It
is no secret that there are multiple issues currently affecting the perception
and viability of the game we love. Issues dealing with slow play, dwindling
participation, and the increase in cost to maintain and operate facilities are
some of the more pressing ones. Another issue, or narrative, that is growing in
momentum is the idea that golf courses, more specifically golf course
superintendents, are bad for the environment. Movements to chastise and
dramatically curtail the tools superintendents have at their disposal are
growing in momentum.
On
the surface this is a very easy argument to make. By nature, maintaining turfgrass
at unnatural heights and under intense pressure from play requires the use of
inputs. Be it water, fertilizers, control products, etc…, a superintendent must
supplement the needs of the plant. In this vein, I suppose we are adding
something to the environment that might not otherwise be there. I can’t argue
that fact. Where this narrative jumps off the tracks is when it suggests that
these inputs are applied in excess and with no regard to their effects on the
environment. This opinion, which is more widespread than we want to believe, is
born from a simple lack of knowledge. Can I sit here and say with certainty
that EVERY superintendent manages their inputs with 100% efficiency? Or that
EVERY superintendent’s top priority is to mitigate their properties impact on
the environment? No, I cannot. What I can tell you with certainty is that all
GOOD superintendents genuinely take their impact on the environment into
account in anything they do. In this regard, there are significantly more GOOD superintendents
than there are bad and the bad are being weeded out faster than ever.
By
nature, all GOOD superintendents value the environment as much or more than
anyone. Our viability and successes hinge on healthy ecosystems and the processes
that ensure environmental sustainability. Do you believe an abundant source of
clean water is not a valuable resource to a superintendent? How about a soil
system that is healthy and teaming with the microorganisms necessary for the
conversion of nitrogen? An unhealthy, out of balance ecosystem is a death
sentence for a GOOD superintendent.
In
addition, I have yet to visit a property that has the resources to apply inputs
at excessive levels. All superintendents run a cost center and usually operate
within a budget that allows for very little waste. This alone prevents the
irresponsible use of inputs.
This
topic is approaching the forefront of our industries challenges. Stats and data
can be created to defend both sides of the argument. This is a complex issue
that warrants open and thoughtful conversation and this article is not the
forum for this debate. I simply wanted to plant the seed that starts to dispel
the notion that superintendents are wanton offenders of the environment. I, along
with many of my industry colleagues, am passionate about our care for the
environment and strive daily to not compromise in my stewardship of it.
