iJ8 MONTANA EXPERIMENT STATION 



"3. Co-operate with federal and State ufricials and private own- 

 ers in efforts to estal)lish the most economical and effective insect 

 control policy in special forests and in forest areas where general 

 co-operation is essential for the promotion of common interests. 



"\'ery trnly yours, 



"A. D. HOPKINS, 

 "In Charqe of Forest Insect Inxestigations." 



THE MONTANA SNSECTICIDE LAW. 



The Federal Insecticide Act of 1910 has jurisdiction over adul- 

 terated and misbranded insecticides and fungicides that have en- 

 tered into interstate commerce, but prexious to i()i 1 Montana had 

 no protection against adulterated or other fraudulent products of 

 this character that might originate within the State boundaries. 



The Twelfth Legislative Assembly enacted a wise and sufficient 

 law, the provisions of which are verv similar to those of the hA^deral 

 act. In fact, the two laws are identical in their essential provis- 

 ions. The responsibility for the enforcement of the law is placed 

 upon the Directt)r of tlie Fxperiment Station and the State Fnto- 

 mologist. 



Up to the jbresent time i)ractically all of the insecticides and 

 fungicides used in Montana have been shipped in. and it is to l)e 

 expected that for some time to come onlv comparatively small 

 amounts will be manufactured here. Yet, as the orchard lousiness 

 mcreases and general agriculture develops, there will be a con- 

 tinually increasing amount of home manufacture of these products. 

 The-re is already prospect that in the near future one or more 

 lime-sulphur plants will be erected in the orchard districts. 



The matter of purity and correct branding of an insecticide 

 is of much importance. The fruit grower and the farmer should 

 get what they buy and pay for and not an inferior or adulterated 

 l)roduct. We have known of a number of cases in which an inferior 

 insecticide was used and the farmer, failing to secure the desired 

 lesults, lost heavily in the crop he had hoped to ])rotect. The 

 loss, then, was not alone through paying for a high-class product 

 and getting an inferior one, but also through loss of the crop which 

 the adulterated insecticide failed to protect. 



It is perhaps still more unfortunate when the farmer fails to 



