Tuesday
Apr222008
"Golf’s omission from the federal relief package served as a wake-up call to industry officials"
Golfweek's Gene Yasuda reports on the golf industry delegation convening upon Washington to talk up the sport and help Powell-Tate justify even more lobbying fees. A couple of items stand out:
Industry executives also made the trip to Capitol Hill to ensure their sport wouldn’t be overlooked as it was during the 2005 natural disaster that left New Orleans in ruins. Golf’s omission from the federal relief package served as a wake-up call to industry officials, who concluded many in Washington knew little about the game’s economic, environmental and societal value.Somehow I think had golf been part of the federal relief package, that would have been a public relations black eye.
“That was a public relations black eye for golf,” said Steranka, who spearheaded the legislative initiative. “Golf has never been more a part of America’s popular culture, but what is not understood and not appreciated is the tremendous economic impact of our industry and the scale of our environmental management practices.”
The environmental stuff sounded better:
At a conference at the National Press Club, Steve Mona, former CEO of the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America and new chief executive of the World Golf Foundation said: “Golf has been involved in what we would term the ‘green movement’ for 2 1/2 decades.”
He provided little-known facts such as:
• Golf course irrigation accounts for 0.5 percent of the 408 billion gallons of water used per day in the U.S., as estimated by the United States Geologic survey.
• On a typical 18-hole course of 150 acres, only six acres – dedicated to tee boxes and greens – are considered intensively maintained.
• Nearly 30 percent of 18-hole courses are involved in a formal, voluntary environmental stewardship program.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 08:35 PM
Reader Comments (6)
- that still doesn't make it right, and we can do far better than that. We need to design for fast and firm conditions, and get away from the "Green is Beautiful" way of thinking about golf courses. It starts from design, down to maintenance, to the public that refuses to play a browned-out course because it looks like a "goat farm". Just because you CAN do something, (ie: building hundreds of golf courses in a desert - its called a desert for a reason, like, for lack of water that sustains life) doesn't mean that you SHOULD do something.
• On a typical 18-hole course of 150 acres, only six acres – dedicated to tee boxes and greens – are considered intensively maintained.
- that's crap, too. If you mow it and fertilize it, you are "intensively maintaining" it. Semantics. Ignorance, or worse, using subjective terms in order to justify a practice as "environmental" instantly discredits any future statements that you make about the true benefits of golf. Everything that you say after that comes off as "a spin", regardless of whether it is or not. Lying about something in an effort to make it seem better than it is does us no good, especially when we're trying to convert more people to golf and extol the economic, social, and physical benefits that the game can bring.
I am not sure golf would be around much longer if when standing on the teebox you could not tell the fairway from the cart path.
The golf course superintendents are doing an Outstanding job keeping costs down and the environment safe...keep it up guys and gals.
To echo Geoff's point, I'd have loved to be a candidate running against anyone who authorized Katrina-relief dollars for golf courses. The ads write themselves.