――――――――――――――――――――
Prohibition Failure
COQUITLAM, City of ( British Columbia )
Reasons For Prohibition Failure In Coquitlam
Coquitlam’s municipal prohibition against conventional pest control products has become dismal failure.
Its prohibition by-law has been extremely biased & highly prejudicial.
Has allowed inconsistent & unfair exception statuses.
Has allowed an inconsistent & unfair exception statuses specifically for city-owned rose gardens.
Has allowed unnecessary exception statuses for forestry.
There should be NO #@!!% exception statuses whatsoever !
Coquitlam’s prohibition has encumbered tax-payers with stunningly exorbitant costs !
Prohibition costs $1,000,000 over a 10-year-period to maintain pesticide-free public green spaces.
Who can afford this #@!!% ban nonsense ?!?!
Coquitlam’s pesticide-hating elected officials are managing a failed prohibition because it is extremely biased, highly prejudicial, inconsistent, unfair, subversive, & stunningly expensive !
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
More Reasons For Municipal Prohibition Failures
√ — Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 2 Of 12
√ — Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 3 Of 12
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Coquitlam ?!?!
Coquitlam’s Prohibition Has Encumbered Tax-Payers With Stunningly Exorbitant Costs
On April 23rd, 2012, Coquitlam’s city council voted 7-2 in legislating and immediately imposing its newest ― and final version ― of the city’s reckless & arbitrary prohibition against conventional pest control products used in the urban landscape.
This fanatical & unnecessary life-style choice was imposed against city-owned green spaces ( as well as residential properties ), and the result has been catastrophic financial carnage !
The catastrophic cost of prohibition … $1,000,000 !
In Coquitlam, this is the catastrophic cost of fanatical-prohibition.
$1,000,000 over a 10-year-period to maintain pesticide-free city-owned green spaces !
$1,000,000 !
This is the catastrophic cost of prohibiting conventional pest control products in Coquitlam, despite the fact they are Health-Canada-approved, federally-legal, scientifically-safe, practically non-toxic, and will cause NO harm when they are used according to label directions.
$1,000,000 ?!?!
Really ?!?!
How can Coquitlam afford this #@!!% ban nonsense ?!?!
Because of this catastrophic financial carnage, prohibition has been a dismal failure for Coquitlam !
–
More On Coquitlam’s Stunningly Expensive Prohibition
–
$1,000,000 !
This is the catastrophic cost of prohibiting conventional pest control products in Coquitlam, despite the fact they are Health-Canada-approved, federally-legal, scientifically-safe, practically non-toxic, and will cause NO harm when they are used according to label directions.
The assessment proving that pest control products are scientifically-safe is a process that can take up to ten years.
The cost to manufacturers to register every pest control product from the lab to store shelves is about $250,000,000.
$250,000,000 to approve each product in Canada.
And $1,000,000 more to prohibit every product in Coquitlam.
How can tax-payers in Coquitlam afford this #@!!% ban nonsense ?!?!
Canada has one of the most stringent regulatory approval systems in the world.
Coquitlam has NO regulatory system whatsoever.
Within the Government of Canada, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) is responsible for registering pest control products only after a rigorous scientific evaluation shows NO harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure or use.
Health Canada has the essential expertise concerning the assessment of pest control products, and NOT Coquitlam.
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Coquitlam ?!?!
The Stunningly Exorbitant Costs Of Prohibition
Pesticides Are Scientifically Safe
√ — Coquitlam, BC — Carnage Leading To Stunningly Exorbitant Costs Because Of Anti-Pesticide Prohibition — Part 1 — BLOG
√ — Coquitlam, BC — Pesticide Ban Costs $1,000,000 Over 10 Years — REPORTS
√ — Coquitlam, BC — Pesticide Ban Costs $1,000,000 Over 10 Years — REFERENCE
√ — Coquitlam, BC — Ban Costs $1,000,000 Over 10 Years — REFERENCE
√ — Coquitlam, BC — Prohibition Is A Blow Against Freedom — REPORT
√ — Coquitlam, BC — References — WEB-PAGE
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/coquitlam-references-for-litigation/
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically Safe — Less Lethal To Humans Than Caffeine — BLOG
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically Safe — Children Are Not At Risk From Pesticides — Dangerous Playing Surfaces Are Created By #@!!% Pesticide Bans ! — Exploiting Children As Weapons Of Coercion — WEB-PAGE
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/children-are-not-at-risk/
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically Safe — Pesticides Are Evaluated As Acceptable For Continued Registration By Health Canada — BLOG
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically Safe — Real Trends AGAINST Pesticide Bans — Victories Against Terrorists — Our Children Are Safe When Pesticide Bans Are Stopped — BLOG WITH POSTERS
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Coquitlam ?!?!
Coquitlam’s Prohibition Has Allowed An Inconsistent & Unfair Exception Status For City-Owned Rose Gardens
On March 5th, 2012, Coquitlam’s councillors had the temerity to allow an EXCEPTION STATUS for the Centennial Rose Garden, a local tourist attraction and wedding venue that boasts 800 plants and 60 varieties of roses.
Coquitlam’s rose gardens represent the best example of the failure & the ridiculousness of anti-pesticide prohibition.
This EXCEPTION has been allowed for city-owned rose gardens, but has NOT been allowed for any residential properties.
In other words, if diseases or insects are killing roses on private property, residents are shжt-outta-luck !
Additionally, Coquitlam’s councillors have known full-well about the catastrophic carnage inflicted upon rose gardens, based upon reports from Windsor, Ontario, where reckless prohibition led to dead rose gardens everywhere, making Windsor’s green spaces look like garbage dumps.
The same fate would have awaited the Centennial Rose Garden without an EXCEPTION STATUS.
In other words, Coquitlam’s councillors have been allowing pest control applications WHEN IT ARBITRARILY SUITS THEM !
There should be NO #@!!% exception statuses whatsoever, even for city-owned rose gardens !
–
Windsor – City With Dead Roses
–
The city of Windsor has lost its status as « the City of Roses » ― Windsor has removed most of its ornamental rose plantings because it is unable to control damaging and fatal pests without the use of conventional pest control products.
Because of this catastrophic pest carnage against rose plantings, prohibition has been a dismal failure for Windsor !
The same fate would have awaited Coquitlam without its inconsistent & unfair EXCEPTION STATUSES specifically tailored for its city-owned rose gardens.
Coquitlam’s municipal officials are now circumventing their own prohibition by taking advantage of exception statuses that they have conveniently inserted in their by-laws !
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Coquitlam ?!?!
The City-Owned Rose Gardens
√ — Coquitlam, BC — By-Law 4254 To Regulate The Use Of Pesticides — OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
√ — Coquitlam, BC — Ban Affecting 21 Years Of Volunteer Work At Rose Garden — REFERENCE
√ — Coquitlam, BC — Friggin’ Rose Garden Should Die — LETTER TO THE EDITOR
√ — Background Information — Windsor, Ontario — City’s Roses Fewer In Number — REFERENCE
√ — Background Information — Windsor, Ontario — City Of Dandelions With NO Roses — REPORT
√ — Background Information — Windsor, Ontario — We’re Still The City Of Roses, Sort Of — REFERENCE
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Prohibition Failure
DELTA, City of ( British Columbia )
Reasons For Prohibition Failures In Delta
Delta’s municipal prohibition against conventional pest control products has become dismal failure.
Its prohibition by-law has been extremely biased & highly prejudicial.
Has allowed hundreds of inconsistent & unfair exception statuses.
Has allowed inconsistent & unfair exception statuses for pest infestations ( on city-owned properties only ?!?! ).
Has allowed inconsistent & unfair exception statuses based upon the vaguely-defined term « pest infestations ».
Has allowed inconsistent & unfair exception statuses for hard-landscapes on city-owned properties.
Has allowed unnecessary exception statuses for agriculture.
Has allowed unnecessary exception statuses for forestry.
There should be NO #@!!% exception statuses whatsoever !
Delta’s prohibition has inflicted exorbitant costs on a local lawn bowling club, $400,000, because of the installation of artificial ⁄ synthetic grass.
Who can afford this #@!!% ban nonsense ?!?!
Delta’s pesticide-hating elected officials are managing a failed prohibition because it is extremely biased, highly prejudicial, inconsistent, unfair, subversive, & stunningly expensive !
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
More Reasons For Municipal Prohibition Failures
√ — Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 2 Of 12
√ — Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 3 Of 12
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Delta ?!?!
Delta’s Prohibition Has Allowed An Inconsistent & Unfair Exception Status For Hard-Landscapes
On November 16th, 2009, district municipality of Delta legislated reckless & arbitrary prohibition against conventional pest control products used in the urban landscape.
Exactly one year later, on November 16th, 2010, this fanatical & unnecessary life-style choice was imposed against both residential properties & city-owned green spaces.
An EXCEPTION STATUS was provided to Delta’s city staff for …
… the use of a pesticide to prevent the deterioration of HARD-LANDSCAPES, such as asphalt, brick pavers, concrete, gravel, rocks, and treated wood.
This is inconsistent & unfair !
Delta’s councillors have been allowing pest control applications WHEN IT ARBITRARILY SUITS THEM !
Any EXCEPTION STATUS implies that … if it is safe for children and adults to walk and play on or near herbicide-treated public infra-structures, then it should also be safe for them to walk and play on herbicide-treated lawns.
In order to be consistent and fair, Delta must provide NO EXCEPTION STATUS whatsoever.
This type of EXCEPTION demonstrates Delta’s councillors’ arrogance & hypocrisy in providing an exception status for public infra-structures.
Delta’s provision for this EXCEPTION STATUS represents the best example of the failure & the ridiculousness of anti-pesticide prohibition.
There should be NO #@!!% exception statuses whatsoever !
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Delta ?!?!
Residents Are Still Shжt-Outta-Luck Since Delta’s Prohibition Has Allowed An Exception Status For Vaguely-Defined Infestations
–
–
In Delta, an EXCEPTION STATUS has been written into the prohibition’s by-law, which states …
… this by-law shall NOT APPLY in respect of the use of a pesticide to control [ A VAGUELY-DEFINED ] « INFESTATION ».
An EXCEPTION STATUS has been written into the prohibition’s by-law, which states …
… « INFESTATION » means the presence of pests in numbers or under conditions that involves an immediate risk of structural damage to property or significant financial loss in respect of the use of property.
Clearly, this EXCEPTION STATUS has been designed to allow the use of conventional insecticides on town-owned green spaces, like sports fields that are INFESTED with European Chafer Insects which must be controlled annually.
Furthermore, any pest INFESTATION on private property would be arbitrarily & politically defined in the harshest manner possible by Delta’s officials.
Unfortunately, residents are shжt-outta-luck with protecting their private property, because Delta’s pesticide-hating officials will NEVER agree to allow the annual application of conventional insecticides for the control of INFESTATIONS of invasive weeds & destructive insects !
Again, there should be NO #@!!% exception statuses whatsoever !
–
–
–
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Delta ?!?!
Delta’s Prohibition Has Cost A Lawn Bowling Club A Stunningly Exorbitant $400,000 Because Of The Installation Of Artificial ⁄ Synthetic Grass
In Delta, the Ladner Lawn Bowling Club DOES NOT benefit from an exception status.
Because of Delta’s fanatical-prohibition, Ladner Lawn Bowling Club, one of the oldest in British Columbia and established in 1917, has been forced to replace its natural turfgrass surface with an artificial/synthetic/plastic one.
Town of Ladner is a part of the municipality of Delta, British Columbia, and a suburb of Vancouver, with a population of less than 20,000.
In 2009, the city of Delta imposed a …
… by-law to regulate the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes.
But, unlike many other jurisdictions, the city of Delta did NOT provide an exception status for its local bowling club.
Consequently, Ladner Lawn Bowling Club, which owns its own property, started a four-year fund-raising program since it could no longer properly maintain its natural grass bowling surfaces.
At the Ladner Lawn Bowling Club, crews have prepared the surface for a new artificial bowling green, and the work was completed by early June 2012.
The work was started in early April 2012 to dig up the hallowed natural turfgrass and to begin preparing the site for the specially designed plastic carpet that is being imported from a British manufacturer.
The catastrophic cost … $400,000 !
The result has been catastrophic financial carnage ― stunningly exorbitant costs !
The decision for the conversion was made in 2010 when the 110 or so members voted two-thirds in favour of the artificial / synthetic grass.
According to the club president, anti-pesticide prohibition, plus the annual cost of maintaining the natural turfgrass — about $10,000 per year — helped tip the scales.
Unfortunately, it will cost Ladner Lawn Bowling Club a lot more than $10,000 per year to maintain its artificial / synthetic grass with practices such as disinfection using industrial-strength chemical products.
Who can afford this #@!!% ban nonsense ?!?!
–
Exorbitantly Expensive & Dangerous Artificial / Synthetic Grass
–
With anti-pesticide prohibition, it has become impossible to maintain a natural grass on areas like sports fields and lawn bowling greens.
Consequently, natural grass is being replaced by exorbitantly expensive and dangerous artificial / synthetic grass.
Unfortunately, the real risks of artificial / synthetic grass have been overlooked in the unscientific panic against conventional pest control products.
When it comes to these products, municipal officials, like those in Delta, can learn a lot from the experience of those who have handled these issues before.
if the goal is to reduce real and verifiable risks, promote a more natural environment, and encourage healthy activities ― prohibiting pest control products seems a strange way to go about it when switching to artificial / synthetic grass.
There are catastrophic financial costs and real health risks when using artificial / synthetic grass.
Here are examples ―
• Exorbitant costs of installation
• Heat effects leading to health risk since surface temperatures are much higher
• Higher costs not considered for grooming, brooming, and repairs
• Higher incidences of non-contact injuries
• Increased abrasions that lead to infections
• Potential environmental clean-up costs
• Repeated disposal in landfills
• Toxic chemical and toxin exposures on fields, and the risks to children
• Toxic chemicals and toxins disbursed from field, such as zinc and other compounds, that can potentially run-off at levels that are above ground-water standards.
Artificial / synthetic grass is exorbitantly expensive and even dangerous !
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Delta ?!?!
√ — Delta, BC — Carnage Leading To Stunningly Exorbitant Costs Because Of Anti-Pesticide Prohibition — Part 1 — BLOG
√ — Delta, BC — Pesticide Ban Costs Lawn Bowling Club $400,000 — REPORTS
√ — Delta, BC — Pesticide Ban Costs Lawn Bowling Club $400,000 — REFERENCE
√ — Delta, BC — By-Law 6788 To Regulate The Use Of Pesticides For Cosmetic Purposes — OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
√ — Background Information — Artificial / Synthetic Grass — Exorbitantly Expensive & Dangerous — BLOG
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Prohibition Failure
FERNIE, City of ( British Columbia )
Reasons For Prohibition Failures In Fernie
Fernie’s municipal prohibition against conventional pest control products has become dismal failure.
Its prohibition by-law has been extremely biased & highly prejudicial.
Fernie has imposed prohibition by prominently adopting the false-pretext, as well as the false-principles, that residents & the environment are somehow being protected.
Has been prominently validated by elected officials with the discredited Precautionary Principle.
Has also been prominently validated by elected officials with the false-pretext that green alternative pesticides can somehow replace conventional pest control products.
–
Fernie’s by-law represents one of the best examples of a prohibition driven by agenda, ideology, propaganda, & false-facts, and NOT based on scientific evidence.
–
Municipal officials have ignored the fact that conventional pest control products are scientifically-safe, and, when used properly, will NOT cause harm to children, people, animals, or the environment.
–
Additionally, Fernie has allowed dozens of inconsistent & unfair exception statuses.
–
Has allowed an exception status for cases where green alternative pesticides are NOT available for city-owned green spaces.
Has allowed unnecessary exception statuses for agriculture.
Has allowed unnecessary exception statuses for forestry.
There should be NO #@!!% exception statuses whatsoever !
Fernie’s pesticide-hating elected officials are managing a failed prohibition because it is based upon false-pretext and false-principles.
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
More Reasons For Municipal Prohibition Failures
√ — Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 2 Of 12
√ — Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 3 Of 12
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Fernie ?!?!
Fernie’s Prohibition Is Based Upon False-Pretext As Well As False-Principles
On March 22nd, 2010, city of Fernie legislated its reckless & arbitrary prohibition against conventional pest control products used in the urban landscape, since city councillors deemed …
… it expedient to provide for regulating the use of pesticides for [ ARBITRARILY ] NON-ESSENTIAL PURPOSES. [ ?!?! ]
Beginning January 1st, 2011, this fanatical & unnecessary life-style choice was imposed against both residential properties & city-owned green spaces.
Prohibition was validated by city councillors under the FALSE-PRETEXT that …
… the residents of the City of Fernie are concerned about the NON-ESSENTIAL USE PESTICIDES and THE RISK THAT PESTICIDES MAY POSE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. [ ?!?! ]
Fernie’s fanatical-prohibition was also based upon several FALSE PRINCIPLES, such as …
… the application of pesticides contributes to the cumulative chemical load ABSORBED BY THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. [ WRONG ! ]
… PESTICIDES cannot be necessarily confined to a single location but MOVE THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENT in the air, land and water and may have an impact on non-target organisms and plants. [ WRONG ! ]
… ALTERNATIVES to the application of pesticides exist. [ WRONG ! ]
… the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE supports local governments anticipating and preventing threats of harm to the environment, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. [ WRONG ! ]
Fernie’s fanatical-prohibition was / is needless, senseless, malicious, and unnecessary.
Its prohibition has been 100 per cent politically-based and 0 per cent science-based.
The basis for prohibition in Fernie has been confusing & inconsistent, and conflicts with national regulatory agencies around the world, that are relied upon for health and safety assessments.
Overall, the risk assessment of conventional pest control products indicates that they are scientifically-safe, and, when used properly, will NOT cause harm to children, people, animals, or the environment.
Prohibition was ⁄ is NOT necessary !
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Fernie ?!?!
By-Law Based Upon False-Pretext & False-Principles
√ — Fernie, BC — Pesticide Use Control By-Law No 2093 — OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
√ — Fernie, BC — By-Law 2093 To Regulate The Use Of Pesticides For Non-Essential Purposes — OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically-Safe — Less Lethal To Humans Than Caffeine — BLOG
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically-Safe — Children Are Not At Risk From Pesticides — Dangerous Playing Surfaces Are Created By #@!!% Pesticide Bans ! — Exploiting Children As Weapons Of Coercion — WEB-PAGE
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/children-are-not-at-risk/
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically-Safe — Pesticides Are Evaluated As Acceptable For Continued Registration By Health Canada — BLOG
√ — Background Information — Pesticides Are Scientifically-Safe — Real Trends AGAINST Pesticide Bans — Our Children Are Safe When Pesticide Bans Are Stopped — BLOG WITH POSTERS
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Fernie ?!?!
Fernie’s Prohibition Falsely-Assumes That Safe & Effective Green Alternatives Exist
In Fernie, an EXCEPTION STATUS in the prohibition by-law has allowed Fernie’s city councillors to …
… grant an EXEMPTION … where the need for the use of the pesticide is urgent and NO EFFECTIVE NON-PESTICIDE ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE.
There are NO green alternative pesticides that work !
Residents & municipal employees are shжt-outta-luck with protecting their private property, because Fernie’s pesticide-hating city councillors will NEVER acknowledge that there are NO viable, NO efficacious, NO economical, and NO low-risk alternatives to replace conventional pest control products. !
Fernie’s councillors will NEVER admit that green alternative pesticides are BOGUS AND DISMAL FAILURES ― they DO NOT WORK !
It is impossible for residents & municipal employees to protect their properties by using so-called green alternative pesticides.
By definition, ALTERNATIVES ARE BOGUS & INFERIOR, which is why they DID NOT win the market-place originally.
Overall, green alternative pesticides are ineffective, inadequate, inferior, high-risk, more toxic, and stunningly expensive !
In many cases, green alternative pesticides are questionably higher in toxicity, and pose higher environmental risks.
Green alternative pesticides, and even organic fertilizers, often contain living pathogenic organisms, fermented materials, or metals that may be deemed unsafe for children, adults, and the environment.
Conventional pest control products are absolutely necessary.
Fortunately, conventional pest control products are safe, effective, economical, and low-risk.
#@!!% green alternative pesticides DO NOT work !
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Fernie ?!?!
By-Law Based Upon Bogus & Inferior Green Alternatives
√ — Background Information — Green Alternatives — The Myths About Anti-Pesticide Prohibition ( Long Version ) — WEB-PAGE
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/myth-busting-prohibition/
√ — Background Information — Green Alternatives … Bogus & Dismal Failures — WEB-PAGE
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/green-alternatives-bogus-dismal-failures/
√ — Background Information — Green Alternatives — What Is Green Chemistry ?!?! — By Definition, Alternatives Are Inferior — REPORT
√ — Background Information — Green Alternatives — Salmon Arm, BC — Other Methods Tried Unsuccessfully — Green Alternative Failures — REPORT
――――――――――――――――――――
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Fernie ?!?!
Fernie’s Prohibition Relies Upon The Discredited & Worthless Precautionary Principle
Better safe than sorry in Fernie ?!?!
Really ?!?!
The so-called precautionary principle is also known as the DO-NOTHING PRINCIPLE.
Those that do nothing need not worry about ever taking a risk or ever making a mistake.
The precautionary principle was intended for use where science DOES NOT EXIST.
Unfortunately, the precautionary principle is MIS-USED TO SERVE THE AMBITIONS of Fernie’s city councillors.
With the precautionary principle, activist-councillors DO NOT HAVE TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE … they just have to ALLEGE that pest control products are somehow harmful.
In fact, overall, the risk assessment of conventional pest control products indicates that they are scientifically-safe, and, when used properly, will NOT cause harm to children, people, animals, or the environment.
The #@!!% Precautionary Principle has been discredited !
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
Why Is Prohibition Failing In Fernie ?!?!
By-Law Based Upon Discredited Precautionary Principle
√ — Background Information — Precautionary Principle — Invalidated Weapon Of Coercion — WEB-PAGE
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/precautionary-principle/
√ — Background Information — Precautionary Principle — Conflation Of Advocacy With Science — Dr Geoffrey C Kabat — REPORTS
√ — Background Information — Precautionary Principle — Science Should Dictate Policies — Mr Pierre Petelle — REPORTS
√ — Background Information — Precautionary Principle — Dr Keith R Solomon — REPORT
√ — Background Information — Precautionary Principle — Different Versions — REPORT
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore The Links Below
For More Truths About Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia, Please Explore The Following Links …
Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 1 Of 12 – Overview – 2017 01 19
Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 2 Of 12 – Reasons For Failures – Thousands Of Exception Statuses – False-Facts – 2017 01 31
Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 3 Of 12 – Reasons For Failures – Catastrophic Carnage – False-Facts – 2017 02 09
Municipal Prohibition Failures In British Columbia – Part 4 Of 12 – Burnaby – Campbell River – Coldstream – 2017 02 10
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
WE SPEAK THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT PROHIBITION FAILURES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, FROM AN INDEPENDENT PERSPECTIVE !
We are the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that conspire to destroy the Green space and other industries ( NORAHG ). As a non-profit and independent organization, we are environmentalists who are dedicated to reporting about Truth-Challenged Pesticide-Hating Fanatics who conspire to destroy businesses that are dependent on their use of conventional pest control products. We also report on the work of Respected and Highly-Rated Experts who promote Environmental Realism and Pesticide Truths. http://wp.me/p1jq40-8DV
NORAHG is the sworn enemy of lying, pompous, smug, uneducated, and pesticide-hating enviro-fanatics. Overwhelming scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that pest control products are scientifically-safe, and will not cause harm to children, adults, animals, or the environment. http://wp.me/p1jq40-7HR http://wp.me/P1jq40-2ha http://wp.me/p1jq40-6Q6 http://wp.me/p1jq40-5ni
Enviro-fanatics have shown that they are incapable of processing overwhelming scientific evidence. Do you want to trust these fanatics, who conveniently ignore scientific evidence, and attempt to impose their twisted life-style choices against our society ?!?!
NORAHG was the brainchild of Mr William H Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991. Mr Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder. We Dare To Defy The Pesticide-Hating Fanatics By Exploring The Whole Truth From An Independent Perspective On The Pesticide Truths Web-Site … https://pesticidetruths.com/
Read about the PROHIBITION FAILURES concerning the following municipalities – Burnaby, Campbell River, Coldstream, Coquitlam, Delta, Fernie, Gibsons, Golden, Kamloops, Kelowna, Langley, Maple Ridge, Nanaimo, Nelson, North Vancouver, Oak Bay, Parksville, Port Alberni, Port Moody, Revelstoke, Richmond, Saanich, Salmon Arm, Sechelt, Surrey, Vancouver, and Victoria.
If you wish to receive free reports on issues that concern you, please contact us at … force.of.de.nature@gmail.com
WILLIAM H GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
