[Mark_Rowlinson]

I met someone at a function the other evening who, when he learned that I had an interest in golf, tore into me about all the ecologiocally bad practices carried on on golf courses - grubbing out brambles and undergrowth, chopping down trees, using worm killers, eradicating weeds etc.  He had a particular grudge against newly-built courses, especially those that effectively removed several hundred acres of meadowland from the local ecological equation.

I had a few examples of good ecological practice with which to retort, but they were all from old, long-established clubs, and he had his facts and figures to hand - I don't have any to turn to.  

Architects - can you give me a few watertight examples of new courses built by you which have done something to enhance the ecology of the site?

If they are not for general discussion on here, feel free to e-mail me.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

There was a study done using Eastern Long Island in this context that had a lot of currency, even if its probably over a decade old now.

My recollection is that golf courses came in pretty low on the "destructive to ecology" scale.

Let's put it this way---golf courses were nowhere near the destructive impact level of farming.  

[paul cowley]

Mark ....for the most part golf courses aren't conservation areas, but agricultural endeavors.
This is not to say that conservation areas can't be part of the overall course acreage, but only in a peripheral manner.
Golf courses generally don't enhance the ecology of their site, but are more a living and growing substitute for what previously existed in thier place.

Your detracting acquaintance might want to broaden his target to include all agricultural practices....he could even work on banning the plow, which is the one instrument responsible for destroying more nature than any other....and not just once, but repeatedly, over and over and over.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

ASGCA has published two versions of the "Environmental Approach to Golf Courses" which has several case studies of specific design and management ideas to refute such arguments.

As TEPaul notes, the Long Island study (and others) show very little golf course effects compared to other land uses.  Stuart Cohen has written many articles to that fact, and he is a PHD that used to work for the EPA.  Google his name for more facts.  Or, Google "Golf and the Environment" or similar.  You will soon come up with several facts to refute your friend, all based on science.

But, for the record, in the few cases where I have been asked to compare the ecological impact of a golf course to pasture, farm, or vineyard, the golf course comes out way ahead.  For instance, most golf courses use about a third the water of irrigated crops on the same land.  And the runoff potential for golf courses is far less than open pasture.  Often, fertilizer use is less as well.

As another example, in the US, over 80% of ALL fresh water used in this country is for crop irrigation.  I was talking with an expert the other day, and he says there is no conservation movement in water use on the largest user of water in the US, but schoolkids are taught to turn off the tap when brushing their teeth, as if that will make a statistical difference!  I visited Austin Golf Club yesterday, and Doug Petersan, Superintendent, mentioned that he uses only 0.6 lbs of N per 1000 SF per year whereas many clubs use that much or more per month.  Whereas the turf irrigation manuals suggest that he would need to put down 3 acre feet of water per acre in Austin, he puts only 2.

I could go on, but I believe there has been a "silent" revolution going on among supers to drastically reduce all inputs, which rarely gets reported, and your friend is arguing about golf cousre practices of twenty years ago, not current ones.

[astavrides]

The argument that golf courses are less destructive than farmland doesn't hold much weight, since we need to eat, but we don't need to fill little holes with golf balls.  Less destructive than raising cattle--that I could get on board with, since we don't need to eat cows or milk, but most people don't want to give those foods up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think it holds weight in the fact that we still have private property rights and are in a free country.  

Agriculture is such a big user of land and water in this country, that IMHO, they ought to be subjected to some conservation initiatives.  It could have a real effect on the environment, but the "we need to eat" argument, while valid, has effectively insulated agriculture politically, including from having to improve environmental performance like the rest of society is forced to by government fiat.

If they have changed farming methods, I am unaware of them.  Mostly, what I read is about "high production farming" which is touted as a good thing, both to feed the world and export product, but also, to possibly reduce the total number of acres of farms and their practices, which should balance out environmental effects.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Don't try to counter this guy with things like studies. What you need to do is find a bunch of really big and really tough farmers and bring them along to speak with this ecologist with you. I'll give you 5 to 1 the farmers will end up beating the piss out of that ecologist, and your work will be done.  

[TEPaul]

"The argument that golf courses are less destructive than farmland doesn't hold much weight, since we need to eat, but we don't need to fill little holes with golf balls."

astavrides:

We do need to eat over here but we don't need to eat as much as we do, so actually the argument that farmland is more destructive than golf courses does hole quite a bit of weight. One of the fundamental problems with America is  Americans are generally TOO DAMN FAT!!!

So, if one wanted to total up just how many pounds all Americans are overweight we should be able to figure out precisely how much WEIGHT this argument does hold.

My guess is that the argument actually holds millions upon millions of pounds! That's a lot of weight, in my opinion.

[Peter Zarlengo]

Jeff-
I havent heard about "high production farming", but in my design studio we are looking at bio-intensive gardens. These are small scale garden that focus on sustainable practices in their design and maintenance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

In golf and in farming, much of what I read is that the organic approach is not quite viable yet, at least not as a 100% solution.  It will probably get there, but a true accounting of the ecological effect may not justify it.

For example, it takes 16 lbs of cow manure to produce 1 lb. of nitrogen for turf/plants vs 2-5 lbs of synthetic fertilizers.  That other 15 lbs isn't anything to write home about environmentally, whereas the other lbs in synthetic ferts. is either P or K, or inert.  Studies show that 95% or more goes where its intended and stays ther.  

In that case, while organic sounds good, which practice is really better for the environment?  I liken it to the study that shows that using Pampers actually is less enviromentally affective than washing diapers, depending on how you value filling land fills, vs. using water and electricity and drains to clean cloth ones.  Maybe stats can prove anything, but somehow, I think the environmental effects of human activity tend to balance out in many cases.

[Ken Moum]

I had a few examples of good ecological practice with which to retort, but they were all from old, long-established clubs, and he had his facts and figures to hand - I don't have any to turn to.  

Mark,

There's lots of good stuff here http://www.eifg.org/

And I recommend the case studies in Edge. http://www.eifg.org/portal/portal/portal.aspx?menu_type=itemtype&identifier=5

The Edge site also has entries listed by title http://www.eifg.org/portal/portal/portal.aspx?menu_type=alphabetical

In addition the R&A has bunch of good stuff on sustainable golf course management at https://www.bestcourseforgolf.org/

And, the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses http://www.auduboninternational.org/programs/acss/golf.htm has more than 2,100 courses enrolled.

I'd also check the USGA Green Section pages for information.
http://www.usga.org/turf/environmental_programs/environmental_programs.html.

Oh, And there's a nice story in my newsletter this week about a course that was built 20 years ago with the idea of using it to filter runoff from
I-215 http://www.gcsaa.org/newsweekly/2007/mar/4/industry.asp#murray

I might be able to come up with some more, but I am off to the golf course

Ken

[paul cowley]

Yesterday I was informed that the two 30' bridges that we were required to design to bridge over an intermittent 3' wide drainage ditch that ran between two holes, were to be reduced to only one ....the reasoning being that this would decrease the impact of spanning the ditch by 50%. As a consequence golfers will now have to backtrack up to half of the holes length and providing separation between the two holes becomes much more problematic.....and this is on a farm field where previously the farmer could not only cross the ditch anywhere he wanted, but he could plow it under at will and plant the SOB twice a year if he wanted.

This is all because the agricultural activity changed from farming to growing and maintaining grass.

None of this would be required if all we wanted to do was be a sod farm.

Excuse me while I throw up.

[Mike_Young]

we did a golf course a few years back where we spray 1 million gallons per day into the nativer areas.  B4 it was 479 acres of wooded land.  The 18 clearings allowed for edges which increases wild life and the extra water increased the seed on the native plants in the wild creating more wild life also.....clearings are healthy on wooded sites....
also...an acre of 419 bermuda uses 1/3 the pesticide of corn, strawberries or cotton.....BUT an acre of marajuana uses even less....so you choose....

[Mark_Rowlinson]

What a response!  

Water is not a problem in this part of the UK - many parts of the UK had huge restrictions on the use of water over the last couple of years but most of that was because of poor practice by the water companies (mostly French-owned).  Despite recent summers being hotter and sunnier than ever, the North-West of England still had adequate supplies and hose bans were not implemented.  Our garden is currently water-logged and many local courses are very soggy under foot.

I think the non-golfing perception of golf is that golf courses are no longer wild places; they are, apparently, too manicured.  They point to the removal of brush and undergrowth under trees (golfers don't like to lose balls under trees, and it slows down visiting parties), the cleaning up of brooks and streams, the creation of semi-rough (where previously the grasses grew to seed), and the removal of cross-corridors - small wildlife (song birds, small mammals and insects) can move in relative safety from predators down a corridor of trees or scrub separating fairways, but it is scuppered when the trees or hedge that used to join up behind the green have been taken out because of shadow or lack of air circulation.  That is, it seems, where the sparrow hawk or shrike strikes.  Disappearing song birds are the current ecological concern in this country - and it's not just a matter for golf courses - they are decreasingly disappearing from our garden despite our encouraging initiatives and those of our neighbours.

I'm not criticising golf course management practice.  I just need to have the sort of ammunition presented above, and I need to read it frequently enough, that sufficient sticks in my old brain to be able to present some sort of balanced view about the whole thorny issue.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

The truth is that many conservationists' ideal is for land not to be developed at all ... and it's hard to argue that a golf course is better ecologically than that alternative.

However, I'm working with somebody now who has a huge tract of land (12,000 acres) and whose goal is to develop a small part of it with a golf course and some non-adjacent housing, and to leave 10,000 acres for conservation.  The development will help pay the property taxes on the land, and the conservation easement will subsidize the cost of the golf course.  This is in an area where development is rampant, so even The Nature Conservancy is in favor of the plan ... particularly if it encourages other large landowners to follow a similar path instead of letting their holdings be intensely developed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D

that's the kind of win-win-win-win approach that flat-out works, and hopefully will become a valuable model for many others (with appropriate tweaking etc.).  The golf course gets paid for, the developer makes money, the homeowners can bank on their properties becoming ever-more valuable because of the conservation area next door, and the environment is better off. It's nice when people try to find workable solutions/approaches instead of getting entrenched in rhetoric.    

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course, converting any of the old quarry sites or other spoiled sites, like the Glen Club as an airport, to golf, is only an environmental benefit.

Tom's example is an extreme one, but good.  In most communities, having a developer keep 200 acres of green space rather than develop the whole thing is still considered a nice overall compromise.  Its still less intensive development with actual higher densities and the same net density (i.e. 1000 smaller homesites with golf is better than 1000 larger homesites)

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff B

"Of course, converting any of the old quarry sites or other spoiled sites, like the Glen Club as an airport, to golf, is only an environmental benefit."

Thanks for mentioning that example; I'd meant to as well. This is one area -- i.e. building courses on old quarry or landfill sites -- that rarely gets discussed here. That's not surprising on a site devoted to classic courses: the courses in question would be new ones, and would require a lot of earth-moving, and would probably have to serve a very broad golfing demographic. But I think it is a very important segment of golf-development, in so many ways.

Peter    

[Ron Kern]

Two points:

To say that land would be better off if a golf course was not built could be a little short sighted.  If the ground was native and pristine and was never and never will be used for anything other than its own existence, sure.  However, if the land could be utilized for future development,  I can think of many things that could be built on that piece of ground that would be much more detrimental to the environment.  Compared to a subdivision a golf course is incredibly environmentally friendly.  Not to mention the preservation of green space in an area of future development and, dare I say, sprawl.  For example, at Purgatory's golf course site accepted uses for the ground were a quarry and gravel pit, a large scale agricultural production operation such as a pig or a chicken operation, etc.  The golf course was a much better choice environmentally than a pig farm.

And the fact is that when a golf course is built on a piece of crop production ground where every year many, many acres erode and silt up waterways degrading and choking the riverway ecosystem, it is a great benefit to the environment.

This is an issue that must be addressed in relative terms.  However, radical environmentalists refuse to look at much of anything in a rational, relative manner, many times including their own lifestyles...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ron,

Nice points, esp. the last.  One of my favorite permitting memories was a public hearing in a public school, where I was taking a thrashing from a Sierra Club member.  She was mixing environmental issues with political ones - about how golf was for rich people, even though this was a $35 public course, how we should be concerned with the less fortunate, etc.  As I was presenting, I looked out the window and noticed a Mercedes that had left its lights on.

I announced that as a public service, and who gets up to to out and turn off the lights?  You guessed it, the same lady semi portraying herself as one of the people!  Her credibility was somewhat shot after that.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Have you ever heard the story of the sierra club slamming golf and some golf course(rumor as always was ANGC) decided to check the footprint of the brochure the sierra club used slam golf.  when the inks, trees and other items were calculated..they did much more damage than the golf course.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hadn't heard that one, but like the diaper story, it illustrates that every human activity does affect a pristine environment. The idea that we should pick on just golf, or that some of us are more noble than others, is pretty ridiculous.

That lady probably also lived in a 5000 sf house with huge electric consumption, probably used the same lawn products the golf courses do (or maybe cheaper and less friendly ones from the local Wal Mart) and so on.  The car she drove wasn't exactly a Prius.  Add in the mileage driven by her housekeeper, etc. or the mileage driven to reach her second home near Aspen well, you get the picture.

I really have nothing against common sense measures to improve the enviroment, and we do have to start somewhere, but I think we all talk a better game than we live when it comes to living in America.  We are sort of forced into it.  So, it is just hard for me to accept that golf ought to be the first target for anything.

As suggested earlier, the environment gets mixed up with anti growth sentiments, and other things.  The biggest thing to slow down urban sprawl (which Sierra Club maintains is often led by golf course developments) is $3 gas.  I heard at Crittenden that developers now think the next generation will want to live near downtowns.  Whether its gas or traffic, or multi use at night, it does seem to be a trend, with urban areas redeveloping right now.  

Of course, all it will take is a few high profile urban crimes to reverse that trend!

sorry, kind of wandering OT.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is generally one of those converstions that you can't win, even if you had all the amuniton in the world.  Zeaalots of every ilk grnerally feel "I know the truth don't confuse me with the facts."  All we have to do is point to the discussion about climate change.

[paul cowley]

....actually I won't do that....just kidding....but it would be fun to try to get their attention...it can be frustrating.

[Steve Lang]

 
Unfortunately, ecology is such a large collection of ideas and application of concepts from multiple scientific disciplines, that folks tend to focus on rather limited points or arguments that they can keep grasp of.. this is in direct conflict with the theoretical, holistic nature of ecology.  So if you get into and argument on minutia, a micro-environment or even a macro-environment, it can always be enlarged out to a larger basis.. out to the planetary boundary layers.. with infinite degrees of freedom.. hard to argue "facts" in such a conceptual field..  no wonder its viewed as a soft populist science.. even though built on hard sciences of biology, geology, chemistry etc..  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()