Maintenance: American versus Scottish approach?

[Ryan Coles]

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.

Why does it need a groundswell of bleating and public opinion to undo it when there was no bleating or groundswell of opinion to introduce it in the first place?

[Ryan Coles]

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.

Kudos Lou


Far more eloquent than I could ever hope to be, but you absolutely nail it.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Why does it need a groundswell of bleating and public opinion to undo it when there was no bleating or groundswell of opinion to introduce it in the first place?

Because to revoke the changes in the regulations would require the intervention of politicians. Politicians are interested only in public opinion and by extension votes.


I have just spent an interesting 30 minutes or so trawling through the websites of the three main organisations representing golf course managers and owners - GCMA, AGCO, and UKGCOA. Also the website of BIGGA, the greenkeepers' association.


What are these organisations doing to lobby the government on behalf of their members' rights to continue their current regimes of weed, disease, and pest control?


Nothing. Nada. Not a sausage!


The golf industry has simply accepted the changes in regulations. THAT is why I say that they are inevitable and must be worked with.


I presume that you are a member of the Golf Club Managers Association. Have any plans been discussed to lobby Parliament  on behalf of golf clubs at your local meetings?

[Ryan Coles]

Duncan


Amenity Forums and others certainly did lobby. But clearly didn’t lobby well enough.


https://www.pitchcare.com/news-media/act-now-europe-is-planning-a-ban-on-all-plant-protection-products.html


An old thread from Pitch-care above. Examples of responses or non responses from MEP’s are contained within.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Thanks for that, Ryan.


The fact that this has been going on for eleven years or more confirms my view that golf clubs and operators should have been implementing alternative strategies well before now - as a contingency plan if nothing else.

If, as seems inevitable,  the products are now removed from the market how many clubs will find themselves stood naked in the spotlight?

They can't say they weren't warned!

[Ryan Coles]

Thanks for that, Ryan.


The fact that this has been going on for eleven years or more confirms my view that golf clubs and operators should have been implementing alternative strategies well before now - as a contingency plan if nothing else.

If, as seems inevitable,  the products are now removed from the market how many clubs will find themselves stood naked in the spotlight?

Duncan


I think I’ve laboured the point that golf was doing a pretty good job on its own of moving towards what you would describe as a ‘sustainable’ approach. In fact, it’s pretty standard stuff these days. My own Club worked with STRI and R&A 2006 - 2013 on a sward improvement project to see what was possible in terms of sward improvement and increasing finer grasses. In percentage terms, ours are about the same as yours.


The practices that achieved this conversion are what everyone I know is doing as standard.


I don’t know anyone, who knows anything about turf or cares about golf, who would argue that blanket bans of what we now have and what is coming in the future are a good thing. Using less, using sparingly as a last resort, yes.


As Lou points out, greenkeepers in general are very knowledgeable and sensible people. If they can do without, finances alone mean they will. On occasion though, it’s sensible that they have the option of some chemical suppressants etc. Particularly when the products and their safe application is so well regulated already.


Some Clubs will indeed find themselves naked in the spotlight, due to their not being any effective alternatives. As you set out in your first post on the topic, I understand you’re comfortable with this as long as it’s the Club’s around you and not yours.

[Duncan Cheslett]

With the sharp decline in participation in golf, and particularly in golf club membership over the last ten years, some consolidation in the golf market is inevitable and probably desirous.


If the courses that close are the ones with the weakest greenkeeping regimes and those built on the least suitable land, who could argue?


It is getting increasingly competitive between clubs fighting for the available members. Now that joining fees are a thing of the past in the bulk of the market, golfers are able to flit from club to club following the best deal.


The factor that will attract and retain members more than any other is the quality of maintenance - particularly of the greens. In the post-chemical world it will be the clubs who adapt the best that thrive.



 

[Ryan Coles]

With the sharp decline in participation in golf, and particularly in golf club membership over the last ten years, some consolidation in the golf market is inevitable and probably desirous.


If the courses that close are the ones with the weakest greenkeeping regimes and those built on the least suitable land, who could argue?


It is getting increasingly competitive between clubs fighting for the available members. Now that joining fees are a thing of the past in the bulk of the market, golfers are able to flit from club to club following the best deal.


The factor that will attract and retain members more than any other is the quality of maintenance - particularly of the greens. In the post-chemical world it will be the clubs who adapt the best that thrive.

It will be the Clubs predisposed by nature with better soils that will be affected the least. These Clubs are generally elite or upper echelon.


Beyond that it will wealthier Clubs who can afford labour and additional expensive trials such as introducing nematodes.


It will be clay based run of the mill Clubs who feel the brunt. Ie the places where most golfers in this country play. Their playing conditions over the next few years will get exponentially worse. Most do not live in an area blessed with golf courses with land ‘fit for purpose’.


Instead the poor saps will be told by the fellas on the heaths and links that they just need educating and their much loved Clubs should have never been built in the first place.


Win win, indeed.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Ryan,


I have a lot of sympathy with your sentiments.


The run of the mill clay based courses will just have to find alternative strategies to make their courses drier and more hospitable to fine grasses.


A combination of chainsaw and mole plough would be a good (and inexpensive) start.

[Bryan Izatt]

Interesting how an opening post about the Netherlands and their Green Deal approach to golf course maintenance morphed into an attack on the evils of EU and then into the evils of bureaucrats ruining golf courses in the name of protecting the environment.


I though to do a little research to find out about Green Deals in the Netherlands to inform myself about what it is about.


The Green Deals approach:


"in the Netherlands is an accessible way for companies, other stakeholder organizations, local and regional government and interest groups to work with Central Government on green growth and social issues. The aim is to remove barriers in order to help sustainable initiatives get off the ground and to accelerate this process where possible. Central Government plays a key role in this area. Initiatives often start from the bottom up, in response to societal dynamics."

Sounds like a noble goal.  The approach has been around for some years and there are more than 200 Green Deals signed by various groups, business and organizations to try to do various things to green the environment.

In 2015, there was a Green Deal signed to address Plant Protection Products (pesticides, I think) use in non-agricultural unpaved areas.  It specifically addressed sports grounds which included golf courses while recognizing that they were a somewhat unique case.  The stakeholders included the Olympic Committee, Netherlands Sports Federation, the Netherlands Golf Federation, and the Greenskeeper Association amongst others.  The Green Deal GD 189 is available online, in Dutch.

The preamble as translated by Google Translate is:

General considerations
1. In order to preserve our prosperity for future generations, it is necessary to maintain competitiveness
strengthen our economy and at the same time reduce the burden on the environment and the environment
reliance on fossil energy and scarce resources.
2. Creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation are essential for this change to green growth
to make. Companies, citizens and civil society organizations are taking plenty of concrete initiatives
greening of the economy and society. With the Green Deal Approach, the government wants this dynamic
to make optimum use of green growth in society.
3. Green Deals offer businesses, citizens and organizations a low-threshold opportunity to work together
work with the government on green growth. Initiatives from society are at the forefront of this
base.

The approach seems to be to green the environment while recognizing the desirability of maintaining quality in the playing fields and strengthening the economy.  Sounds like a noble and balanced approach.

The objective was to ban the use of pesticides on playing fields by 2020 while recognizing that there might have to be exceptions for golf courses to maintain quality of turf.  Another objective was to create joint projects to try to find greener ways to maintain quality playing fields while doing away with pesticides.

Seems all quite reasonable to me as a societal approach.

[Lou_Duran]

Interesting how an opening post about the Netherlands and their Green Deal approach to golf course maintenance morphed into an attack on the evils of EU and then into the evils of bureaucrats ruining golf courses in the name of protecting the environment.


The objective was to ban the use of pesticides on playing fields by 2020 while recognizing that there might have to be exceptions for golf courses to maintain quality of turf.  Another objective was to create joint projects to try to find greener ways to maintain quality playing fields while doing away with pesticides.

Seems all quite reasonable to me as a societal approach.

Pablum, my Canadian friend.  You complain that the thread morphed and then proceed to mischaracterize what has been said.  "Evil", your choice of words, is hardly the charge.  Unless, of course, you believe that making a living in commerce and exercising individual rights and choices are by their very nature malevolent (and those keeping them in check wear white hats). 

What I have suggested is that those who own and operate golf courses, any business, have a lot more knowledge and incentive to act in ways that better serve their customers than the "public servant" told to go govern something from some capital.  Sadly, many people posses such a limited understanding of  business and economics that they actually believe that companies unrestrained by heavy regulation would act in ways that harm and kill their customers. 

Me, I don't ascribe any especial virtues or vileness to a government worker.  Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, he acts much like his counterpart in the private sector, in his perceived self-interest, answering to those who butter his bread.  His saving grace is that his actions don't have to bear economic fruit- i.e. make money- and their consequences are largely borne by those who ultimately pay his salary and benefits.

Every regulation, every ban, every law is a diminution of an individual right or choice.  You state that the goal is the ban of pesticides.   Are there no good pesticides when balance and costs/benefits are considered?  (Did you bother to reference the link on DDT I provided?  Do you not have your apartment sprayed for bugs?).

Is a "societal approach" desirable such that a relative few people can impose draconian measures with little recourse?    "Reasonable"?   What a loaded, unreasonable word to use!   Add "for the sake of the children" to your last sentence and you can claim virtue AND checkmate!         See you soon. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Some very polarised views and a lot of woe, hand wringing and head in the sand attitudes. Regardless of the right or wrongs of such bans the fact is they are coming in Europe and it is a question of adapt or do not survive. I think one of the key things for the golf industry is how well we realign golfers viewpoint of what constitutes a good golf course/experience.

[Lou_Duran]

Some very polarised views and a lot of woe, hand wringing and head in the sand attitudes. Regardless of the right or wrongs of such bans the fact is they are coming in Europe and it is a question of adapt or do not survive. I think one of the key things for the golf industry is how well we realign golfers viewpoint of what constitutes a good golf course/experience.

Boy, I hope that those are well-prepared bunkers (with rakes in or out) where some of us have planted our heads.   Perhaps you will have better luck "realigning" the expectations of European golfers than we will here in the U.S. should our industry capitulate.

I think that at a competitive level, we have come around to F & F conditions, not a minor concession.  At the club level, smooth, receptive greens and good coverage on the fairways are normally expected.  BTW, our English and Irish visitors to my home course are very fond of riding cars, Bluetooth speakers, and beer coolers.  My bet is that we will have fully air-conditioned/climate-control golf carts long before we are forced to go chemical-free.    Vive la différence!  Good luck in realizing the visions of the anointed. 

[Sean_A]

"What I have suggested is that those who own and operate golf courses, any business, have a lot more knowledge and incentive to act in ways that better serve their customers than the "public servant" told to go govern something from some capital.  Sadly, many people posses such a limited understanding of  business and economics that they actually believe that companies unrestrained by heavy regulation would act in ways that harm and kill their customers."

What exactly does better serve their customers mean? There are an unbelievable number of instances where companies did act recklessly regarding public safety...something you seem to suggest doesn't happen...history tells us differently.  I don't think change comes easily or quickly where matters of safety or ecology erode profits.  I would suggest that most supers try to deliver the course conditions the customer wants....hence the reason for using pesticides in the first place.  It is budgets and regulation which normally drive change....sometimes a philosophical stance does as well, but it is usually justified as a money saving operation...win-win.       

It has been suggested that golf is such a small percentage of the problem that it should be given a pass and supers, clubs and the customer should dictate how and when pesticides are used.  I take the opposite view and think because golf is so small that it is an obvious target for strict regulation.  Its not as if growing food is at stake, so why should there be any risk of poison?  Why shouldn't I be protected from pesticides while walking the fairways of a golf course?
What exactly is so important that a risk assessment could possibly justify the use of something potentially dangerous to grow grass?  A conclusion such as this leaves me baffled.

Someone mentioned that cars pollute.  When golf is anywhere near as important as cars are to the economy then lets talk.  Hell, I bet the cars people drive just to a golf course have more of an impact on the economy than does the course.  So lets drop the silly comparisons as they are not only unhelpful, but misleading. 

As has been stated...changes are here and more are to come.  I suggest that digging in is seriously bad PR for golf...an industry which can ill afford bad PR. 

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

"What I have suggested is that those who own and operate golf courses, any business, have a lot more knowledge and incentive to act in ways that better serve their customers than the "public servant" told to go govern something from some capital.  Sadly, many people posses such a limited understanding of  business and economics that they actually believe that companies unrestrained by heavy regulation would act in ways that harm and kill their customers."

Lou -

The tobacco industry, the National Football League and the automobile industry are just 3 examples of businesses that have acted with reckless (and some might say deliberate/criminally negligent) disregard for the health and welfare of their customers and employees. Sadly, it happens.

Frankly, I would question the notion that golf course supers and operators were really that well-informed regarding the health hazards of the chemicals and pesticides they have been using on their courses thru the years.

There was a study of the health of course supers done in the 1990's. While by no means conclusive, it did show course supers suffered from greater incidences of certain cancers than the general male population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8732923 

"A similar pattern of elevated NHL, brain, and prostate cancer mortality along with excess deaths from diseases of the nervous system has been noted among other occupational cohorts exposed to pesticides."

DT

[Dave McCollum]

David, I don’t know.  I’m skeptical about the study, based more or less on no reliable evidence.  OTH, we lost a super long before his time.  It was a crushing loss for us all.  Nothing related to chemical exposure unless his brain aneurism was caused by smoking pot.  He may have or not.  I had my suspicions, but didn't really care because he didn't do on the job and his work was exceptionally dependable.     

We’re forced to be very judicious about the chemicals we use, not so much because of government regulation or safety concerns for personnel and golfers, although we pay attention to such things, but simply because of budget dollars.   Most of this stuff is expensive.  $10K here $10K there adds up.  It pays to be frugal and efficient when you need it.  Low input and low cost solutions are embraced by the necessity of keeping our maintenance costs in line with our affordable golf market.  It also forces us to be smart and resourceful.  Mostly I think we do a pretty good job of matching our maintenance meld with what folks are willing to pay.  Our conditioning is generally good enough.  When it breaks down it’s usually the result of unexpected weather conditions, less often equipment failures, and almost never human error by our maintenance staff. 

The examples you cite involve businesses and industries awash in cash and big money.  Not common in the golf business.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The tobacco industry, the National Football League and the automobile industry are just 3 examples of businesses that have acted with reckless (and some might say deliberate/criminally negligent) disregard for the health and welfare of their customers and employees. Sadly, it happens.

The example that springs to my mind is that of the aerosol can. When it was discovered that the CFCs in aerosols were damaging the ozone layer they were banned around the world. It was thought at the time that the disposable aerosol spray-can was dead.


20 years later there are just as many if not more aerosols than ever. The point is that science and business adapts, developing and marketing new products which comply with changing regulations.


It is already happening. I don't know the specifics but at Reddish Vale we are trialing a new organic treatment/preventative product for fuserium that is under development.


Our greens are immaculate this year with no sign of disease so the trial has clearly been successful, even insomuch as no negative effects have occurred.

[Lou_Duran]

What exactly does better serve their customers mean? There are an unbelievable number of instances where companies did act recklessly regarding public safety...something you seem to suggest doesn't happen...history tells us differently.  I don't think change comes easily or quickly where matters of safety or ecology erode profits.  I would suggest that most supers try to deliver the course conditions the customer wants....hence the reason for using pesticides in the first place.  It is budgets and regulation which normally drive change....sometimes a philosophical stance does as well, but it is usually justified as a money saving operation...win-win.       

It has been suggested that golf is such a small percentage of the problem that it should be given a pass and supers, clubs and the customer should dictate how and when pesticides are used.  I take the opposite view and think because golf is so small that it is an obvious target for strict regulation.  Its not as if growing food is at stake, so why should there be any risk of poison?  Why shouldn't I be protected from pesticides while walking the fairways of a golf course?
What exactly is so important that a risk assessment could possibly justify the use of something potentially dangerous to grow grass?  A conclusion such as this leaves me baffled.

Someone mentioned that cars pollute.  When golf is anywhere near as important as cars are to the economy then lets talk.  Hell, I bet the cars people drive just to a golf course have more of an impact on the economy than does the course.  So lets drop the silly comparisons as they are not only unhelpful, but misleading. 

As has been stated...changes are here and more are to come.  I suggest that digging in is seriously bad PR for golf...an industry which can ill afford bad PR.

Golf and most businesses serve their customers by providing desirable products that they will buy with regularity at a price that allows the enterprise to continue as a going concern.  Even if they are amoral and only driven by profits, the many millions of businesses would not knowingly go out to harm and kill their customers- not good for repeat business.

Businesses are people.  People are imperfect.  Yep, there are many instances of businesses screwing the pooch, and in some cases knowingly doing so.  The cases cited by your confederates are high-profile examples, but given the millions upon millions of businesses in the U.S., a) the bad actors (different than not having the accurate information and science at the time) account for a very small fraction, b) the consuming public is generally well aware of the risks and a sufficient number voted that the benefits outweighed them, and c) at least in the U.S., we have a very large cadre of for-profit watchdogs- the trial lobby- which stands ready to pounce on the alleged offenders.

Many are willing to cede control to the relative few, biased, humans just like you and me to "protect" us from those driven by the profit motive.  I could spend some time and note the many, many instances of political corruption, malfeasance, self-dealing, despoiling the environment, allowing the violation of laws they enshrined to protect endangered species in favor of a superior political cause.   Just look at the EPA in CO and GA in recent years.

I am not arguing in favor of no regulation.  Far from it.  As someone once said, "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government".   I am suggesting that we need a strong check on those seeking to govern us, and that can't be an administrative and legal process which assigns whatever it wants to the benefits of strict business and environmental regulations, minimizes the costs and concludes that a total ban is the answer.

Mind you, if I believe that a course is spraying too much, I can seek others (like Jon's or Duncan's) to beat my ball around.  If government tells me I can't do something and I do it anyways, I may end up in jail.  We like options on this site, or so we say.  I can either buy a product from several companies, I can buy a substitute, or I can learn to live without it.  With a ban or a prohibition, only the last option is viable.

Some may say that this is an exaggerated philosophical view, and that we are just talking about pure golf course conditions versus something less so, but totally acceptable.  My argument is that this thread- the banning of chemicals on golf courses is coming and we better get used to it- is hardly an isolated instance.  It is death by a thousand cuts and, it seems to me that for most who are of the "it is inevitable, we might as well enjoy it" mindset, you are likely the most vulnerable.   Those who have money will have options.  Those financially constricted will have to take what is dished out to them.             

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

Its obvious we won't agree on this issue.  Normally I would say thats fine, but in this case, where people are potentially poisoned so greens can run faster, play better and look better is something for which I have no time. I am pleased that where I live there are no options..very forward thinking. 

Ciao 

[Jon Wiggett]

Some very polarised views and a lot of woe, hand wringing and head in the sand attitudes. Regardless of the right or wrongs of such bans the fact is they are coming in Europe and it is a question of adapt or do not survive. I think one of the key things for the golf industry is how well we realign golfers viewpoint of what constitutes a good golf course/experience.

Boy, I hope that those are well-prepared bunkers (with rakes in or out) where some of us have planted our heads.   Perhaps you will have better luck "realigning" the expectations of European golfers than we will here in the U.S. should our industry capitulate.

I think that at a competitive level, we have come around to F & F conditions, not a minor concession.  At the club level, smooth, receptive greens and good coverage on the fairways are normally expected.  BTW, our English and Irish visitors to my home course are very fond of riding cars, Bluetooth speakers, and beer coolers.  My bet is that we will have fully air-conditioned/climate-control golf carts long before we are forced to go chemical-free.    Vive la différence!  Good luck in realizing the visions of the anointed.

Lou,


I do not disagree with what you have written but it has absolutely no relevance to the subject being discussed here. As to been forced to go chemical free here in Europe it is the reality coming down the road. As for in the US that is something for them to decide and I really couldn't care either way.


Jon

[Jon Wiggett]

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


What is your solution to the issues in the article?

Ryan,


sorry for the slow reply but I have been busy doing other things. An interesting article which is full of basic information but very light on solutions or balance. I got the impression it was more to set the tone rather than anything else. I tend to take STRI with a pinch of salt these days since there take over by a leading supplier for turf grass products.


But to answer your question I will address one of the points about leatherjackets. To combat without chemicals you could keep an eye out for signs of Crane flies laying eggs which takes place during a limited time of the year and during a certain time of day. Should signs be seen of significant numbers then you need to disturb the flies as they try to lay by either irrigating, using a dew whip or maybe leafblower. This action will prevent many of the flies laying and so reduce the number of eggs laid. Then, later on in the lifecycle of the leatherjacket there is a period where they come to the surface in the early evening to feed and can be collect through mowing the green and collecting the clippings. Of course it is important that the club ensures that the sward is deep rooted and closed.


This used to be and should still be general knowledge but of course it is easier to spray.


Jon

[Lou_Duran]

The federation stipulated that we should say farewell to American style courses (artificial, overly manicured, heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides) and embrace traditional, Scottish style golf course (natural, in sink with seasonal changes and with what nature gives and takes). A bit stereotype in my opinion. Your thoughts on this matter?

Jon,

Relevance?  Perhaps relative to the Dutch and the rest of Europe where Sean's puzzling, illiberal attitude might prevail ("I am pleased that where I live there are no options..very forward thinking."), there is not a lot.  But the thread started by Martin notes a rather important stipulation which he also notes is "A bit (of a) stereotype".

To the extent that this site's "tenured" following is probably predominantly American and Martin invited discussion, I think that there is much relevance.  First of all, the "stipulation" at best is falsely misleading.  There are some 16,000 golf courses in the U.S., of which only a small minority might fit the description within Martin's parentheses  (artificial, overly manicured, heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides).

As Dave M notes, chemicals are expensive and in many U.S. markets, second and third tier courses are not having an easy time holding their heads above water.  I play 30-50 different American courses each year, most considered to be in the top 10%, and a rare few meet the description.  The so-called Augusta National syndrome is mostly a myth.  Even courses which hold PGA Tour events tone their maintenance and inputs way down after the pros leave town.
   
Secondly, there are not many places in the U.S. blessed (some here would say cursed) by Scottish weather, climate, and soil conditions.  If our statists here- and we have no shortage of those either- follow the example of Europe as they are wont to do in many cases and we don't RESIST, our golfing community will be more greatly impacted. 

Just reading your response to Ryan on the treating of leatherjackets has to make one wonder where the "Win-Win" is going to come from.  We have so many diseases and critters in most parts of the U.S. that would require heavy labor inputs sans science, that there is no way very many already struggling golf operations could remain in business.  We already have a hard time keeping our participation rates steady.  Higher costs and lesser conditions is only a "Win" for those who, like Sean, see golf as "so small" and deserving of targeting, many (not Sean) who would be happier if golf courses were converted to common ground and golf and its bourgeois players retired to the annals of history.
 
As to the "small" scale of golf, $80 Billion impact and 2 million jobs in the U.S. alone might give some pause for reconsideration.  See below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikmatuszewski/2018/04/24/the-economic-impact-of-golf-84-billion-in-the-u-s/#7781428846ee

As I noted earlier, Malthus (Ehrlich and Gore too) lives in the hearts of many.  Might it not be helpful to review real life evidence against predictions and their underlying assumptions then decide whether our closely-held beliefs require adjustment?  As David M noted earlier, I might as well start a thread about the worst holes at a course only a very few here have played (Nah too much Don Quijote in my Spanish blood, I suppose).  Checking out, respectfully.

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,


what effect will this legislation have on the US market? There will be no changes needed in the US the $80 billion and 2 million jobs are perfectly safe. Not everything is about the US, there is a wider world out there you know. I have to say I had to laugh when you stated my suggestion would stretch budget in the US.


However this legislation is coming to the EU and will effect sports facilities in the EU which is what is/should be discussed.


Jon