158 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 12 



It is not proper to speak of extermination or to hold it out as an 

 inducement in asking for public funds, unless actual extermination is 

 reasonably in sight. This may be a limitation, for the public likes to 

 think of eradication rather than control, and quite likely will be quite 

 unable to see why actual eradication is not entirely feasible. But if 

 eradication or suppression is promised without sufficient foundation, 

 a mistaken idea is built up which, eventually, will have to be corrected. 



It is equally unfortunate to think of eradication in drawing up one's 

 own plans if such an outcome is improbable. Those measures that 

 would be justifiable if eradication is actually to be sought may become 

 a sheer waste of money if a less degree of control is all that can possibly 

 be expected. I must confess to a feeling that sometimes, as entomolo- 

 gists, we have entered on a campaign drawn up on the basis of eradica- 

 tion and involving heavy expenditures, whereas the best promise of 

 ultimate solution lay in accepting the new pest as a permanent resident 

 of our fauna, and determining that it should occupy as low a natural 

 level as possible, in part through systematic introduction of its natural 

 enemies. It must be acknowledged, of course, that it may be possible 

 to get public money for suppression by mechanical means, where such 

 funds would be more difficult or impossible if they are to be spent for 

 travel abroad and for the study of the natural enemies of the pest. 

 Sometime soon I hope that there may be arrangements concluded by 

 which, as I think already proposed by Doctor Howard, we may enjoy 

 the permanent services of experts, whose task it will be to study and 

 to send to us the parasitic enemies of various serious pests that we 

 already have or may acquire. 



Granted, however, that direct means of suppression such as spraying, 

 must be undertaken on a large scale, in the course of a campaign to 

 control an insect outbreak, will it be desirable to get this work done 

 by placing the burden of responsibility on the private property owner 

 or should it be undertaken by men employed by the state or federal 

 authorities? 



If the insect is really a very serious one and if the aim of the cam- 

 paign is to exterminate it or to stop spread, then I feel that dependence 

 on the owner of private property will be wholly inadequate. There 

 are various reasons for this. Eradication must be absolutely thorough. 

 It does not mean to do a job that is 60 per cent complete or 80 per cent 

 complete. It means to approach closely 100 per cent. Even sup- 

 pression in the stricter sense means thorough work, properly performed 

 at the proper time, and systematically carried through wherever the 

 pest exists. 



There are many private property owners who could do their share, 

 having the money, the time and the intelligence. But even some of 



