I've been duped.
After all these years, I thought those hundreds of golf course superintendents I've come to know were part of a proactive industry looking for ways to reduce water consumption, pesticide use and the overall environmental footprint left by their respective course. Turns out, I've been wrong all this time.
All those pesticide programs, those acres of native plantings, that history of leading the way in developing BMPs that other industries have adopted for their own use. It's all been a ruse.
At least that is the conclusion I reached after reading Why the Decline of Golf is Good News for the Environment, which appeared Oct. 12 on a pseudo-scientific Web site called Decoded Science. According to this story, the declining interest in golf ultimately should be good for the environment because superintendents still are wanton polluters, not stewards, of the environment.
I knew superintendents were a clever bunch, but to maintain golf courses so irresponsibly and disguise it as environmental stewardship? I have to hand it to you; that was brilliant.
Tongue, meet cheek.
I hesitate to draw attention to the above-mentioned story, but it is so filled with unsubstantiated claims and errors of fact, and even leans on the anti-golf sentiment of a late stand-up comic to make a point, that it deserves to be called out for what it is - drivel.
After reading this story, it's time for me to throw down the gauntlet. And you should too.
The story takes issue with several common turf maintenance practices to reach the conclusion that "since the goal of golf course maintenance is to have a pristine stretch of grass that more closely resembles Astroturf than anything from nature, best ecological practices are not necessarily a priority."Golf courses keep the grass short, well-manicured and free of any living organisms by spraying generous amounts of herbicides, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and mowing frequently."
Specifically, this story calls out the use of pesticides, practices that it says promote runoff and erosion, and mowing frequency as being bad for the environment.
In targeting pesticide use, the story fails to cite specific data other than to say "golf courses are historically known for their overuse of herbicides and pesticides," that is except for a tourism study from Georgia Southern University.
It does mention that the GCSAA has partnered with others to reduce pesticide use, but then discounts any industry efforts by citing a passage from Beyond Pesticides, a not-for-profit entity whose mission is an eventual pesticide-free world, that says the industry isn't doing enough to eliminate (not reduce, but eliminate) its reliance on pesticides.
Golf courses also promote erosion because, and I'll be you didn't know this, "golf course maintenance commonly involves deforestation and clearing native species of vegetation, which in turn causes gullying and soil erosion, leading to sediment runoff into nearby bodies of water."
Runoff from golf courses, the story says, also "provides excess nutrients to bodies of water that can cause out of control downstream algae blooms." It references iron-clad proof, like last summer's bloom in Lake Erie that contaminated potable water for more than 400,000 people. You might remember that story, it's the one in which scientists placed blame squarely upon runoff from agricultural land surrounding the lake.
According to this story, "another problem not addressed is excessive mowing. ... a typical golf course mows every day and recommends frequent mowing to improve turf quality. Since golf courses tend to use riding mowers fueled by gas, this translates into a lot of fuel burnt to cover massive amounts of land - repeated on a daily basis."
The story even goes so far as to say, as per the late George Carlin, that a better use for golf course acreage would be to build low-cost housing for the homeless.
I don't even know what say about that.
Forget all the strides superintendents, equipment manufacturers and chemical companies have made in the past several decades. Forget the facts. Forget the scientific research to the contrary. Forget that superintendents are educated professionals who know more about pesticide use than graduates of the atmospheric and oceanic sciences department at the University of Wisconsin. Forget that the majority of products used on golf courses, according to the USGA, have sister products also used in agricultural food production. And it's not just the USGA talking. It cites study after study from Iowa State University, University of Nebraska, University of Georgia, Michigan State University and the University of Massachusetts when making its claims. Forget all that, because apparently none of it is enough to satisfy the scientists at Decoded Science, and it has data from a tourism study out of Georgia Southern University to prove it.
These types of stories occur too often, go unquestioned, facts go unchecked and people believe them. And that makes it more difficult to communicate the real truth about the state of the golf industry.I, for one, am tired of reading opinion-based nonsense like this from those who don't know the difference between a niblick and a mashie passed off as real journalism. As a member of the profession being attacked, you should be weary of it too.
To quote Howard Beale from the 1976 Hollywood film Network:
And neither should you, so get up from your chair ... .