Nobody wants to spray chemicls. Treatments are expensive, time consuming, messy, and unpleasant, and if not done correctly they are possibly dangerous for people, the environment, and even the desirable turf species. The bitter ruth is that the average supeintendent today cannot meet players' expectations with organics alone.
My concern is that because there may be a very few courses trying to go strictly organic, and maybe having some success, the general public will interpret that to mean that the other 99.9% of the courses relying on conventional maintenance do so out of ignorance or apathy.
Jon, what are you talking about when you say, "native grasses"? What are the native grasses in Switzerland? Can Poa annua be a native grass?
Anthony, my point about buying sod is that if the organically managed golf courses are losing turf because they don't use pesticides, (such an evil-sounding word, can I say "plant protectants" instead?), but if they can't hold their turf organically, and they are buying sod from an outside producer that does use synthetic fertilizers and plant protectants, then the golf course isn't really helping the environment, are they? They are simply shifting the chemical use to another site.
You can't say all chemicals are bad. They do not all have a negative impact on the environment, but there are some truly pernicious ones. For example, and for what it's worth, I have long argued against the use of methyl bromide soil sterilant on golf courses or anywhere else due to its harmful effect on the ozone layer. My words have fallen mostly on deaf ears in the GCSAA and even with some folks on this site.