We Must Change the Perception

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.