Municipal Madness

First topic message reminder :

There are a great number of municipal courses in the UK catering for the chavs in our society. (We even have a resident caravan dweller in Edinburgh who admits to the use of these courses on a regular basis). My question today is this: Are these places really a worthwhile use of the land?

In many cases the course is laid out in the middle of a housing estate, or very close to one, and attract a clientele who are in some cases unable to afford or have the desire to join a private club. Now given the housing shortage and lack of places in inner cities to park your caravan would these areas not be better given over to the unmarried mothers of 12?

I feel that by forcing the private members clubs to re-introduce artisans clubs... or forcing them to have a lower (non-voting perhaps) membership category then more people can become members of these so called higher echelon clubs and free up much needed inner city land for burnt out mondeos.

Obviously a select few of these places could be saved.... but not many. It would also ensure that the illuminati down in Surrey could be exposed and made to integrate with the rest of the populace.

K@S. Those people you are talking about could quite easily go for a walk or run in the park. (Which is no doubt maintained by the council). Or even, and god forbid this should happen, pay attention and give time to playing with their kids!

Why should they have subsidised sports facilities provided for them when there are a whole bunch of activities which can be enjoyed at no additional cost to the public purse?

S_R
I agree with a lot of that. Of course if it's not financially viable to run a course or if there just isn't the space then a course should not be opened.

But those reasons are very different to the 'there's no need for golf to be open to everyone, it should be a privilege' argument i've read so far

super_realist wrote:Rossa, it was merely an example, perhaps horses were not a good choice, but other popular sports such as fishing, skiing, cycling, athletics, tennis etc do not have representation in all municipal areas. What is so special about golf that people think it is a pre-requisite that the council should cater for it?

In terms of your claim that facilities are well used, as someone who has worked at the sharp end of local government I can tell you that many such facilities run at considerable loss despite their peceived use.

I'm not saying that any facility ought to be removed, closed down or paved over, I'm just asking why golf and certain golfers seem to think that it has a manifest destiny to be supplied by the council.

sr,

I don't think you can fish in with the help of Birmingham City Council but the rest of can except skiing (Do you mean dry slope skiing? Or one of theose centre like in Tamworth, Castleford or Milton Keynes - i think we are into prohibitively expensive terretory again with that one)...

I just checked out BCCs latest budget.... the net spending by BCCs leisure and tourism department on 'sports' was about 1m, which is about £1 per person per year in Birmingham or a fiver for the average family...

Seems pretty good value to me... there 7 munis in Birmingham. I can decalre myself thoroughly satisfied with that...

So Rossa, so are you saying that Councils should provide cheap versions of prohibitively expensive sports? In that case Polo is prohibitively expensive to most. Should they provide facilities for that?

I'm all for having sports facilities if they can "wipe their feet" or run at an affordable loss if there is such a thing but I don't think we can provide them simply because people seem to think the council are responsible for providing them.
Contrary to popular belief Golf is not that exclusive. There is no shortage of affordable golf anywhere in the country.
It's certainly cheaper than the cost of a season ticket for a premiership football team. Are the council supposed to subsidise these too?

I'd much rather councils spent money on getting people properly active, and golf simply doesn't have a big enough health benefit as it's too sedate and pedestrian.

MPB

Councils have statutory obligations such as Education, health, cleansing etc.

It is the non statutory elements that they should lose and allow the private sector/trusts to control.

A neighbouring village had it's nearly new sports barn closed by the Cooncil and put together a plan to run it in a leasing trust. It is open most of the time now and caters for a wide range of villagers needs.
A much improved vacility and a good example of the 'big society'. Folk need to get off thier backside and start contributing to thier area.

Says he who has just finished building a 'splat the rat' machine for the village school fete.

Doon the Water

That's fine, i can see the argument for ditching the funding of all non essential elements. I'm not trying to argue that golf is essential. What i'm saying is, if they choose to fund sport, due to it's popularity, golf really should be near the top of the list

super_realist wrote: There is no shortage of affordable golf anywhere in the country.

Was that true when muni courses were being built?

Councils are always 10 years behind in thier planning.

Instead of closing all the 1950's Lidos they kept them going 10 years past thier sell by and cost thier ratepayers loads of money.

Fast forward 30 years for another example.

Anyone know how much thier local Library costs and how many folk use it?

Be nice if they could divert some money from the benefits of workshy, dole sponging, lead swinging deadbeats to help promote a healthier society.

But rather than maintaining and losing money on a course that will require huge amounts of maintenance why not help local private clubs become more accessible?

There is a course near me which is private. But it is on public land. I think it's twice a week that the course is open to anyone who wants to play it for around 15-20 quid or something.

It's a truly exceptional track but because they have a deal on the land and also the obligation to make the game accessible everyone gets to use it. With no cost to the council at all.

But I forget... these are private playgrounds a la Falling Down right?

Spot on LJ.

I tried to broker a deal with a local good, but failing course which would have benefited everyone.
They basically told me to pizz off and then went bust 6 months later.

On thier third lot of owners now and still struggling.

Until someone can provide me with evidence that a council is keeping a course open a great expense to the public purse, i've lost interest in this arguement.

To be quite frank, i think think most of the people talking munis down, need to put the Mail down come up with some facts.

Most people would give two hoots if the council sold off the munis except the golfers that play on them. Assuming each course in birmingham has 1000 semi regular users that 7000 about a population of 1m. So if they were were such a drain on the public purse they would be the first thing to go. But i suspect they don't loose money hand over fist and i suspect they generally break even or better.

So whats the problem?

Not exactly breaking the bank.

http://www.edinburghleisure.co.uk/resources/docs/Board%20Reports%202010/FEB_2011_Financial_&_Key_Services_Review.pdf

Rossa, no one is saying that they should be shut down, and simply because they are questioning whether the council should provide them at all does not mean they are coming from a right of centre point of view. Calling someone a Daily Mail reader simply because they are of a different opinion is pretty close to the Godwins Law phenomenon of calling other internet forums users "Nazi's" as a adendum to add more credence to your argument.

The main point that is coming through is whether it is the council's responsibility to provide golfing facilities, where you stop when considering which sports you provide for and also whether there is something more useful that they might be providing using the money instead.

It would be interesting to see just how well used these resources are and what proportion of 606 users actually make regular use of municipal facilities.

SR

I think rossa's point was that people are banding thoughts around with little evidence to back them up. Read the link I posted and see if you still think it is too high a drain on public resources to facilitate a number of sports complexes?

Mac, I had a look at your link, but in the whole of Edinburgh season ticket holders only amount to just over 1200. Given the high volume of golf courses in Edinburgh varying considerably in price from the very cheap to the very expensive it is clear that the city already caters for the variance in demographics. Although the loss at which they run is fairly small (129k) , why don't they close one of the courses that makes the biggest loss, after all they've got enough municipal courses there, and no business would be allowed to operate at that level of loss.

It's also interesting that despite having several municipal courses this is a fairly thin spread of season ticket holders, so just who is benefitting from this "ever so valuable resource"?

s_r,

Cut the Godwins Law rubbish... there is is distinct feel to this thread that is reminicent of a typical Daily Mail story.

"Taxpayers to foot the bill for bear chested drunken yobs to play golf".

Without any evidence that these golf courses are a significant drain on the public purse.

Do i think councils should be opening new muncipal golf courses at huge cost to taxpayers? No.

Do i have an issue with tose that have been in public ownership for decades and run at roughly at brake even? No

I've been chuckling to myself ever sine LJ posted this, as he's succeeded in winding a few people up. Knowing LJ this started out as a tongue-in-cheek post, to get a bit of debate going, and he's done it in spades. However there are some good points made by many, and muni's do deserve to be looked at in my opinion. Scotland is always different as everything is funded from HMG exchequer, and its then down to Scotland to say what and who gets what - like free prescriptions, free university places etc, etc. many down here will disagree with things that go on over the border, but tourism, is going to be one of Scotlands biggest industries, which means muni courses will have plenty of pay back in the communities, as golf in Scotland is renowned the world over, so anybody can turn up and play almost anywhere, and the local industries like hotel, B&B's, shops, museums, art galleries etc, etc, etc will all benefit.

South of the border needs to be looked at differently because each council runs it's own affairs, and many are run by people who couldn't get a job in the private sector. There are too many interest groups, tree huggers, socialists, nazi's and friends of the earth type people who manage our communities. Golf shouldn't be subsidised by the local people, especially when there are an abundance of local courses available for pay and play. Golf clubs in general are struggling, and it won't help when they are competing against council subsidised muni courses. What happens to the profits from muni golf club pro shops????? These are usually rented out to a local pro, when the council could have done it themselves and started to earn some revenue from these places. look at all our golf clubs, who have all had to join consortiums to get better deals for equipment (Buying groups) its the only way they can stay afloat these days. So one big buying group for council muni courses would have been a massive winner for the councils and earned them some serious money, money that could have gone a good way towards making muni courses self sufficient/cost neutral. Unfortunatley councils don't have the forsight or business accument to do anything, except embarrass themselves with misjudged projects that the daily mail reader loves.

Rossa, If you can't see the tongue in cheekedness of comments about tracksuited chavs playing golf with a bottle of merrydown and a staffy in close attendance, then perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously or are reading the Guardian a bit too closely.

I happen to agree with your final assessment as it sums everything up very well. What I and every other of the "Daily Mail" type respondents main point is that we don't necessarily think that it is ultimately a councils responsibility to provide golf facilities at a subsidised rate. The fact that they exist is fine, but I get the impression that all those champagne socialists clamouring for council intervention to provide golf for all, don't really know much about just how much golf is already available and readily affordable in the private sector. After all, in all these posts I haven't seen one post that shows that golf is prohibitively expensive in the private sector, but having been a member of many private clubs (and a municipal) it's clear that affordable golf is available, if you can be bothered to look for it. Sadly, it seems that many think it is the councils responsibility to not only provide it, but point out to people where they can find them.

There is currently a massive overprovision of golf in Scotland and still the want to build more, crazy.

A friend went to play on a very empty new course built by Monty, Rowellen and the staff practically begged him to go in for a drink after his game.

I think what LJ was saying, that Private members courses, should allow in all and sundry, at possible a cost.

I am a member of a private golf club, had to wait over 3 years for my membership, then had to pay a large joining fee, and an annual subscription, which on the first year, was a large sum of money, I had to save up and go without for 3 years to make sure, I had the money.

Now I did that to join a golf club, so would feel rather bitter if anyone could just walk in and enjoy the benefits I have worked hard for, so see no reason why if people wish to play golf, then they have to save up, and sacrifice the same way as I did

Completely agree OP - why should somebody get something for nothing when you've had to work hard for it?!? The biggest benefit of private clubs is that they only include people that are serious about golf and this is shown by the financial commitment that they have made to join the club. I regularly practise at a pay and play course's driving range and the way some of the people are dressed and conduct themselves is in no way becoming of a golfer and this is at £30 a round! I dread to think what the golfers at a council run course are like.

The other point with council golf courses is their use of the land. A golf course obviously takes up a hell of a lot of space and that space could be far better used by the council for things like affordable housing. This would solve a many number of problems because it will then offer people the chance to eventually own their own home, assuming they work for it, and would employ thousands of people in the construction industry which is a sector that people with little or no qualifications can start off in. This would be far more productive than encouraging people to pick up a stick and whack a ball around for 4 hours.

OP and Harrison. What you're saying is that because you had to save for a long period in order to join a club then others should too.

Isn't that just perpetuating the problem though?

Surely if you could have entered with no fee, or the option of a reduced fee or some other compromise it would have been preferable? And more inclusive?

Of course it would be preferable to pay less to be a member of a private club but if they asked me to pay more to keep out people that cannot afford it then I would have no problem. Surely that is the whole point of being a member of any club in that it allows the exclusion of people that are not wanted there.

I really do not see a problem with the level of golf participation in the UK at the moment and it has been strong for a long time. Making it more affordable for people will not attract more people to the game because it is already a very cheap hobby when compared with other leisure activities anyway. However, like most things in this country, the more you pay the better you get. I can go to a top flight football match for around £20-30 which is around what most golf courses charge but I do not expect the best seats with good hospitality for that. Just like for £20-30 I would not expect to play a great golf course - there is no exclusion of the whole sport but just tiers of quality within it, like any other sports.

sharrison01 wrote:Of course it would be preferable to pay less to be a member of a private club but if they asked me to pay more to keep out people that cannot afford it then I would have no problem.

Do you see nothing slightly wrong with that comment?

sharrison01 wrote:Surely that is the whole point of being a member of any club in that it allows the exclusion of people that are not wanted there.

The point I am making is being missed slightly... for every municipal track in the UK there must be 15 or so private clubs? (Don't know if that figure is correct as its a guess so correct me someone) A lot of those private clubs are constantly going bankrupt. Or barely breaking even. Why not close the municipal courses and use the land in a more appropriate fashion whilst encouraging the private clubs to open their doors?

I'm not advocating that everywhere be open... but that most places be more accomodating. The artisans clubs was an original statement I made that nobody has seized on for example.

My apologies, on re-reading my first comment it does seem a bit extreme. I just had the memory of a round I recently played at a pay and play (not even a muni!) of a giant oaf of a bloke on the first tee that aggressively claimed that his group were off first because they were waiting first. He'd just run through sports direct in a velcro suit to get his golf gear and if I could pay more to keep him off a golf course then I surely would!

I now understand your angle a bit better but I still do not think that private clubs opening their doors is the answer. There is already the solution to this problem in pay and play clubs that have nothing to do with the council but will pretty much let anyone play for a relatively modest fee. These courses are probably the best run in the country because they are run as businesses with competition for staff and if they do not attract golfers then they do not survive. Private clubs are generally run by a committee whereby if they do a poor job then they struggle and only have themselves to blame whereas council courses just run themselves poorly and ask for more taxpayer money at the end of the year.

I just think that golf is a relatively cheap sport that pretty much anyone can play as it is. I do not see a problem in private clubs only allowing in those that can afford to be a member, as long as there is no other discrimination. It would be a different case if the only way to play golf was at a private club but that is not the case and as such being a member of a private club is a luxury and not a given.

Perhaps not.

but I do think that a lot of the clubs do very little to encourage participation from new players.

Think what it would be like if the Wentworths and Muirfields of the world opened their doors twice a week to the general public, or the young general public, in order to get them interested in the game.

With a greater number of players being exposed to these places then fees could be driven down. It would be more inclusive.

At the moment, and although I know you didn't mean to phrase it that way, there is a prevailing wind that says "We're alright. Forget the rest"

I just don't see it as being any different to any other sport and probably reflects our society pretty well which raises a far greater issue.

If you pay £10 a round at a muni you get Wilson Ultra's in the pro shops, unraked bunkers and bobbly greens.

If you pay £25 a round you get a fairly good condition course with a well stock pro shop offering good bargains, moderate practise facilities but 4 balls every 8 minutes for a 5 hour round.

For £100 someone takes the clubs out of your car and gives them a clean, the course is manicured, theres a proper clubfitter and probably an empty course.

At £385, Wentworth gives you a caddy, tour standard course and the feeling that all you have to worry about is pinging one into Ernie's garden.

Golf caters for everyone and when you throw in twilights and vouchers then there really is no need for the council to get involved and mess it up...

That's the point though!

The council shouldn't be involved.... It should be up to golfers to provide the service that brings people into the game. Not some lesbian granny fancier!

Completely agree that the council should play no part as it still works perfectly well without them. Like most governmental bodies though, they are full of jobsworths that can't get a job in a proper company and don't have the business acumen and innovation to make their budgets work correctly.

I don't even want to get started with their finest waste, the Olympics. Who an earth is going to pay to ride their bike in circles in the velodrome after 2012 I'll never know. I'm sure it'll lie derelict until around 2015 when a well run company like O2 will take it over and run it like a proper business, as was the millennium dome.

I'm personally amused as to how they think the underground will cope with it.

It can't keep itself running properly as it is... now the Olympics are in town?

It's going to be chaos squared. I'm booking the time off.

The roads are being handled well as well - special lanes for Olympic coaches, letting everyone else queue in traffic that will be worse than the already awful traffic.

Am thinking about renting the house out for a month and going to a country that doesn't appreciate throwing the wellie and egg and spoon race...

Not a bad plan.

Back to the golf question though.

Since you agree that it is not the interest of local or national authorities to provide facilities for golf how would you remedy the situation with private clubs?

The cost of joining a club is subject to the laws of supply and demand just like everything else.

In lean times they might well feel the need to drop joining fees or spread them out and perhaps offer payment deals such as monthly direct debits.
In better times when their accounts are in the black and looking good they might have a waiting list, up front joining fees and increased subscription costs.

Golf clubs, like all businesses supply a product to fit the current market. They are not required to be charitable or affordable to all demographics. I'm amazed people think they should operate like a communist state.

If you can't afford to play at one club then join a cheaper one, or find another sport. I'd quite like to do a lot of sports which are outside my budget, so should they be made available at a cheaper price? Of course not. I just have to accept I can't afford to partake.

By situation with private clubs, do you mean their lack of availability to anyone than those without money or the fact that a lot of them are struggling financially?

For their lack of availability to only those with money, I do not think that there is an issue. There are more than enough golf courses to go round at a low price and if a group of people want to set up a club that only allows those with money to join then that is their prerogative, as long as they adhere to the law on discrimination and as long as they are allowed to sink when they struggle.

As far as the fact that most of them struggle, this is a problem that the natural market forces will rectify. Their choice is to reduce their fees to attract more members, market the club in the form of corporate deals, societies and non-member days etc. This might have the effect of upsetting their current members but that is the fine balance that they need to tackle. Alternatively, they will go under and someone with some money and business acumen will buy it and run it properly. If they do not, then it probably shows that there isn't enough of a market in that area for golfers anyway, in which case stick a load of flats on the land.

Golf clubs, private members or privately owned, should be like any other business that is determined by it's market. A good private club will always prosper and a bad one will fail.

interesting thread

like doon the water i play at a municipal and the standard of course is very high and as pointed out it is not the municipal idea that is the problem. it is the council. they dont appoint the correct staff to look after their asset. our clubhouse is now going to be renovated by a private firm after the lease went up for tender and while it has ruffled a few feathers it is my opinion that the council have made the right decision as they neglected the building for years and the original building is listed!

personally i like the fact that someone can pick up aset of clubs for the first time and wonder down the muni....couldnt care less if they wear jeans and a teeshirt....but then i am a very liberal person...or a gaurdian reading tree hugger.

munis are great......councils canny run the pish up in the proverbial !

I've been off on my birthday hols for the last couple of weeks so I've only just seen this. As a member of 2 municipal courses in the past (including Meyrick Park in Bournemouth where the Open is played) I rather take exception to LJ's apparent snobbishness. Some of us can't afford the fees charged by private clubs (especially here in the south-east near London) and munis are our only option. Some are excellent, others not as good. But surely the same can be said for private clubs too?

Hi Lady Putt

I thought Meyrick was changed to a trust yonks ago.

Would have thought this was a political argument rather than a golf debate.

Town I used to live in in NYS has a public course (and a public ski slope as it happens), with pro shop and clubhouse facilities run privately under contract. It is required to make tee-times available for school and community college teams at a peppercorn rate, but otherwise is run as a normal daily fee course at a tidy profit.

Seems that's a decent model; it has to remain competitive with other open-to-the-public (but not publicly owned or run) courses in the area, of which there are plenty, but is widely seen as an asset to the community. Normal golf etiquette is required, but not necessarily strictly observed, and everyone's content.

Isn't there a bit of NIMBY-ness in the tone of some of the comments? Who cares what people wear so long as basic guidelines are observed, and someone is seen to ensure proper pace of play and semblance of acceptable behaviour?

Ladyputt

As a fellow muni player I also take exception to some of the snobbish comments made on this thread. Many muni's have clubs, that are not run by the council, associated with them and I assure people the members of those clubs take their golf as serious as any private club member.

I often play with anyone hanging around the first tee when I go to play at muni's and never have I played with anyone I thought should not be near a golf course. I enjoy the range of people that I meet and find that a great advantage of playing a muni. I have been a private club member in the past and did not find it an advantage.

Would I rather have to fit in with the silly private club hierarchy and rules or rock up to a muni and do as I please? I think the answer is clear.

Kwinni has it right.

Councils are not best placed to run courses nowadays. For a start the cannot borrow money for improvments.
A good example would be Belleisle. one of the courses I play.
Good Braid course, in fact one of his best.
Around 20,000 visitor rounds a year and coupled with Seafield for a good 36 hole day out. Over 14 clubs use the courses with approx 2000 season ticket holders.

The course is generally in good condition despite the fact that the council has not put in automatic greens watering, something any sensible operator would have done in the 1960's.
At present the Hotel is closed and there is nowhere you can but a bacon roll and coffee far less a pint of beer.
The area is surrounded by ruined buildings.

Please do not tell me that a Trust or a private operator would not make a better job of running this wonderful facility.

As most private clubs are owned by the members, and normally are not allowed to make any profit,(unless they wish to raise money to make improvements to clubhouse or the course) I have not heard of any of this type going under.

Proprietery owned clubs, are there to make a profit, and not to support the sport, and when the profit is not so forth coming then it is easier for them to fold.

Doon the Water wrote:Hi Lady Putt

I thought Meyrick was changed to a trust yonks ago.

Meyrick is now owned by one of those companies that runs several courses ( The Club Company) but is still very much a public course. It suffers a little bit condition wise but it's still a cracking test of golf and certainly shouldn't be underestimated despite being only 5500 yards. Anyone that plays to their handicap round there has played well.

drive4show wrote:

Doon the Water wrote:Hi Lady Putt

I thought Meyrick was changed to a trust yonks ago.

Meyrick is now owned by one of those companies that runs several courses ( The Club Company) but is still very much a public course. It suffers a little bit condition wise but it's still a cracking test of golf and certainly shouldn't be underestimated despite being only 5500 yards. Anyone that plays to their handicap round there has played well.

I second that. I like the track a lot. When there last year I managed an 8 on the last hole (a par 4) to shoot a 76. And I was happy considering the rest of the course. The 2nd round was dewified so no comment.

Incidentally... To those thinking I am being snobbish. Not at all. In fact exactly the opposite. The argument I am really making here is that perhaps the private clubs have a responsibility to the game. And as such should lower fees and encourage less wealthy golfers into their clubs. I've outlined a couple of ways in which I think that might happen in the thread.

drive4show wrote:

Doon the Water wrote:Hi Lady Putt

I thought Meyrick was changed to a trust yonks ago.

Meyrick is now owned by one of those companies that runs several courses ( The Club Company) but is still very much a public course. It suffers a little bit condition wise but it's still a cracking test of golf and certainly shouldn't be underestimated despite being only 5500 yards. Anyone that plays to their handicap round there has played well.

Just checked out the hole by hole on Meyrick Park as a preamble to playing it in 10 days time. It looks a cracking tight little course (a bit like mine which is only 6200 off whites). You've certainly got to think your way around. Don't think the Lady Godiva will be coming out too often over the 36 holes tbh

I've belonged to two clubs attached to different Munis - Meyrick, where the club was run "properly" and High Elms in Bromley where it was not! In both cases, the club was a separate entity from the Council. I seem to remember that some years ago (when I was still in Bournemouth), Councils had to contract out their leisure services and this is when problems started. Separate companies were set up to run things like golf courses and they were definitely in it for profit rather than the benefit of the users. In Bournemouth, Meyrick was taken over by an individual from Somerset (I won't name him) who then sold it on for a profit to Clubhaus (who I think still have it). In Bromley, it is now under the auspices of MyTime who have snapped up courses all over the couth-east and are definitely more in it for the money than the benefit of the golfers. In both cases, sadly, the course tends to suffer from lack of care because they refuse to pay the going rate for good, qualified greenstaff.

Noshanking - you might get the Lady out on the 6th, probably possibly 13th, maybe 14th and 15th and it's worth giving it a go on 18th. But you have to be straight whatever you do! Good luck and have fun.

Cheers Lady, looking forward to playing Broadstone wednesday night with D4S and 36-holer on Thursday and Friday. Will Lord and your goodself be putting in an appearance or are you off to foreign climes (volcanic ash, strikes, sharks, terrorists and bankrupt holiday companies permitting)?

Sharrison, if you were to run from Prime Minister, i'd vote for you. Then i'd go to the back of the queue, don a false mustache and vote for you again

Doon the Water wrote:Kwinni has it right.

The course is generally in good condition despite the fact that the council has not put in automatic greens watering, something any sensible operator would have done in the 1960's.

DTW

Can I just remind you............... Bellisle is on the westcoast of Scotland, possibly the wettest place on the planet

drive4show wrote:

Doon the Water wrote:Kwinni has it right.

The course is generally in good condition despite the fact that the council has not put in automatic greens watering, something any sensible operator would have done in the 1960's.

DTW

Can I just remind you............... Bellisle is on the westcoast of Scotland, possibly the wettest place on the planet

Surely the wettest place on the planet is going to be somewhere in the ocean.