Dandelion Debate Over For Now

I have to say I was quite impressed with Alderman Dan Wong tonight during the whole cosmetic spraying of dandelion debate, he came prepared for this debate and loaded for bear with some good stuff.(video to follow tomorrow)Mentioning what I think was the Health Canada report that said when used as directed 2,4-d herbicide for cosmetic spraying of dandelions is safe and another report by the Fraser institute that I have not seen yet. Unfortunately there are many people who think that health Canada scientists who studied this vigorously don't know what their talking about and council in a 7-2 vote voted in favour of a convoluted compromise in what areas should be sprayed.

Grande Prairie residents were asked recently what they thought the city should do and 295 (59% to continue spraying as normal 41% against) people responded which as mentioned tonight was not a random sample.Still I'm not sure why you ask residents what they think if it's not going to guide your decision, as it would seem to waste every one's time.In this case a 59% majority translates into going ahead anyway and limiting spraying to only certain kinds of turf. This begs the question that if the numbers were reversed, would a compromising position be formulated and an outright ban implemented?We'll never know but there will be other surveys, so we'll see if the policy of compromise continues on marginally close votes.

But what about this whole stop spraying B and C turf only and leaving A turf as is?

“We presented at the protective services committee our report on it and the motion was put forward by committee to accept city recommendations and to stop doing dandelion control on class B and class C turf grass,” ...........
“Those type of areas are typically utility lots, boulevards and residential parks. And to continue doing dandelion control on selected high-level parks, in other words like Jubilee Park – very ornamental, wedding pictures taken there – that type of thing.” ................
other class A turf that will continue to be controlled for dandelions includes “high-intensity use sports fields” where “thick grass with good footing for football and soccer” was essential.....
The proposal to stop treating class B and C properties – which make up about 75 per cent of total treated areas,

If you think 2,4-d is some kind of agent orange poison that causes cancer and harms our kids than why allow it all?Why only is government only protecting us from 75% of city property? This suggests that if you play football or soccer or get your wedding pictures taken at Jubilee park than government says you will continue to be harmed by poison. And isn't football a sport where the other team wants you to eat turf or in this case 2,4-D? Alternatively, I have never seen my two boys roll around in the grass at any city park, they are likely smart enough to know that they will inevitably end up with dog doodoo on them.

I did actually put my 2 cents for the survey and they actually mimicked most of what Ald. Wong said except I voted to stop the use of 2,4-d.Yup after everything I just posted, I voted in favour of ending the city spraying of dandelions. See I like kids too. Actually though it's not because of the false environmental concerns but instead it's to save a smidgen of tax payers money. Unfortunately saving money won't happen with this motion because the savings is going to be spent in part on things like trees, that in long run will be more cost intensive because a tree is a city asset that requires maintenance to keep it a "healthy" asset. So the whole "tax savings" mentioned in the DHT is not really accurate in my opinion it will be more like spending on things for a future tax increase.

In the end I hope city residents will rest easier tonight with the knowledge that when our children wake up tomorrow they will be 75% safer than they are today.Thank you Mr. Government.