 |
 |
FORE questions |
A sod farewell
 |
| Doug Fender at Glendale CC in Bellvue, Wash., during the C5 meetings last month in Seattle. Photo by Robert O'Quinn/TPI |
It’s been a long time since Doug Fender, executive director of Turfgrass Producers International, has called GCSAA home.
“I think the five years I spent with you guys is a big reason I got this job,” Fender says from his office in Rolling Meadows, Ill., 30 minutes northwest of Chicago. From 1973 to 1978, Fender was the director of communications for GCSAA. After GCSAA, he had a five-year stint as director of public relations for Million Dollar Round Table, an association of the world’s leading insurance agents. In 1983, Fender accepted the position of executive director of TPI. This month, after 21 years with TPI, he retires.
During Fender’s tenure with TPI, the organization has grown to more than 1,100 turfgrass sod farm, manufacturer and research members in 40 countries. The organization publishes two bimonthly publications and conducts two major meetings a year, as well as representing the industry’s interests on federal issues. The author of “Water Right – Conserving Our Water, Preserving Our Environment,” Fender was named the 2002 Environmental Communicator of the Year by the Turf and Ornamental Communicators Association.
With news of his impending retirement, GCM caught up with Fender last month to discuss TPI’s recent letter to the EPA about the hazards of artificial turf, his legacy in the business and the future of turfgrass.
QUESTION: Turfgrass Producers International recently met with the EPA to discuss the hazards of artificial turf. This came about after TPI sent a letter of concern to the EPA about artificial turf. What are your concerns and what came from the meeting with the EPA?
ANSWER: TPI and its members are truly environmentalists with a concern for the farmland used in sod production and the homes, playgrounds, fields and golf courses where turfgrass sod is used. Our paper, “Serious Questions About New-Generation Artificial Turf That Require Answers,” poses a host of questions that everyone contemplating installation of this material should consider.
We went to the EPA with a series of environmental questions related to the pollution potential of these materials, as well as their safety to athletes and spectators. At this time, we’re sorry to say, the issue is not on the EPA’s working radar screen, so they don’t have answers. While the EPA could point out studies that found zinc did leach from the ground rubber, they could not address the issue of cadmium, or concerns about the loss of environmental benefits provided by natural turfgrass.
We are receiving some data and background information from our international members on a variety of health-related issues and we will continue to pursue these questions with the Centers for Disease Control as well as the Consumer Protection Agency and state departments of environment and natural resources.
At the heart of this matter is the absence of scientifically supported facts. We cannot simply accept a salesperson’s glowing reports as fact. Some have been critical of TPI for raising these questions because they are viewed as “representing TPI’s vested commercial interests.” No one is denying the obvious fact that real versus artificial turf is of commercial interest to TPI members; however, neither can one deny the serious nature of these questions and the need for solid, scientifically documented answers.
We will continue to search for answers and would encourage all other interested environmentalists to do the same.
QUESTION: With artificial turf already in many stadiums around the country and increasingly becoming an option for golf courses on practice areas, what is the best-case scenario for TPI? The worst-case scenario? Why should superintendents be concerned?
ANSWER: Artificial turf’s presence or absence is not a concern of exclusive interest to TPI, or exclusively to those interested in natural turf areas. This isn’t a matter of artificial versus natural turf; it’s a matter of what’s best for the environment and the people who use the surface.
Golf course superintendents, for example, may determine that purely from a turf wear point of view artificial turf presents a very viable option; however, it would seem prudent for superintendents to document that these artificial materials are not polluting the area’s groundwater with heavy metal leachate.
QUESTION: What is your proudest accomplishment at TPI?
ANSWER: The executive director of TPI is not a one-man-band, leading a parade; it’s a position that helps to reach a consensus and then provides the necessary follow-through for satisfactory implementation of the leadership’s decisions. During my tenure with TPI, I’m very proud of the leadership role the organization has taken on the issue of landscape water conservation and the materials it has helped to generate and distribute that further document the environmental benefits of properly maintained turf.
Personally, I am very proud of the six-member TPI staff and how much they each accomplish for the organization and every one of its members. They are the legacy.
QUESTION: You’ve had a front row seat to the evolution of the green industry over the last 20 years. How healthy is the industry today and where do you see this industry going in the next 20 years?
ANSWER: While my feelings for the future are very prejudiced by my own experiences, I would still conclude that the professional and trade associations have and will continue to lead the way.
When I left GCSAA in 1978, there were 17-20 people on the staff, with only limited computerization or electronic capacity. When I was named executive director of American Sod Producers Association in 1983, it had a two-person staff, two typewriters with only limited memory, labels were created by Address-O-Graph plates and bookkeeping was done by hand with a 10-key calculator.
Similarly, golf courses and sod farms were very dependent on hand-labor and only rudimentary mechanization. Computer-controlled irrigation or spray systems were science fiction.
Not too long ago, the beauty or aesthetics of turf were the only qualities of interest to just about everyone. Today, many people are recognizing that properly established and maintained turf provides a whole host of environmental and societal benefits and that it will continue to provide those benefits even if it does not hit a rating of 9 on everyone’s beauty scale.
In the next 20 years (or considerably less), mechanization will continue to reduce the turf world’s reliance on physical labor. Brawn, sweat and high labor needs will be replaced by computer-driven machines. Diagnostic tools for everything from fertilizer, pesticide and water needs will become commonplace, to the point where the day’s practitioners will look back with the same wonderment as physicians look at yesteryear’s bloodletting as a sound medical practice.
Fortunately, the human element will remain essential. The love of lawn will continue to expand as more people recognize the important role turf plays in everyone’s life and lifestyle. Professionals who are relied upon to create and manage turf areas will rely even more directly on their various associations and relationships and they will be prepared to serve the needs of their customers, associates, friends and families.
Kermit got it wrong; it really is easy to be green, and I’m so fortunate to have had an opportunity to be where I’ve been, seen what I’ve seen and do what I’ve done.
RELATED articles
IMAGE archive
AD archive
RECENT issues
 |
 |
November |
October 2004 |