Maintenance: American versus Scottish approach?

[Jon Wiggett]

Ryan,


I was shocked that someone thought it was okay in todays environment to think golf could ignore what all other sectors are having to cope with. If you think it is tough for golf then I suggest you look at the farming sector and the changes they are dealing with now and facing in the future. What golf is having to deal with is basically as a result of greater moves across the whole of industry and Europe.


I was also shocked that someone such as yourself with a good grasp of the situation has chosen to stick his head in the sand in a tirade of negative 'the world is ending' comments. How do combat worms on a clay based course without chemicals is straightforward. Keep you surfaces dry through plenty of sunlight and air circulation combined with top dressing and sweeping the casts from the green each morning should help to reduce the nuisance down to an acceptable level. I do not however want to get rid of worms as they are a vital part of a healthy soil.


Laylandii are very poor for bio diversity. If you want to discuss about how to improve clay based courses I am happy to do so but I would start by saying very few have suitable drainage which should be at least 4 foot deep though preferably deeper. If this is not addressed then everything else is not worth doing.


Jon


p.s. Luddite was not an insult as it was not used as tag for you but rather to describe the attitude/approach you seemed to be taking in refusing to accept progress was happening. Whether it is good or bad can be discussed but that it is happening is not a point for debate.

[Ryan Coles]

Jon


I’m aware what it’s a result of. Meddling politicians and beurocrats who frankly have bigger issues at hand they should be focussing on.


Golf was reducing inputs of his own accord. Market driven, cost reductions that were moving our courses on the right path and showing benefits in producing the conditions and more desirable grasses we all want. Very similar to what is happening at Duncan’s place. However if his fairways become infested with grubs, the Club’s hands should not be tied completely.


I don’t get the shock that I and others don’t buy into the overly restrictive, over zealous dogma coming out of the EU.



Progress? For whom? And to what?


Golf courses have always had and made allowances for worms and their casts. In some cases and on some sites, suppressants were needed from time to time.


https://strigroup.com/leatherjacket-chafer-threat-fine-turf/


What is your solution to the issues in the article?


Costs go up, not down. Expensive trials, nematodes etc etc.


No, not the end of the world, but nor is it ‘progress’ when fairways and greens are infested and surfaces are ripped to peices. Costly, labour intensive repairs that are futile as more of the same the following day.


Big deal, get over it you’ll say. Bigger issues than golf course maintenance. I’d counter and say yes, I agree, why are legislators spending time on this when health, housing, border control justice are in disarray?


I’d rather argue for all the good that golf does, be that social, environmental or health wise and I trust the custodians of the sport to do the right thing far more than I do the EU.

[Niall C]

Having declared previously my lack of qualifications to really get involved in this discussion, let me say as a layman (and ignoring the argy bargy from both sides) that this is a worthwhile discussion that I for one am enjoying.

While Adam/Jon/Duncan are undoubtedly right that it is very hard to buck the trend in terms of the way legislation is going, I think Ryan makes a good point that “golf” should be stating it’s case and perhaps if not dictating the general direction of travel, at least trying to have influence on specifics and perhaps getting the legislation tailored towards golf. With the UK supposedly coming out of Europe, there must be a better chance of doing that than there has been for a while I’d have thought.

Unlike other countries in Europe, golf in this country is not the elitist sport that some suggest and other than perhaps in the minds of Momentum/Jeremy Corbyn and readers of the Socialist Worker I don’t think that perception of it being elitist exists either. The game provides a sociable and healthy activity enjoyed by folks in all walks of life and is one the country’s biggest sports by participation. Unlike other sports fields, a golf course also provides valuable habitat and green space, often in otherwise developed areas. As the managers of that space we should have a voice.

Niall   

[Niall C]

Ryan

When it comes to tree removal there is of course a middle ground between complete wipe-out and continuous tree lined fairways, but I tend to think for the vast majority of Scottish courses I play they could do with losing a good number of trees and not just for agronomy reasons. And neither do you need to necessarily take away the felled timber as that could act as a valuable habitat for bug/insect life which in turn benefits birds.

Niall

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan

When it comes to tree removal there is of course a middle ground between complete wipe-out and continuous tree lined fairways, but I tend to think for the vast majority of Scottish courses I play they could do with losing a good number of trees and not just for agronomy reasons. And neither do you need to necessarily take away the felled timber as that could act as a valuable habitat for bug/insect life which in turn benefits birds.

Niall

Niall


I only highlight trees to make the point that those advocating no pesticides and  insecticides, lose their concern for insects and pests when it comes to the removal of trees.


For the record, I believe strongly in tree removal for all the reasons cited. I too rarely see a course that wouldn’t benefit from it.


I believe in golf courses right to remove them to help turf, same as I think it sensible that they should have some chemical suppressants at their disposal.


The real harmful stuff such as mercury etc was removed years ago. I’m not convinced in a golfing sense today’s products are particularly harmful or excessive.


It could be argued, as it has in this thread,  that it’s overspill from legislation at tackling agricultural production. I’d counter and say the market and supply chain ie retailers and customers do a good enough job of weeding out (pardon the pun) most harmful agricultural practices.

[Dave McCollum]

Some great discussion here.  I wish all our golfers would read and understand what is being said.  Reality is they won't and can't.   That would require effort and thought.  Far easier to rely on clichés and ignorant expectations gathered from one's golf buddies over a few beers.  I loved Joe H's 6 iron story, but, no offence Joe, I'm not sure that is a very effective way of educating golfers.  Never mind being able to pull that shot off with my game these days.  I've played golf for 25 years with all kinds of golfers.  Some of the same guys for all those years.  They've seen me hit hundreds of shots like that and take their money.  Yet, these same guys still pull out their sand wedges and hit the wrong shot. 

Maybe I should wise up like Joe and be able to say I used to own a golf course.

I don't have much to add to this thread that hasn't already been said.  Our maintenance meld can best described as an attempt to provide the most pleasure to the greatest number of golfers.  This includes more than our fair share of chlorophyll addicts.  Enough said, I have a business to run.   

[Lou_Duran]

I only highlight trees to make the point that those advocating no pesticides and  insecticides, lose their concern for insects and pests when it comes to the removal of trees.

For the record, I believe strongly in tree removal for all the reasons cited. I too rarely see a course that wouldn’t benefit from it.

I believe in golf courses right to remove them to help turf, same as I think it sensible that they should have some chemical suppressants at their disposal.

The real harmful stuff such as mercury etc was removed years ago. I’m not convinced in a golfing sense today’s products are particularly harmful or excessive.

It could be argued, as it has in this thread,  that it’s overspill from legislation at tackling agricultural production. I’d counter and say the market and supply chain ie retailers and customers do a good enough job of weeding out (pardon the pun) most harmful agricultural practices.

RE: your last paragraph, in the U.S. at least, in addition to numerous government bureaucracies "helping" the industry in "weeding out" bad products and practices, we graduate each year double the number of lawyers than legal jobs available.  These good folks are more than happy to put their not-so-green (except in a monetary sense) thumb on the scale to provide further assistance.  Some of them have become fabulously wealthy and, in turn, plow considerable sums of their windfalls back into the political process to train their successors, get new laws passed to further their endeavors, appoint and elect sympathetic judges, and otherwise make it difficult if not impossible for people with the knowledge and experience to ply their trade.

Rather than pushing for a political ban of synthetic chemicals, I would be much more impressed if those who support all organic/natural regimes brought the golfing public around by the achievements of their efforts.  In other words, instead of limiting the options of their competitors, win the argument by providing playing conditions that golfers are willing to support.  I've yet to see a course which has remained "chemical free" that has been able to produce playing conditions to support the green fees (and revenues) they desire/need.

RE: Consistency, like most things, trees are good and bad, DEPENDING on the type, location, and objectives of the stakeholders.  If I am playing a parkland course, I enjoy the large specimen trees away from the lines of play,  occasionally influencing strategy, and providing the opportunity for an exciting recovery shot.  On a links, not so much, but for the rare, gnarly few on the periphery.  Not big on gorse anywhere close to the lines of play or thick heather that creates lost balls and hand/elbow injuries.

Dave McCollum- my sympathies that you actually have to provide a product that paying customers are willing to pull off the shelves.  Wouldn't life be much easier if they would be happy to fork over their money and take whatever you served them?   Perhaps you should look for a course in the Netherlands where zero inputs is the trend and it is a "Win-Win" for golf and the environment.        

[Dave McCollum]

Lou--

I actually like where I live and my customers who are also my friends.  Most of them don't care about the things we discuss on this website.  I do listen to their views about course conditions.  It's my job and business.  I bring up some of the thoughts expressed in this thread when appropriate.  I will say that means that most of the time I just listen and keep my mouth shut.  Many want green grass with no brown spots and we give it to them when we can.  In other seasons we give them dormant brown grass and firm conditions (my personal favorite) because that is what natural forces give us and not something we control.

This thread has a political dimension, so allow me to make a political analogy.  Golfers views about golf and what golf courses should look like are often as deeply felt and believed as what they think about politics, government, taxes, morality, sexual preferences, whatever.  No amount of discussion, no matter how logical and informed, will change their views.  I accept that, listen to what they say, and try to balance our maintenance meld to enhance their pleasure with many others views of other golfers, including me, as well as we can to make golf enjoyable to the most people we can.  What I personally think or like is a minute part of the overall mix.

To extend the political analogy, I've read some of your views about politics and your approach to some environmental issues, opinions you have posted in this discussion group.  If we had the chance to talk, I don't think we would agree about much politically, with the exception of environmental issues.  On that subject we'd probably find ourselves preaching to the choir.  I'm also fairly certain that if we dumped those subjects and talked about golf, we'd have a good, lively, and enjoyable discussion.  I don't know you and none of this matters much in the overall scheme of things.  It's what we enjoy doing.  And not unlike almost all discussions among golfers about golf and other things they enjoy.   

If I learn something useful, I'll use it.  If our customers tell us what they like, we'll probably try to give it to them.  Not always possible, but we'll listen and respectfully explain why not.                       

[Joe Hancock]

Dave,


Concerning my 6 iron story, the take-home message wasn’t the teaching, but having the opportunity to teach. Too many folks in the business are too busy doing their job to avail themselves to their customer base, and unltimately making it someone elses’ job to teach....like (Insert favorite golf association/ organization here).

[Lou_Duran]

Wow, Dave, your reply brings to mind the current mortgage commercial with Ricky Fowler.  I didn't mean anything personal or political in my comments to you- only alluding to that in running your (any) business providing  what  the customers want is key.

I have no idea what your political orientations are, and I suspect that your speculation about mine is at best incomplete.  I agree with you that most people's closely held beliefs in the areas you mention are well-guarded and, in most cases, impervious to change.  Is the conclusion then not to approach sensitive subjects?  Is it preferable to spend our time and energies discussing in great detail the top X courses that we haven't played?

It is impossible to separate economics from golf, and politics from economics.  Dr. MacKenzie would not be as popular on this site if we discussed his views on politics and economics.  He recognized that golf is very resources intensive and the more obstacles put in its way, the faster its decline.  It is inescapable that golf can only thrive in a society that creates wealth and disposable income.  As we know, he died penniless when our country was mired in the Great Depression and there was no work or money to pay for what he had already done.

The thrust of this thread is about constraining and forcing people to a vision of golf which, in my opinion, is illiberal and destined to fail.  I like to think that we can live in a world where the guy who prefers the raw experience of a late 19th Century links can co-exist with a fellow golfer who opts for a limousine ride to Shadow Creek.   Like with golf, I prefer variety and options.

BTW, I cut my teeth with a very successful consumer products company.  Its strength was that it always had the pulse of its customers, and, in most cases, responded accordingly.  Later, I was involved in real estate for many years with some forays into golf development and property management.  For reasons I can't explain, the golf industry seems to be removed from its customers if not in lip service, certainly on an operating basis.  That would be a discussion I like to have with you should we ever cross paths.       

[Dave McCollum]

No worries, Lou.  I thought you were telling me to haul my tree-hugging liberal ass to Holland (pun intended).  If you were, you got the wrong cowboy, partner.  Our customers are working class, gun toting, conservatives who live in a county that hasn't elected a democrat in recorded history.  One drives a pickup with his company name on the side:  Forever Green.  He makes custom ammo.  On volunteer cleanup day, they bring their chainsaws.  I buy the Roundup and provide the sprayers.  After the morning work, I feed them lunch, have free beer, and then we all go play some golf.  It's a wonder how much gets whacked and hauled off when many hands get after it.  They ain't been to Scotland and know doodly squat about links golf.           

   

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou


I think you are mistaken. The government isn't forcing a certain style or type of golf. It is enforcing a certain level of environmental safety.


Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

No worries, Lou.  I thought you were telling me to haul my tree-hugging liberal ass to Holland (pun intended).  If you were, you got the wrong cowboy, partner. 

Nah, I was just being sarcastic by alluding to a gentleman's comment on this thread that heavy regulation of chemicals is good for both, the environment and golf (a "Win-Win" situation).  Perhaps European golf operators will accept this level of micro management without a fight- I suppose if most inputs are banned, those with tighter budgets might find it easier to compete, but if more labor is necessary to provide acceptable playing conditions as Mr. Coles suggests, it could actually backfire.

Sean,

In many parts of the world golf is an afterthought.  In some, it is tolerated on the margins but largely seen in a bad light.  So, I never suggested that government is forcing a certain type of golf.  I am saying that banning a lot of stuff often times has little to do with enhancing safety and ends up increasing costs while retarding economic activity.  Golf nor the environment thrive in countries with long histories of poor economies.   And how is the golf industry faring in the EU?           

[Thomas Dai]

As an aside, elements within some of the UK’s current European partner countries have a reputation, perhaps unfounded, perhaps not, for simply ignoring rules and regulations that they don’t much like. I wonder how golf courses and suppliers in such places will operate in future?
Atb

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

Maybe you are right.  Perhaps the banned chemicals aren't bad for the environment.  Maybe a bunch of pencil pushers are getting it wrong.  It would be interesting if someone could present evidence of such because my instinct says the named chemicals aren't good for the environment.  Regardless, in theory, I am pro less inputs for golf.  Not because I don't care about the clubs this approach effects the most, but because I firmly believe the golf industry has to start builidng a reputation as a steward of the environment and golf as a healthy activity.  Harder times are coming in terms of regulation and resource availability.  Golf as an industry is going to need to spend some political credit when these times hit.  As you rightly point out, golf is largely seen in a bad light...partly because of perceived and/or real reluctance to get on board with minimum inputs.  Everytime a golf rep gets quoted as saying negative stuff about chemical regulation its another nail in the industry's reputation which will need to be removed at a later date.

I don't have a clue how well golf is doing in the EU, but thats part of my point.  Golf is a dog eat dog world without real leadership.  The industry is a drop in the bucket in terms of the big picture of regulation and resources, but its rep is far larger because golf as an industry does so little, or at least does not make it well known what it does as a steward for the environment and as a healthy activity. 

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Sean


So you have no idea whether the current forthcoming bans have any real environmental benefit and in your words, know little about the markets it will affect.


Yet you've made your mind up without any evidence and here you are arguing for it. Much like the law makers, you're more interested in PR and "political credit" than you are the environment or golf, it would seem.


Perhaps if those of us within the game stopped talking the game down in the constant self loathing of the sport we spend so much time on, and and actually talked it up, then it would be a start.

[Sean_A]

Sean

So you have no idea whether the current forthcoming bans have any real environmental benefit and in your words, know little about the markets it will affect.

Yet you've made your mind up without any evidence and here you are arguing for it. Much like the law makers, you're more interested in PR and "political credit" than you are the environment or golf, it would seem.

Perhaps if those of us within the game stopped talking the game down in the constant self loathing of the sport we spend so much time on, and and actually talked it up, then it would be a start.

Interesting take on my post.  I have seen evidence that chlorpyrifos is dangerous.  Its true that some folks refute the level of danger created by this pesticide use, but I haven't seen any evidence which suggests the use of pesticides of this nature are not potentially dangerous at some level...the discussion seems to revolve around acceptable risk.  On the whole, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I fail to understand what is an acceptable risk where golf is concerned and like to think a forward thinking golf industry is more beneficial to the enviornment than an industry using pesticides.  I am sorry you think building political captital is not important, lets hope you correct...though I have serious doubts.  So, is one going to dwell on what isn't in their control or get on with alternative greenkeeping methods and better management of golfers' expectations? 

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Sean

So you have no idea whether the current forthcoming bans have any real environmental benefit and in your words, know little about the markets it will affect.

Yet you've made your mind up without any evidence and here you are arguing for it. Much like the law makers, you're more interested in PR and "political credit" than you are the environment or golf, it would seem.

Perhaps if those of us within the game stopped talking the game down in the constant self loathing of the sport we spend so much time on, and and actually talked it up, then it would be a start.

Interesting take on my post.  I have seen evidence that chlorpyrifos is dangerous.  Its true that some folks refute the level of danger created by this pesticide use, but I haven't seen any evidence which suggests the use of pesticides of this nature are not potentially dangerous at some level...the discussion seems to revolve around acceptable risk.  On the whole, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I fail to understand what is an acceptable risk where golf is concerned and like to think a forward thinking golf industry is more beneficial to the enviornment than an industry using pesticides.  I am sorry you think building political captital is not important, lets hope you correct...though I have serious doubts.  So, is one going to dwell on what isn't in their control or get on with alternative greenkeeping methods and better management of golfers' expectations? 

Ciao

Sean


Political capital is of course important. I'd prefer to see something of consequence to under pin it or at least go alongside it though. Otherwise it's just ill thought out grand standing lacking in substance, with consequences that no one bothered to consider. Hardly ways to pass laws, particularly when those who live with them have no democratic means to formally disagree with them.


The game has been described by Adam in this thread as a "speck on society's radar". I couldn't agree more! The EU should get on with dealing with the big important stuff, they might not be working on Brexit had they not been so overbearing and suffocating.


Logically golf does have an environmental impact, especially so at construction stage. But in the overall scheme of things, is it really that evil and dangerous?


If so, what are we all doing playing it all these years? Where are our morals? Why haven't we voted with out feet? it can only be pious hypocrisy.


Lorne over the the Fine Golf Website for example and his "Sustainable Greenkeeping" sections. All good stuff, much of which is industry standard these days. Yet look closely and lo and behold and he's advising to spray Rescue! Presumably leaving his environmental credentials at the door if it means removing Rye Grass and Yorkshire Fog from his "fine" swards.


Duncan who thinks the legislation is a good thing, is in the next paragraph is eagerly describing how the contractors are in removing trees during nesting bird season.


Similarly, your course employed someone to shoot hundreds of rabbits. Your subs funded this, yet you support legislation to stop my Club using say, a wetting agent, designed largely for using less water? where's the consistency?


Such absolutist legislation and absolutist support of it, I don't think stands up to even gentle prodding.


Golf in the UK was and is heading in the right direction. Not enough to appease the EU, but in respect of this sport, you'll never appease those people until the courses are reclaimed.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan who thinks the legislation is a good thing, is in the next paragraph is eagerly describing how the contractors are in removing trees during nesting bird season.

I have never expressed an opinion on whether the legislation is a good thing or not - simply that it is inevitable and that the golf industry needs to adjust accordingly.


If the fungicides currently on the market are to be outlawed, then greenkeepers are going to have find ways of avoiding fuserium outbreaks. Otherwise they are going to lose their greens, and very quickly their members and then their jobs!


If this involves cutting down trees surrounding greens, then so be it. It was the availability of fungicides that made such forestation possible in the first place. 40 years ago no-one would have dreamt of allowing trees to proliferate around a green and so deprive the grass of air and light.  If it also involves starving out the poa and encouraging fine grasses which are less disease prone then this surely is a positive thing.

Reliance on chemicals has made a greenkeepers' job easier, but it hasn't necessarily led to improved maintenance of golf courses.

All this legislation is doing is heralding the necessary return of traditional good practice.

[Lou_Duran]

Maybe you are right.  Perhaps the banned chemicals aren't bad for the environment.  Maybe a bunch of pencil pushers are getting it wrong.  It would be interesting if someone could present evidence of such because my instinct says the named chemicals aren't good for the environment.  Regardless, in theory, I am pro less inputs for golf.  Not because I don't care about the clubs this approach effects the most, but because I firmly believe the golf industry has to start builidng a reputation as a steward of the environment and golf as a healthy activity.  Harder times are coming in terms of regulation and resource availability.  Golf as an industry is going to need to spend some political credit when these times hit.  As you rightly point out, golf is largely seen in a bad light...partly because of perceived and/or real reluctance to get on board with minimum inputs.  Everytime a golf rep gets quoted as saying negative stuff about chemical regulation its another nail in the industry's reputation which will need to be removed at a later date.

You've packed a lot of interest into this.

First, in the war between the "pencil pushers" and the owners/operators, it is no contest.  In my adult life, government has warned us about a coming ice age, then global warming, and now, climate change.  Fat, cholesterol, and much protein in meats were sure killers; Atkins, South Beach and a number of similar protein and fat rich diets are producing much healthier blood chemistry than what we were told to eat.  Coffee was bad, now it is good.  Alcohol is bad, now a glass or two of wine a day increases longevity.  Ditto for chocolate.  Breast exams every year, now it is every other year (and as socialized medicine pushes its economic limits, the "science" will adapt accordingly).

Yep, I trust the intentions and knowledge of my superintendent whose family lives near the golf course and who spends a majority of his waking hours on premise over a bureaucrat's in Washington D.C. whose job depends on finding things to regulate.  I put my faith in the owner of the course who has a lot to lose by harming her customers over an individual far away who probably doesn't understand business and doesn't suffer the consequences of banning useful products.

Few things are without risk.  Ban cars and you save thousands of lives.  Every regulation should be subjected to a thorough, unbiased cost/benefit analysis.  See below if you want for an interesting take on DDT and the eradication of Malaria.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-were-winning-the-war-against-malaria-1525285992

As to golf being seen in a bad light, I think it is largely due to class envy with allusions to negative environmental impacts used to mask the real motive.   There is a reason why people who have the resources like to live on or near a golf course, the vast majority who don't even play the game.  Are they suicidal?  I suppose that taking Warren Buffet's inoculation strategy makes sense for the golf industry, after all, who is not for a clean environment.  Take the populist stance even though it is mostly without substance.  Pay lip-service with a little political capital but do not capitulate to the whims of the regulators on consequential matters.

BTW, I play a lot of golf and not in a hurry to jump into the grave.  Do you think that the D.C. bureaucrat has a greater vested interest in my health and longevity?   Perhaps your betters in the EU and UK are endowed with a much superior human nature than ours here.

[Lou_Duran]

Duncan- are you not contradicting your first paragraph with the third?

Why are the regulations inevitable?  Is your political system so rigid and without recourse?  Your comments remind me of an American politician who quipped about rape: "if it is inevitable, you might as well lay back and enjoy it".   Way too fatalistic for me. 

[Kalen Braley]

Duncan- are you not contradicting your first paragraph with the third?

Why are the regulations inevitable?  Is your political system so rigid and without recourse?  Your comments remind me of an American politician who quipped about rape: "if it is inevitable, you might as well lay back and enjoy it".   Way too fatalistic for me.

Lou,


Ironically the "politician" who said that never actually became one.  He lost his one and only race in 1990, in large part because of that statement.  He is/was a powerful business tycoon who made his money around petroleum based businesses.


Clearly the guy was just born too soon, in todays american political environment he wouldla won by a landslide. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Why are the regulations inevitable?
 

The regulations are inevitable because they have already been announced, together with a timetable of implementation.

I guess that a popular groundswell of public opinion could persuade the government to change tack on this, given that they will shortly not be hide-bound by regulations emanating from the EU.  The chances of a peoples' protest movement developing in support of golf clubs however, must be rather slim. I certainly wouldn't hold my breath.

Weaning a course off chemicals and onto a traditional regime is a 5-10 year project. I would suggest that the time to start doing this, if not five years ago, is now.

Inactivity followed by bleating at the unfairness of it all does not strike me as a sensible approach.

[Lou_Duran]

Kalen- you're talking about Clayton Williams I think.  He had the TX governorship in the bag until he made that terribly insensitive comment in his folksy way.  The Richards, mother and daughter, owe a lot to that man.  Today, a hungry plaintiff lawyer would recruit a bunch of snowflakes to file a class action suit and seek an eight or nine-figure settlement.

I remember another guy cut of similar cloth around the same time, "mad as hell" Eddie Chiles.  He was very political though as an advocate, not as a candidate.  You never knew what was going to come out of his mouth; perhaps a precursor to our current POTUS, though not as crude or personal.  We've had our share of colorful types in the state.

[Ryan Coles]

Duncan who thinks the legislation is a good thing, is in the next paragraph is eagerly describing how the contractors are in removing trees during nesting bird season.

I have never expressed an opinion on whether the legislation is a good thing or not - simply that it is inevitable and that the golf industry needs to adjust accordingly.


If the fungicides currently on the market are to be outlawed, then greenkeepers are going to have find ways of avoiding fuserium outbreaks. Otherwise they are going to lose their greens, and very quickly their members and then their jobs!


If this involves cutting down trees surrounding greens, then so be it. It was the availability of fungicides that made such forestation possible in the first place. 40 years ago no-one would have dreamt of allowing trees to proliferate around a green and so deprive the grass of air and light.  If it also involves starving out the poa and encouraging fine grasses which are less disease prone then this surely is a positive thing.

Reliance on chemicals has made a greenkeepers' job easier, but it hasn't necessarily led to improved maintenance of golf courses.

All this legislation is doing is heralding the necessary return of traditional good practice.

Duncan


Thanks for abdicating on the merits of the legislation. Whilst at the same time heralding it as good practice.


Can we get a more definitive answer on the environmental stewardship of removing trees during nesting bird season?