As nematologists we should ask ourselves how has nematode management changed or improved over the past 50 years. During this period we have lost over 12 key chemicals used as nematicides, some of which were highly efficacious. And in the meanwhile practically none have been added to our chemical control guides. This is problematic as we move into the future. For example, high value vegetable crops were highly dependent on methyl bromide for the past 40+ years. This product, whether used singly or in formulations mixed with chloropicrin, was highly efficacious against weeds, soilborne fungal diseases, and plant-parasitic nematodes. Now that the product is in very short supply, expensive, and allocated on the basis of critical use exemptions vegetable growers must begin to turn to other tactics. In 1994 scientist set a goal of developing a highly efficacious, reliable, and cost effective alternatives to methyl bromide but little success has been attained. The task was made difficult because of the lack of highly efficacious products, environmental constrains, worker protection issues, and newly imposed regulations that impact the use of soil fumigants. As a consequence we are moving toward a period when growers will be forced to choose less efficacious chemical products, if such products receive Federal registration, or choose other nematode management tactics. There has been only limited success with development of crop plants with resistance to plant-parasitic nematodes. Although promising, biological control has not yet made an impact on nematode management. Crop rotation, which has been listed as a control tactic for many years, remains one of the better choices for growers. Other tactics, e.g., solarization, organic amendments, and fallowing-flooding, etc have limited use. The pros and cons of each of these possible plant- parasitic nematode management tactics will be discussed.