just the wildlife it comes into contact with, but also the human population as well. It also discusses the increasing trend of mosquito resistance to the substance in many areas of the world where it has been used effectively in the past.

 
Alternatives
Just for the record, my preference is a native plant garden also--I was just clumsily making a point about cost-effectiveness. I honestly do find a yard full of dandelions more aesthetically pleasing than a sterile, green monoculture though.

 
Not clumsy
And I was just trying to address the issue of catering to the supposed importance of "maintaining property value". Personally, I think many "weeds" are quite beautiful (and a lot less work than buying stuff and planting it).

 
I am so lucky
our property value rises with each big saguaro that makes it through the draught. The regualtory washes through the property can't be changed by law and they are lined by big old Ironwooods and Paloverdes. Our gardening consists in collecting interesting cacti and agaves (and enjoy the occasional weevil that comes with them) The fact is that a good diversity of adapted plants and hiding places for predatory species keeps plant eaters from being pests. Only plants in monoculture and the ones stressed by marginal conditions (forced to live in a climate they are not quite suited for)are seriously damaged by 'pests'. In our case, even some Agaves fall into that group - they don't get enough water here to 'gum up' the weevils. Those we let go...Otherwise we enjoy the seasonal coming and going of wildflowers and grasses - some may call them weeds

 
....
Ok, I thought I had learned my lesson about getting involved in forum topics like this but I can't help myself on this one. I'm going to say first though that this may or may not fuel the fires of those that appear to be argumentative but believe me when I say that I am not trying to upset anyone or start a fight with what I'm going to say. This is just my opinion and am just giving my two cents.

In general human beings seem to be under the false assumption that we are the only creatures on Earth that matter and that our comfort and well being is paramount above all other living things and that our desires, wants, and needs take precedent over everything else. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not saying that everyone is this way but the vast majority of the population seems to be. What ever happened to people being at peace with nature? Why do we now seem to be at war with it? Nature will always take care of itself and this can be seen everyday and in many different ways. Is it really necessary to have a perfectly green lawn with every blade of selectively hybridized hand nurtured fertilized grass all growing the same direction and all the very same height from the dirt making for what appears to be a calm sea of green on your comparatively small and insignificant "lot"? All so you can go out the front door and see nothing but that small patch of superbly combed green, your neighbors house so close to yours that you could talk to one another through your kitchen windows, and the concrete. What practical purpose does this serve? Does it help the environment? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, it damages it. The fertilizer and chemicals will definitely get into the water table and then you're not drinking pure water anymore, but instead a cocktail of many different chemicals that do no telling what to our systems. So what do we do? We buy bottled water that in all honesty is more than likely bottled with not much more than a garden hose and given a catchy or natural sounding name to make us feel more secure about spending our hard earned cash for what is the most abundant natural resource on Earth and is free for the taking all over the world.
Also, don't forget the air pollution caused from having these magnificent lawns. This website says that "Every weekend, about 54 million Americans mow their lawns -- using 800 million gallons of fuel each year. Research shows a standard gas-powered lawn mower produces as much air pollution as 43 new cars each being driven 12 thousand miles.". And, that's just lawn mowers. What about weed eaters, leaf blowers, edgers, trimmers, and everything else that you have to have to maintain your lawn?

My point is this. Does being a human being entitle us to special privileges in life over other creatures and forms of life? Should one type of life be considered of more value than any other? No, in my opinion. However, it is the way of nature for individual species to protect themselves from harm. Meaning that if creatures threaten our well being, such as ticks with tick-bourne diseases, or mosquitoes that carry disease, then we are well within our rights as citizens of nature to protect ourselves against these types of threats. But, should we totally eradicate these species from existence just because they are doing what they were born to do? No. If we do that then it will have dire consequences for all creatures. Nature sort of works like a chain and if one link in the chain is removed then it affects many other links down the line.
People in general seem to freak out over insects in particular. A grizzly can walk across someone's back yard and they don't run out and shoot it, but if a spider runs across that same person's porch they step on it or destroy it in some other way. I don't get it.
It seems that more and more the all mighty dollar is what motivates people and if it doesn't involve money then the average person wants nothing to do with it. So trying to get people to appreciate nature is a huge challenge because there is no money involved and the only gain is knowledge and respect. Sadly that isn't enough to get most people interested enough to affect change and so nature and natural critters continue to suffer the consequences.
I personally don't believe that anyone from BugGuide should give any advice regarding pesticides or critter removal or extermination. This includes people who might happen to be in that profession. BugGuide is about knowledge and furthering that knowledge regarding the natural world, and insects in particular. We should not be fanning the flames of human arrogance by giving advice on how to kill creatures just because they are eating someones petunias making their yard less attractive than their neighbors. That should be left to the people who are in business to do that and give that type of advice. And besides, a hundred years from now who is going to give a crap about whether your yard had bugs in it or not or whether it was weed free. Who cares! We as humans should be concerning ourselves with much more important issues that actually mean something, like the ozone, pollution, or over-population.

 
Why is it that people think
Why is it that people think I am saying just because I am advocating having a lawn that I don't think you should have other plants as well. Obviously 30% of your lot should be planting beds or a garden and it should be filled with perennials and annuals, small flowering trees, vines, vegetables and anything else you can think of. They are all going to attract insects. If you like a particular weed pick it and put it in a pot or cultivate it in your garden. You could even use all native plants. As far as water goes millions of dollars can be saved through the use of surfactants. One homeowner can cut irrigation by 30%. It breaks the cohesion of the water molecules and allows for better use of the water. Then the microbes in your soil will break down things better including any pesticides used which many times is actually locked in the soil and does not leech out but is vaporized back up through the soil where it does its job and there is no trace of it within hours.

 
I don't think anyone was inte
I don't think anyone was interpreting your comments as saying that there should be no other plants on the property - I think the issue was the degree of minute control of what's on the property that you seemed to be advocating. Of course, that's also just my interpretation, but that was my concern and I *think* that's what others here were also finding troubling.

 
Excellent discussion!
I haven't thought my position out clearly enough to post a manifesto yet, but in general I feel that a policy against making specific pesticide recommendations is a fine decision. Perhaps anyone who feels strongly that a particular guide-user would benefit from some pest control advice can provide links to a more appropriate website, or open a dialogue by email. I could see myself doing so if I felt that someone's health was risk (from arthropod-borne pathogens, for instance).

I DO feel strongly that this thread is very enlightening and that this forum is exactly the place to discuss stuff like this. I'm very interested to read everyone's varying opinions on controversial topics. One of my favorite things about the BugGuide is that it brings together people who all share a common enthusiasm, but who have such diverse backgrounds and diverse reasons for loving bugs. This thread has exactly the sort of posts that I visit the site to find: articulate, passionate and still considerate of other viewpoints.

 
Mark, I agree re: this discus
Mark, I agree re: this discussion.

I tend to think human communities and ideologies work a bit like an ecosystem - you don't need everyone existing in perfect harmony without conflict for healthy functioning of the whole so much as you need a balance of conflicting forces. I'm definitely on the "tree-hugging dirt-worshipper" end of the spectrum (at least on this issue), and will defend my viewpoint zealously, but I can acknowledge that it's probably good for there to be people whose viewpoint is 180 degrees away from mine. It keeps everybody on their toes, and honest.

For whatever my newbie opinion is worth, I agree with what's already been said in regard to a general policy on giving out insect-elimination advice - that we probably don't want that liability and that it's not the purpose of the site, but that it's probably okay for knowledgeable parties to respond to a request for such advice, off-site.

I'd also like to mention how thrilled I was to find this community - here are the other "bug people"! Finally!

 
....
Sorry, didn't mean to give a speech but obviously I feel very strongly about nature. And, we humans don't appear to be concerned nearly enough about it or for what the future holds. We only seem to live for the "now" with no regard for what the consequences might be later on or for what the impact to the environment might be.

I am certainly no tree-hugger though. I'm just an old country boy with a deep love and respect for the land and nature.

 
Why is it that people think I
Why is it that people think I am saying just because I am advocating having a lawn that I don't think you should have other plants as well. Obviously 30% of your lot should be planting beds or a garden and it should be filled with perennials and annuals, small flowering trees, vines, vegetables and anything else you can think of. They are all going to attract insects. If you like a particular weed pick it and put it in a pot or cultivate it in your garden. You could even use all native plants. As far as water goes millions of dollars can be saved through the use of surfactants. One homeowner can cut irrigation by 30%. It breaks the cohesion of the water molecules and allows for better use of the water. Then the microbes in your soil will break down things better including any pesticides used which many times is actually locked in the soil and does not leech out but is vaporized back up through the soil where it does its job and there is no trace of it within hours. A nice lawn to me is not a monostand but a mixture of a few types of grass. By not over fertilizing you won't need to cut your lawn as often and I use a reel mower with no engine. I put the clippings in a mulch pile which I put in my garden reducing the need for fertilizer. By the way no one has yet to give any specific advice on pesticide use I guess just the word itself is enough to conjure up fear. As far as I can see this is just a general debate on the subject.

 
By the way no one has yet to
By the way no one has yet to give any specific advice on pesticide use I guess just the word itself is enough to conjure up fear.

I don't think it's fear (at least from my perspective), I think it's distaste, maybe some moral indignation. Your lawn-mowing practices do sound very environmentally friendly and commendable, but I think there's a basic difference in philosophies going on here that we're unlikely to resolve. Personally, I think that's okay, as I've said above - I think a little disagreement is good.

I'll also say - at least for myself - that some of where I'm coming from is very much a reaction to *my* environment. I live in the suburbs north of Philadelphia, and while I know there are many very conscientious, environmentally-aware people around here, including those who run any of the several local nature centers - don't want to unfairly bash the entire region, here - it's also the land of the Toll Brother's McMansion, built on a little postage-stamp lot that will be maintained at golf-course perfection through the application of lots and lots of chemicals that DO run off into our drinking water (I know this because I've read the township reports on the matter), of which we frequently have a shortage at the same time that our roads are flooding every time it rains, because the whole mess is so poorly planned. The landscaping won't be designed to provide habitat for anything. Fireflies are dwindling in numbers, and one of the suspected causes is all the floodlights people seem to need to point at their houses (just in case someone missed how excessive they were by daylight), while the mosquito population is skyrocketing - possibly because mosquitoes will breed anywhere, but the things that are supposed to be eating them - dragonflies, frogs, birds, etc. - are a little pickier, and they've been crowded out. And then, hey, y'know what we have to do to control the mosquitoes? Spray more chemicals!

There's no one piece of this is that is, by itself, horribly and obviously wrong - it's all little stuff - but throw it all in together and it's a problem. What I find so objectionable is the whole *attitude* that leads to this, the desire for a sterile lifestyle in which everything is shiny and new and tidy and controlled and nature is something you see when you watch the Discovery Channel on your flat-screen. (And I could go off on a whole big long rant about suburban apathy and pseudo-liberalism and the self-destructiveness of the whole lifestyle, but that's probably just a tad off-topic). Point being, I see the sort of micro-managing of one's property that you're advocating as one symptom of a larger ill.

 
...
Yes, a "general debate on the subject" is exactly what this is. The overwhelming consensus seems to be that BugGuide is not an appropriate forum for "specific advice on pesticide use," as stated and restated by many contributors in the preceding comments. Therefore, you will not be receiving that type of advice here.

 
Am I glad that someone
finally tells me exactly how to subdivide my land (o:

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.