A few spots left for Rodent Academy in Dallas

The following announcement is from Janet Hurley, IPM Program Specialist with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.  The course is being offered as part of our IPM Experience House educational events and will be held December 5-7 at the Texas A&M AgriLife Center at Dallas. 

The primary trainer for the event is Dr. Bobby Corrigan, rodent consultant and author of the very useful book: Rodent Control: A Practical Guide for Pest Management Professionals.  I've known Bobby since our days as grad students in entomology at Purdue University, and he is well worth hearing. He is a rare expert on rodents and pest control, and an engaging teacher. 

Class size is limited to 50 and there are just a few spaces left, so you will have to move quickly to get in. To learn more about the class, cost and how to register, click here. 

Spring IPM Seminar in Dallas Next Month

Continuing education doesn't have to be a painful experience.
Last fall's IPM Seminar attracted nearly 400 applicators.

If you're a pesticide applicator in need of CEUs this year, I have some good news: no more yellow chairs.  For years, pesticide applicators have come faithfully to the Texas A&M AgriLife Center in Dallas for continuing education training.  And for years one of the consistent evaluation remarks we've received is that we need to "do something about" the hard, 1960's era Fiberglas chairs.

Starting next month we're no longer going to be sitting in those chairs for pesticide training. Instead, this spring the IPM seminars will be moving off campus to the nearby Richardson Civic Center.

The 2017 Spring IPM Seminar is scheduled for Thursday, February 23.  We have an excellent line-up of speakers, and offer a good lunch.  Cost will remain the same for 2017.

To register for the 2017 event, go online to http://agriliferegister.tamu.edu/IPM.

For a copy of the program, including directions to our new location, click here. This year's speakers and topics include:

• Michael Kelly, with the Structural Pest Control Service/TDA in Austin, will speak on Pesticide Rules: What's new and what it means to you.
• Sam Kieschnick, with Texas Parks and Wildlife in Dallas.  Urban Wildlife, including biology and behavior of bobcats and other troublesome mammals.
• Dr. Casey Reynolds, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, will talk on Herbicide Selection, including understanding how different herbicides work, and how to select the best product for your needs.
• Doug Van Gundy, Zoecon/Central Life Sciences, will talk about Pesticide formulations and their uses, also important for selecting the right product.
• I will speak on Control strategies for the crapemyrtle bark scale, an important and difficult to control pest of the most common flowering shrub in north Texas.

If you attend, I can't guarantee that the new chairs will be any better (they won't be any more durable). The new facilities, however, will be great. We'll have more space, in a more comfortable environment, and bigger screens.  I believe you'll appreciate the change.

Spring mosquito seminars

Today the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took the remarkable step of elevating its Zika response to the highest emergency (Level 1) priority outbreak.  For a virus not even established in the U.S., this illustrates the respect and fear health officials have for this previously unheard of virus.

So what's the story behind the Zika virus?  How do you recognize the mosquitoes that might transmit it? What's the difference between managing mosquitoes that carry West Nile virus and those that carry Zika? If you don't know all the answers to these questions, it might be time for an update.

For the third year in a row Texas A&M AgriLife Extension will offer regional vector management workshops with a focus on mosquito control.  These workshops are designed to provide municipal and county health department staff, pest management professionals, and anyone with an interest in mosquito control, with a good basic introduction to urban mosquito identification, biology, ecology and diseases--including Zika. In addition, Dr. Sonja Swiger and other experts will provide information about mosquito trapping, surveillance programs and control.

The workshop has been confirmed for sites this year:

• San Antonio - March 8
• Abilene - March 11
• Round Rock - March 21
• Grapevine - April 5
• Rosenberg - April 13

The workshops will run from 8:30 am to 3:00 pm and will offer 5 Agriculture CEUs (2-general, 2 IPM, 1 Laws and Reg) and 3 Structural CEUs (1 Pest, 1 IPM, and 1 Laws/Regs) for pesticide applicators.  There will also be CE units offered for Registered Sanitarians and Animal Control personnel.  Cost of the workshop is $50 per person, which includes a meal.  Preregistration is required.  To register for all but the Grapevine location, click here.

The Grapevine location this year will be co-hosted between AgriLife Extension and Municipal Mosquito.com/EnTex Pest Solutions. The April 5 date will include slightly different times and costs, as well as an expanded agenda. Mosquito and epidemiology experts from the CDC, State of Texas, and North Texas area present the latest information about established and emerging arboviruses, and evolving response scenarios. For more information, go to the 2016 North Texas Mosquito Education Workshop.

This year's workshop, like in previous years, will focus on all mosquito health threats, not just Zika. With mosquito season almost upon us, make sure you and your employees can respond to the many concerns about this year's mosquito season. Don't miss out on this chance to get the latest updates, and be get ready to face an energized public with more questions than ever.

Changes in the rules of the game for Texas PMPs

New rules start as laws passed by the Legislature under
the Texas Capitol dome.  Laws become enforceable only
after rules are drafted and published for public comment by
the lead agency, like Texas Department of Agriculture.

New rules governing the pest control industry in Texas were published last week and are now in effect.  While none of the changes in the "rules of the game" are major, there may be a few things that affect your business or school district.

The rules governing pesticide use in Texas can be complicated, and are passed down to us through two sets of documents.  First, the Texas Occupations Code (TOC) contains  the official list of laws as passed by the legislature pertaining to different occupations, including structural pest control. If you go to this code online, the chapter having to do with pest control is Chapter 1951. Chapter 1951 lists all the state law as passed over the decades that relate to the business of structural pest control.
 
The second, and probably most relevant set of rules to our industry is the Texas Administrative Code (TAC).  The TAC records how the various state agencies choose to interpret and administer the laws. For example, Section 1951.212 of the TOC directs the Texas Department of Agriculture to establish standards for an IPM program for public school districts.  The TAC Sections 7.201-7.205 spell out what the standards are, including requirements for IPM coordinators, pesticide categories, posting requirements, etc.

But wait a minute. How can non-elected bureaucrats in a state agency write rules outside the legislative process?  The answer is that legislators don't have the time or the expertise to write detailed regulations, so they pass their rule-making authority on to Executive branch agencies like the Department of Agriculture.  Of course the rules have to fairly interpret the law, and they must be published ahead of time in the Texas Register so that all of us can review and comment.

Publication of several new or revised sections of Subchapter H of the TAC (Texas Department of Agriculture) marks the end of this process for pest control rules this year.  On December 18 the Texas Register published the results of public comment and listed the final versions of proposed rules originally published on September 18. With this final version, the rules are now considered to be in effect.

Most of the changes were made simply to clarify wording of the old rules.  There was also some reorganization of section numbering, so that old rule citations may no longer apply.  Here are the essential changes:

• Sec. 7.122 Changes in wording that include giving power to the Department to deny a license to anyone who holds a similar license that has been revoked, suspended, probated or denied within the last five years by another state or by the federal government.
• Sec. 17.127 There are no more fees for providing a continuing education course.
• Sec. 7.141  Rewording of rules pertaining to ID that must be carried at all times by license holders.  Basically, if you have a license you must carry it on your person at all times and show it to any customer or relevant government employee who asks. If it's not legible, then its not a legal ID.  Also, language on vehicle signage has slightly changed to require all marked or unmarked vehicles being used for customer contact or service must have the business license number prominently displayed (magnetic signs are not OK).
• New Sec. 7.150 requires all pesticides be used consistent with the pesticide labeling, and prohibits use of any pesticide missing a complete label when the identity of that pesticide is unknown.
• New Sec. 7.151 prohibits anyone from hurting people or the environment, and making the pesticide owner, the applicator and/or the mixer equally responsible for proper storage and disposal of pesticide containers and contents. It also requires all pesticide containers to be labeled with the name of the pesticide.  And it specifies that hard copies of all pesticides being stored shall be available for inspectors visiting the storage site.
• Sec. 7.152 states that no one may advertise to perform structural pest control services without a license, and that all advertising must include the same business name as is on the license.  This rule was rewritten to ensure that companies not use multiple business names under the same business license, and to clarify that pest control advertising includes online ads such as might appear on sites like Facebook, Craigslist and Angie's List.  
• Sec. 7.193 is a new section number which clarifies who may qualify as a member of the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee from an institution of higher learning (the position I formerly held, and now is being held by Dr. Robert Puckett).  
• Sections rules for the IPM program for public school districts have been moved to a new Division (7) and renumbered from Sec. 7.150-7.154 to 7.201-7.205.  The biggest changes in this section relate to CEU requirements for IPM Coordinators.  
• Sec. 7.202  School IPM coordinators no longer are specifically required by rule to personally conduct periodic inspections of their school district.  While this remains desirable, taking away this rule frees the coordinator to rely on other trained inspectors to provide inspection reports.
• Sec. 7.204 includes slight wording changes to clarify that outdoor areas treated with a pesticide may be posted at all entry points with a sign in lieu of a lock, fence or barrier tape until the reentry time is over.  This section also allows IPM Coordinators, or their supervised employees, to use non-pesticide containing monitoring devices like sticky traps, to monitor pests without a license.

Perhaps the most significant change heralded by these rules is that expanded CEU requirements for school IPM Coordinators (IPMCs) are now officially in place.  Over four years ago, as a result of Sunset Commission recommendations, the legislature decided that ongoing CEUs would be required for school IPMCs.  Until now, the only CEU requirement was that IPMCs have six hours of department-approved training at the beginning of their appointment.  Under the new rule IPMCs must have six hours of verified, approved training every three years.  While most of these CEU requirements can come from any approved, relevant pesticide CEU class, at least one of the hours must be related to school IPM rules and regulations.  The countdown for existing IPMC's three years will start this January, or for new IPMCs at the date whenever their initial training is completed. Pesticide CEUs obtained in support of a pesticide applicator's license can be double-counted toward the CEU requirements for IPMCs.

After seeing how long it can take the TDA to publish its rules, I don't feel nearly as bad about the stacks on my desk.  

Training site has big ambitions

I just had the opportunity to check out the new distance learning website sponsored by PCT magazine.  I think it offers a good training option for PMPs, and has tremendous potential as a way to ensure your technicians are familiar with labels of products used by your company.

Under the Find A Course pulldown window you have
the option to take any of over 25 different label modules.

According to the site's author, Stoy Hedges, the site became active last August and will be free to anyone for the first two years.  After that time, the site should have a good mix of vetted training courses, and PCT will begin charging a modest monthly fee in exchange for offering courses for CEU credit in your state.

Right now lessons simply consist of label review courses.  So for example, if you want to ensure that your technicians are familiar with the Bayer Suspend® Polyzone label, have them take the review course and exam.  A certificate they print out after completing the course provides proof that they have read the label (possibly several times) and have passed an exam to show comprehension over the label contents.

Eventually the course will expand to include most of the popular pesticide labels and other subject matter including the contents of the PCT field guide series.  Hedges envisions 40 courses alone based on the PCT Field Guide to Ants.

"We have 400 current subscribers; but there are 100,000 pest professionals out there that we want to reach," he said. Hedges designed the site for training new and experienced technicians, but the current label modules are a great way for any pesticide user to learn a new label or get a refresher course for an older product.  The reviews are so thorough that one user reported that after taking the class he better understood his own company's insecticide...for which he wrote the label!

Wave of the future?

It's yet to be seen whether this type of training format will come to dominate the way we do continuing education in the future.  Online courses are certainly not the same as having a human instructor. But it does offer rigor that is sometimes missing from a one-hour continuing education class.

In Texas the Structural Pest Control Service does not yet allow online training classes to substitute for face-to-face CEUs.  But this may slowly be changing.  The Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee last year gave favorable input to the idea of allowing online CEUs for PMPs at least every other year; however I notice the new regulations filed in the Texas Register on September 4 (and open for comment until October 18) did not address any rule changes in this regard.

No one has a bigger stake in face-to-face training than me and my colleagues. Our entomology department faculty offer CEU classes to thousands of applicators every year.  These classes provide us with a personal connection to the industry, not to mention some financial support for our programs. But we support online training, and don't see it as a threat to the many conferences and face-to-face classes we offer. I don't think any online course can fully replace sitting with trained experts sharing knowledge and personal experiences and answering questions in real time.  But I like the idea of allowing applicators to get CEUs online every other year as a nice compromise.  It would make getting CEUs quicker and more convenient for many who choose that technology, but would preserve face-to-face training.

For better or worse, the wheels of change can move very slowly in our state. Perhaps in two years, by the time the PCT site is up and fully running, Texas will catch up with the rest of the world.  Meantime, sites like the PCT Distance Learning Classroom provide a great way to hone your skills and make sure your technicians know pesticide labels as well as if they had helped write them.

Integrated Pest Management Seminar Nov 5

This year's Fall Integrated Pest Management Seminar will be held November 5 at the Texas A&M AgriLife Center on Coit Road in north Dallas.  Registration is online and can be accessed by clicking here.

This year we are especially pleased to have two guest speakers coming from College Station: Dr. Kevin Ong and Mr. Mark Dyks.  In his role as director of the Texas A&M AgriLife Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic, Dr. Ong is at the center of the maelstorm involving new and emerging plant disease problems.  He'll bring us up to date on what to look for and available treatment options.

This may be the last Fall Pest Management Seminar held in the
venerable Pavilion building (Building C).  Construction is
expected to begin on a new Research and Extension building in
2016.  Goodbye to those good old yellow chairs!

Mark Dyks is the new(ish) Chief Apiary Inspector for the Texas Apiary Inspection Service housed outside the main campus at Texas A&M University.  He will be talking honey bees and what steps we can take to protect them from pesticides and other risk factors in the urban landscape.

In addition, our own Janet Hurley will bring updates about changes to pesticide rules in Texas and on the national scene; Dr. Matt Elmore will share exciting news about new turf varieties and how they might influence weed management in the future; and I will speak about aspects of ant management and the prospects for new ant pests on the horizon.

If you haven't been to one of our workshops before, we offer 5 CEUs for both TDA and Structural Pest Control Service license holders. We tend to focus on pest management in turf and ornamental plantings, though structural pest control professionals can get their Pest, L&O, and Weed CEUs here as well.

All of our attendees have grown used to the Pavilion facilities at the Dallas Center.  And every fall and spring we get asked when we will replace the hard yellow fiberglass chairs for something more comfortable.  I can't really answer that question, but this may be our last big event in the concrete-floored building with the uncomfortable seating.  A new Research and extension facility is in the works, and with it possibly more comfortable seating options.  Personally, I've grown to love the old building and will be a little sad to see it go.

This is the first workshop we've had since our spring 2015 event that was preceded by bad weather.  If you were among those who registered but were unable to attend, we've got something for you!  Conference Services has arranged to have your registration fees applied to the Fall Seminar.  You should be receiving an email shortly from that office asking you to confirm your attendance this fall.

We look forward to seeing you, our fall friends, in a few weeks.  Because of the short notice, we ask that you register quickly.  We want to save you a yellow chair.

Winter Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee meeting

It was a cold, wet day in Austin this week as the Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee met to discuss the business of pest control regulation in Texas. Much of the meeting was going over rules drafted by the SPCS staff that will impact just about anyone who does structural fumigation, provides termite estimates, or who want to get continuing education units online.

Mike Kelly, staff member for the Structural Pest Control Service (SPCS), presented a rough draft of new document requirements for termite treatment disclosures, or as they are now called: "Subterranean Termite, Drywood Termite and Related Wood Destroying Insect Treatment Disclosure Documents" (The new name may be good for clarity, but sometimes I think government rules eat as much wood--in the form of paper--as termites).  Most of the changes are minor, designed to make the regs easier to read; however one positive significant change is that written estimates using these documents will now have to be made by a licensed technician or Certified Applicator--not an unlicensed sales person or office staffer.

Following up on industry recommendations from last meeting, Kelly also presented proposed changes for Structural Fumigation Requirements.  To anyone who is not a fumigator, fumigation requirements are about as exciting as a wait at the DMV.  But to fumigators, any change in rules can be grounds for fightin'.  Acting on our last meeting's discussion, the biggest changes to the rules included an attempt to clarify the responsibilities of fumigation contractors and subcontractors.

Danielle Dean (right) and Betty Thornton explained the new
CEU course they have developed for pest control office
managers and staff. 

Now if it were up to me, I'm not sure I would let anyone subcontract fumigation jobs. Fumigation is risky and technically complicated, and way too many things can go wrong (communications wise) between the customer and the subcontractor(s) who actually does the work.  But that's not the law, so these new rules attempt to reduce the risk of misunderstanding between fumigator and customer. As you might guess, there will be more paperwork.

One proposed rule change specified that only a registered apprentice, licensed technician or certified applicator (CA) can assist the supervising CA with introducing fumigants, or performing reentry and aeration activities. Also Kelly proposed to clarify wording on the required condition of tarps used in sealing in fumigant gases, and what the official time for a start of fumigation should be based on.  Both Brian Springer, Bevis Pest Control, and Debbie Aguirre, Elite Exterminating, commented passionately on the requirements--Springer noting the stellar human safety record of structural fumigation in Texas in recent years.  If you have anything to do with fumigation in Texas, you'll want to review these new regs carefully when they come out this spring. None of the rules are official until you get a chance to review them, and if you're a fumigator I'm sure you'll have an opinion.

We also discussed online CEU courses as supplements or replacements for face-to-face training. There have been numerous proposals over the years to allow applicators to get training remotely; but concerns about accountability, quality of courses, and security have slowed approval of this option.  The committee heard from AgriLife Communications specialist Holly Jarvis and representatives from online training provider, eStrategy Solutions.  According to Jarvis, there are now multiple ways to make these courses interactive, and accountability can be even better than live courses. Committee members felt that it was time to make electronic courses a routine way for license holders to get the CEUs they need.  In addition to the convenience of getting training on any day you need it, online CEU courses allow the applicator a choice of training topics, including difficult-to-find CEUs, like fumigation.  We recommended eliminating the proposed restriction that online CEUs be allowed only every other year.  Such changes won't mean that CEU workshops with face-to-face training are going away anytime soon, but do they mean you'll have more choices when it comes to getting your CEUs.

The highlight of this month's meeting was a presentation by Betty Thornton, Alvin Pest Control, and Danielle Dean, bwi Companies.  Thornton and Dean met earlier in the year with staff at the SPCS to educate themselves about regulations that might affect office staffers at pest control companies. It turns out that a number of laws and rules limit what advice an unlicensed staffer can say to customers over the phone. An unlicensed person, for example, cannot diagnose a pest problem or offer price quotes to someone over the phone or via email. They took lessons-learned and developed a course for office staff and technicians that includes what you can and can't say over the phone, going paperless in a pest control office, role playing, how to get a new technician registered to take their license exam, how to survive a 14-point inspection, and avoiding the top 10 non-compliance issues.  Both Thorton and Dean were engaging and enthusiastic.  They have given their (approved CEU) course several times and are willing to go on the road for groups that want to sponsor them.

Office staff are a critical, and often neglected, segment of the pest control industry.  I commend the SPCS for their train-the-trainer efforts, and hope that all these efforts result in better trained office staff throughout the state. I think bringing office managers and staff into the training picture could turn out to be one of the single most significant things we can do to improve compliance with our pest control laws in Texas.

Perhaps not many of you make it to the end of these long reports.  But the last thing I want to say is that this meeting was very significant to me in that it marks the end of my appointment to the SPCS committee.  By completing the end of my second term I am required by another one of those dern rules to step down and let someone else get to drive to Austin four times a year.  I anticipate that my replacement will be Dr. Robert Puckett, our newly hired extension urban entomologist in College Station.  I know he is excited about the chance to serve and will do a great job representing Texas A&M AgriLife.  My thanks to all the faithful committee members who have served this committee on their own dime over the years, and to the TDA/SPCS staff who take the time to listen.  It's been a pleasure.

Just for CEU providers

Pesticide re-certification classes, like the 2013 Fall IPM Seminar held at
the AgriLife Center in Dallas, serve over 15,000 urban pesticide
applicators each year in Texas.

The Texas Department of Agriculture is changing the way pesticide applicator training providers must operate.  The recently published Texas Pesticide Re-certification Course Accreditation Guide provides step by step instructions on how to put on a re-certification course, and get course approval.  It also outlines the new process of completing and submitting course rosters to verify attendance at the meeting.  

After studying the requirements, it looks to me like the new system is not a major change overall, but the reporting requirements will increase the administrative burden on some CEU course providers. My office puts on two large CEU training courses every year, with hundreds of participants; but I've concluded that the new system shouldn't affect our office's administrative time significantly.  This is because (1) we already have all participant names and license numbers in electronic format, and (2) the courses we provide consist of one big all-day meeting (without concurrent sessions).  But for some providers, substantially more time will be needed to document attendance and credits awarded.

Under the new rules, now in effect, TDA requires CEU providers to send an electronic roster of all participants in a CEU course within 14 days of course completion (previously we only had to supply copies of the sign in sheets filled out by participants). Presumably this system wasn't working well for TDA. Paper records are notoriously slow to access and deciphering hand written rosters could be a problem. To address the issue, TDA now has two electronic forms depending on the type of CEUs being rewarded: form PA-411E for agricultural licenses (including 3A licenses) and form PA-418E for structural pest control license holders.  

Under the new reporting system, if a person holding both a structural pesticide applicator's and an agricultural pesticide applicator's license wants to receive both kinds of CEUs for attending a meeting, that person's name must appear on both rosters.  Each roster must list all the appropriate CEU credits earned by those on the roster. 

So far, so good.  The only big difference between the current and former system is that attendance records must be submitted electronically.  For many providers this shouldn't be too difficult, as the names, addresses, and license numbers can be cut and pasted from an existing electronic roster and placed on the appropriate TDA roster(s).

Unfortunately, things get tricky when real life hits.  Suppose 100 people attend a training in which five CEUs are offered, and 2 people leave early, missing the last CEU.  You will now need to supply TDA with two rosters.  One roster will list the 98 people who sat through the whole training and received credit for five CEUs, and one roster will contain only the two early-departers.  The second roster will show that they only earned (the first) four CEUs for the day.  

Consider a parallel situation where 98 attend the full day's training and two people miss one CEU each--however one person comes in too late for the first CEU and the other leaves early, missing the last CEU. Now the course provider has to supply three forms: one with 98 names on it (showing they earned all five CEUs), one (showing the last four CEUs) for the late-arriver, and one for the early-departer (showing that he earned only the first four CEUs).  Conceivably this could get complicated with a large program and lots of people not staying for the whole program.   

Another tricky situation occurs when concurrent sessions are offered at a training.  Suppose you offer two concurrent sessions at your meeting.  For the first concurrent session people can choose between a talk on, say, (A) Lawn and Ornamentals or (B) Termite.  At the second concurrent session they choose between a talk on (C) IPM or one on (D) General Pest Control.  For this scenario the provider will need at least four rosters including one for people who attended each of the following combinations of talks: AD, AC, BD, and BC.  If there are three sessions, eight rosters will be required; for four concurrent sessions there will be 16 possible roster combinations.  Most providers will conclude that it is easier to just have a separate roster for each concurrent session.  It will also take a very patient administrative assistant to retype the name, address and license number of each session attender.

I strongly recommend all CEU providers maintain session sign-in sheets, or use some other paper means of documenting attendance at each session.  This will help tremendously in ensuring accuracy of the computer rosters, and will serve as a backup for the spreadsheets.  Remind all course attenders that they must have their license number if they want TDA to verify their attendance.  If you're a sponsor, you must keep course roster and attendance records for a minimum of two years (six years for private applicators). And lastly, remember that certificates of completion must still be supplied for all attenders as their proof of CEU completion.