deere ene e Sb ON is tel kT iLN 13 
ly feasible and recognizes the pest species as part of a complex relationship. 
Pest control should be a matter of pest population management, which requires 
knowledge of all ecological factors in a situation to the fullest extent. Pests 
are simply species whose numbers grow out of hand—were there fewer in- 
dividuals, they would not be pests. The pest problems that have been created 
by the use of pesticides can be helped by ecological interpretation and 
handling. 
Pest population management would not be perfect, and there would 
doubtless be need for some pesticides if this approach were taken. The pesti- 
cides used must be the safest possible, applied as sparingly as is practicable. As 
Dr. Cottam says: “‘Biological controls should be used wherever possible. Re- 
pellents, sex attractants, chemosterilants, desiccants, along with cultural 
methods and the application of genetics in developing resistant crops, should 
be given greater consideration in control programs.’’(4) Any chemicals that 
must be used should be specific, low in toxicity, and non-cumulative. 
We must preserve variety and encourage diversity. Breaking up exten- 
sive acreage of one crop, and encouragement of hedgerows, roadside growth 
and natural areas will contribute much to this end. Integrated control (as 
used in California for alfalfa pests and in Nova Scotia for apple pests) which 
adheres to the ecology of a given situation and maintains the biotic com- 
plexity, must be the rule. Programs of ecological study and research must 
be offered, and trained ecologists must become an integral part of every pest 
control program. Advice on pest control must no longer be sought and ac- 
cepted from scientists who ignore ecological principles. 
An even larger ecological problem than that of pest control faces us in 
the growth of our human population. As pointed out in this report, a pest is 
not a pest until its numbers become too great. We trust that humanity will 
have the intelligence to keep itself out of the pest classification. 
LITERATURE CITED 
1. Allen, D. L.: Our Wildlife Legacy, Funk and Wagnals Co., 1962. 
2. Cole, LaMont C.: ‘'The Impending Emergence of Ecological Thought,’’ BioScience, 
Vol. 14. No. 7, 1964, pp. 30-32. 
3. Cole, LaMont C.: ‘‘Pesticides, a Hazard to Nature's Equilibrium,’’ American Journal of 
Public Health, Vol. 54, No. 1, January, 1964—part 2, pp. 24-31. 
4. Cottam, Clarence: ‘‘The Ecologist’s Role in Problems of Pesticide Pollution,” BioScience, 
Vol. 15, No. 7, July, 1965, pp. 457-463. 
5. Egler, Frank E.: ‘‘Pesticides in Our Ecosystem, Communication #2,'' BioScience, Vol. 14, 
Mowd1, 1764, pp. 29-36. 
6. Etter, Alfred G.: ‘Mathematics, Ecology and a Piece of Land,'' Landscape, Spring, 1963, 
pp. 28-31. 
7. Pillmore, Richard E. and Robert B. Finely, Jr.: ‘‘Residues in Game Animals Resulting from 
Forest and Range Insecticide Applications,’’ Trans. 28th North American Wildlife Con- 
ference: pp. 409-421, 1963. 
8. Rudd, Robert L.: Pesticides and the Living Landscape, U. of Wisconsin Press, 1964. 
9. Scott, Thomas G.: ‘‘Pesticides and Wildlife,’ Oregon’s Agricultural Progress, Vol. 12, 
No. 2, Summer, 1965. 
10. Storer, T. L. and Usinger, R. |.: General Zoology, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. 1957, Chapter 
13, “Animal Ecology and Distribution,’’ pp. 178-204. 
11. Taylor, John W.: ‘Eagles or Pesticides?’’ Md. Conserv., 40 (1): pp. 2-6, 1963. 
22W610 Stanton Road, Glen Ellyn, Ill. 60137 
