What Other Industries Can Teach Us About Pest Control

We consider ourselves experts at controlling pests. That is our job, and we market our companies as having that expertise. We attend meetings and train people in these concepts and expect others to understand that we are the people to solve their problems. We discuss application methods, pest I.D., biology (because it's neat to know those facts that no one cares about; it impresses the customer), new materials, safety, etc., etc.

But as an industry we are remarkably tight-lipped about how related industries affect us. In several recent meetings I've attended and articles I've read, I'm encouraged by the tack that some state associations and individual PCOs are taking in going after some of our best providers of business opportunities-- the building industry. (See "Truce!" on page 64 of this issue.) Someone actually started the rumor that just because a building looks good, it doesn't mean there aren't considerable opportunities for pest problems. At this point we usually sit back, chuckle and wait for the phone to ring.

But we've found that in some cases we lack the knowledge of the related industry to resolve the problem. (In some cases we should never have picked up that phone.) We find out too late that we have the wrong information, or no information; that we are in deep doodoo, and we are desperate for a way out.

Now comes the primal scream therapy and the "Why don't they listen to us?" accusations. Why? Because we haven't shared the wealth. There is this pervasive undercurrent in our industry that if we do this, we'll lose customers. I search and search for instances of this, not just in this industry but other ones as well. I'm sure it's there, but I don't see people going out of business because someone decided they could wire an electric fan or paint their house or even do their own pest control.

WHAT ARE WE TREATING? As usual, we have to look to ourselves for many answers to the proposition of sharing. When we think about pest control, a question that comes to mind is, "When we have a pest problem to deal with, what are we treating?" The obvious answer is the pest. But actually, we are treating for the pest, aren't we? Occasionally we may actually apply pesticide to a pest; but usually, we treat for the pest.

I have heard a lot of discussion about approaching treatments differently. In many cases, especially in the termite arena, we have to consider that we are treating the structure. Paul Hardy of Orkin has mentioned this in many meetings and discussions he has been involved in. This becomes clearer when you consider that baits will be used more extensively in the future for these pests. We find more and more above-ground infestations, which complicate our treatments and almost always are the crux of the problem in our callbacks or retreats. Is there more to be learned from this? I believe so.

The concept of treating the structure or, at least, of knowing the structure's features is not new. In its Approved Reference Procedures, the National Pest Control Association has always espoused the knowledge of structural features. Gaining an understanding of how buildings are put together should be a No. 1 priority in training technicians. Re lating how certain structural features affect treatments or how they enable pests to gain access to buildings may be more difficult to explain, but it is no less important than knowing the basic biology of the animal involved.

When the energy crunch came along and builders modified techniques to create tighter buildings, how long did we think it would be before this would be reflected in increased pest problems or, in the case of allergies, more health problems created by pests? There were some discussions at meetings, but not a lot.

In the education of our technicians, we have preached and preached the importance of making a positive ID and knowing the pest's habits so you can provide better control and ultimately educate your customer. In turn, we as an industry have disseminated information that is (or maybe was) incorrect about the particular pest. We did this because that was what we were told or what we assimilated into our education processes because it was easier to deal with and not complicated to explain. Telling customers that termiticides "kill colonies" and that termites will die if trapped above ground isn't really true, is it?

In one recent instance, it took me a good 30 minutes to explain to a homeowner who had suffered the repairs and inconvenience of repeated termite problems that the "treatment" had been done correctly according to industry standards and label requirements, but termites can live above ground, and can continue to do so undetected by inspec tors. For a society that wants quick, easy answers so they can go on with their lives, this is hard to understand. And it is sometimes exasperating for us to take the time to explain this. But we are the experts don't we know this stuff?

The industry needs to consider what types of customers they are dealing with and be able to teach technicians to analyze situations better. In the situation I was referring previously, a technician armed with a little more knowledge and a moisture meter could have resolved the problem during the first retreat, and my explanation would not have been necessary.

WHAT MAKES THEM TICK? The research community feels that basic research is still needed in developing information about the common pests we deal with. At the recent National Urban Entomology meeting in Arlington, Texas, this message was brought out by several speakers in their papers. The termite arena again is the focal point, but ants are not far behind.

One of the main points made was that we do not understand what makes these animals tick. Is this important to our understanding of how to apply a termiticide or a barrier spray for ants? Not in the application techniques, but certainly in the scheme of identifying the problems, locating the infestation, or a trail, or a colony, andselecting the appropriate application — all those IPM tenets we've been discussing ad nauseum for the last few years. If you don't agree with this, that's OK. But let's ask some questions.

The carpenter ant has been "treated for" in one of several ways — by fumigation, or spraying, or drilling holes and dusting, or whole-house treatments, or spot applications to nest areas. The knowledge we have imparted to customers is that the ants will be associated with rotting wood, or at least with wood of high moisture. The fact: That may be true for the main colony, but we are usually dealing with satellite nests. What are the basic requirements of those "colonies"? There is little research being done is this area.

I have heard time and time again, "If we had a bait for carpenter ants, our problems would be solved." So why don't we? I know I can hear the phone ringing now from the manufacturers. But I still hear researchers struggling with this question.

What is the bottom line here? Do we really need a bait? Yes. Not to solve the problem, but because it would fit into the scheme of things for the industry. It would take less time to put down bait, and that is still the basis for the majority of our work. The "seek and treat" methods being used now are very effective.

Now, let's consider what the pest control industry does best complain. We are overregulated, undermanned, restricted in our armaments, and persecuted by just abouteveryone (except the happy customers whose problems we solve). We still allow a few to do the work of many, but I would guess that is just a fact of life. I listened to a discussion about how one association went after the building industry in their state. Their exasperation had grown to the degree cited above, but they recognized that the only people who were going to help them were themselves. What a concept! Congratulations.