Question:
At the risk of being attacked, I’m writing to ask:
No, really, you should be attacked. F*ing troll.
Response:
At the risk of being attacked, I’m writing to ask: Why is it OK that golf courses around the world are allowed to use highly toxic chemicals – insecticides, fungicides, herbicides – at the rate that many/most of them still do? (I know some U.S. courses claim that the use I.P.M. – Integrated Pest Management , but I have my doubts about how much they’ve cut back on use).
Etc. Would you care to provide evidence that golf courses and the management thereof actually have done harm to the environment? —– Scott A. Munro Paint Shop Pro tutorials and skeptical UFO stuff http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/ Abolish the IRS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2525.IH:
Response:
Bruce, You seem to be basing your comments on gut feeling rather than direct experience. Having worked on few golf courses and over a period of time that saw increased regulation and awareness of possible hazards, I can assure that today most golf courses, at least in the US, are probably more environmentally sensitive than those backyards you speak of. In terms of insecticides and herbicides — the stuff that is really dangerous as opposed to fertilizer — you might see this applied sparingly a few times a season. Go to someone’s backyard and they are probably using the same chemicals a couple of times a month in higher per area doses – there’s no regulation or education of the homeowner. I’m not advocating there should be, just pointing out that the enemy may not be the course superintendent. Also keep in mind that to build a course today requires the implementation of monitoring wells and environmental review designed to ensure minimal damage to groundwater. Compare that to the guy who has his lawn sprayed every week and who gets his drinking water from his own well. Again, no regulation or education of the homeowner. In particular, the USGA and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America have really shown some proactive leadership in reducing the negative impact of golf courses, and the innovation continues. That natural golf course look you speak of — several of those types of courses are cropping up in the country. Golf courses are an excellent way of reclaiming old landfills, quarries and other scarred land. They’re great examples of how to take a visual, if not environmental hazard, and turn into an attractive, profitable habitat. The greatest environmental hazard posed by most courses is not the application of chemicals but in the quantity of water used. To that end you are correct in your sentiment: Many courses are "overwatered" just to get that brilliant green in mid summer. Still, The USGA Green Section has done a lot of work in helping superintendents implement native or hybird strains of grass that are more suited to the climate. Thrity years ago, your comments may have been more on target, but today, through regulation and education, not to mention motivation of profit, I’d be willing to bet that a green golf course is more environmentally friendly than the green neighborhood abutting it. — JoePete – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At the risk of being attacked, I’m writing to ask: Why is it OK that golf courses around the world are allowed to use highly toxic chemicals – insecticides, fungicides, herbicides – at the rate that many/most of them still do? (I know some U.S. courses claim that the use I.P.M. – Integrated Pest Management , but I have my doubts about how much they’ve cut back on use). I have the impression that various golfing groups, from the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America , to various national golfing groups, have become more sophisticated when it comes to dealing with the public – check out the golf websites that turn up when you do a web search using key words "golf and environment" – but are not really commited to truly reducing the use of these dangerous chemicals. Neighborhoods that live downwind of courses _are_ effected by chemical drift, there is no doubt about that – just so the course can look nice. Old world Scottish golf courses apparently used to be very natural (with pest controlled by birds that were encouraged to live around the course). Why can’t that be the practice now?
Response:
Give it a shot. Assemble a group of investors, put up all the capital you have, and build such a course. See how you make out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At the risk of being attacked, I’m writing to ask: Why is it OK that golf courses around the world are allowed to use highly toxic chemicals – insecticides, fungicides, herbicides – at the rate that many/most of them still do? (I know some U.S. courses claim that the use I.P.M. – Integrated Pest Management , but I have my doubts about how much they’ve cut back on use). I have the impression that various golfing groups, from the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America , to various national golfing groups, have become more sophisticated when it comes to dealing with the public – check out the golf websites that turn up when you do a web search using key words "golf and environment" – but are not really commited to truly reducing the use of these dangerous chemicals. Neighborhoods that live downwind of courses _are_ effected by chemical drift, there is no doubt about that – just so the course can look nice. Old world Scottish golf courses apparently used to be very natural (with pest controlled by birds that were encouraged to live around the course). Why can’t that be the practice now? bruce.
Response:
At the risk of being attacked, I’m writing to ask: Why is it OK that golf courses around the world are allowed to use highly toxic chemicals – insecticides, fungicides, herbicides – at the rate that many/most of them still do? (I know some U.S. courses claim that the use I.P.M. – Integrated Pest Management , but I have my doubts about how much they’ve cut back on use). I have the impression that various golfing groups, from the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America , to various national golfing groups, have become more sophisticated when it comes to dealing with the public – check out the golf websites that turn up when you do a web search using key words "golf and environment" – but are not really commited to truly reducing the use of these dangerous chemicals. Neighborhoods that live downwind of courses _are_ effected by chemical drift, there is no doubt about that – just so the course can look nice. Old world Scottish golf courses apparently used to be very natural (with pest controlled by birds that were encouraged to live around the course). Why can’t that be the practice now? bruce.