Environmentally friendly golf

[Garland Bayley]

... I am starting to think we poor, blue collar Americans are being told how to live our lives a little too much.  I am no conspiracy kook, but I am a little concerned about the people in charge of our various levels of government. 
...

GCA is blue collar?

I am no conspiracy kook, but I am a little concerned about people in charge of our various levels of industry.

[Garland Bayley]

Kelly,

Notice I did not write "the industry". I wrote "industry". I was thinking along the lines of Enron, Bear Stearns, etc.

My not so obvious point is that you will find wrong headed people in all walks of life.

[Garland Bayley]

OH!

Sorry, I didn't get it.

Can you say self-promotional genius.

[Jimbo]

Can somebody please point me to a single environmentally unfriendly golf course, and explain why they think it is so?

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

Just find any course that has greens sloping back to front, fronted by a creek. The chemicals put on the greens can get washed directly into the creek. According to a link provided in the Sebonack thread, they went to considerable expense to contain the chemicals put on the greens. Is your thesis that they wasted their money?

[Jimbo]

You didn't answer my question.

My thesis is that if golf courses are so harmful, why aren't we hearing more specifics on the harm they cause?  You'd think there would be horror stories, and in the 20 years that I've been paying attention, I don't think I've heard of any.

The title of this thread implies that a significant portion of golf is "environmentally" unfriendly.

If thats true, lets see some evidence, it shouldn't be hard to find.

With respect,

Jim

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

Go to the Golf Digest website and read the article on the all organic golf course. The super there tells about how his wife got quite sick from his environmentally damaging practices at another golf course. If you need a Love Canal type of story to sway you, then I will just mark you down in the close-minded column.

[Ryan Farrow]

Kelly, was legislation like the clean water act, clean air act, endangered species act, and the creation of the EPA not a direct result of corporations and industry having too much power? If we left it up to industry to regulate themselves how long do you think it would have taken before things started to change?

It was up to the government to step in and put some kind of monetary value on things like rivers, forests, wetlands, wildlife. It would be frightening to think what would be left if these organizations were never created. Yes, it might seem like they overreach or overreact sometimes but their interest are not self-serving, they are just looking out for the good of everyone, well... at least until you know who, was able to appoint some more of his cronies to the highest positions.

And does not excess nitrogen facilitate algae growth, which decreases sunlight, which kills plant life, thus increasing BOD and potentially killing fish?

[Jimbo]

Garland,


Thank you for the example.

Also, thank you for assuming I would reject it and was close minded.

With no respect,

Jim

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

I did not assume you would reject the example, and I put a parameter on the close-minded classification. You have not met the threshold of that parameter, so you did not get so classified.

Although, I might follow up by asking if you are from Missouri.

[Ryan Farrow]

I assumed the excess nitrogen was not the result of the golf course. Most superintendents don't screw around with fertilizers. I was just speaking of their effects.

I am not saying the EPA or environmental organizations are perfect and I'm certainly not trying to discredit your experiences, but look at the type of crap that was going on until the 1960's and 70's. Perhaps a little overreaching is in order? But yea, you are right, I think they nitpick on some things like the possibility of the golf course releasing trace amounts of nitrogen, then give a NPDES permit to a wastewater facility upstream to dump a few million gallons of treated wastewater a day right into that same river.


"Do we just assume government mandates are for the good of us all and it is our duty to obey?"

In this administration, hell no.

[astavrides]

Can somebody please point me to a single environmentally unfriendly golf course, and explain why they think it is so?

Any course in the desert that uses potable water.  Reason being...we need potable water to survive, and golf courses in the desert that use potable water deplete that scarce resource.

[Jimbo]

I would classify that as a resource issue.  A very serious issue I will grant you.  And water use is an area where there is room for improvement.

It does not harm the environment.

[Garland Bayley]

I would classify that as a resource issue.  A very serious issue I will grant you.  And water use is an area where there is room for improvement.

It does not harm the environment.

The environmental damage done by the excess use of river water such as from the Colorado River is contributed to by the use of water coming directly from the river to water golf courses. Certainly, human uses is a more significant factor, but you cannot logically say that using such water for golf courses does not harm the environment.

[Ryan Farrow]

I would classify that as a resource issue.  A very serious issue I will grant you.  And water use is an area where there is room for improvement.

It does not harm the environment.

ARE YOU THAT DENSE?

The environment is a resource. Depeleting the environments resources is an environmental issue.

What do you think happend when the river started to run dry before it got to Mexico? Im sure every living creature that depended on that river to survive didn't think of it as a problem either, right?

[Jimbo]

Who took the water out of the river Ryan?
Who should be able to?

Resource allocation is the issue.

Lets hear your definition of "environmentalism".
Like being "green", I'll bet its so nebulous and broad as to be useless.  Like arguing with people who resort to insults.

edit for spelling

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ryan,
Over zealous govt intrusion far predates Bush. You'll just have to get out of the ivory tower of higher learning and get out in the field to learn what it's like to be literally held up by some govt smuck on a power grab. All the anti-pollution legislation is good by me, but when some county dept head can stop my project until I give him a legal bribe, I have a hard time buying he's doing it for the good of all. Of course if we would have just hired his brother-in-law's engineering firm we would have probably sailed through.
Maybe it'll take you getting a project someday where you've got all the approvals and everything stamped only to learn at the very last minute that the only way to get final is donate a strip of land right through the middle of your design (and I'm talking across holes) for a walking path that will never, ever be used...primarily because there is nothing anyone wants to walk to.

I’ve sat in a meeting with a high ranking state employee who told me point blank that he doesn’t like golf and he’s going to do all he can to stop what I’m trying to do. I give him credit for his honesty, but I have no respect for his close mindedness. We ended up getting the right to do what we wanted to do but he promised to be a thorn in our side forever and he was. BTW, that was before Bush …although he may have been hired in the Reagan years.  

[Sean_A]

Is anybody seriously postulating that the maintenance of golf courses can't be more environmentally friendly?  I understand that clubs would like to move at their own pace where these things are concerned rather than being force fed legislation.  However, it must be remembered that eco groups and agencies exist for the protection of the environment.  There are plenty of forces that have been in place for a 150 years which continue to to damage and eliminate areas of nature - needlessly in some cases.  I understand that housing and feeding people is important, but so is sustainable development important to future generations.  This balance of power will always ebb and flow.  The important thing is to keep the idea of conservation at the forefront of our thoughts when it comes to design and maintenance.  As some have pointed out, golf doesn't have to be nearly so damaging to the environment as its reputation suggests it is.  Perception is terribly important.  Its not enough to be environmentally friendly, you must be seen to be environmentally friendly.  Like it or not, thats the way it is.  To be honest, if this means that less crap goes into the ground water and less water is used, I am for it. 

Ciao   

[Jon Wiggett]

Perception is terribly important.  Its not enough to be environmentally friendly, you must be seen to be environmentally friendly.  Like it or not, thats the way it is.  Ciao   

Well said Sean.

Bio fuels made from grain and the like are anything but enviromentally friendly as they are causing millions to starve and increasing the deforrestation. Yet most people think that they are good. We should be looking firstly at using less energy as this can be achieved very quickly and also not just swapping the type of energy but swapping to renewable.

[Ryan Farrow]

..........and the enlightened speak.


Jon, the whole bio-fuels thing drive me crazy. Especially when there is technology out there that actually make sense, like harvesting algae, not driving up food costs to produce something that takes up more energy to produce than you get out of it. And how about that, using less energy, that seems like a noble idea.


Don, I'm sorry to hear of your situation but why would you think the US would be any different from any other country. Bribery seems to be part of human nature and we just happen to live in one of the least corrupt nations. Is every situation the same? Is every new development the result of bribery? I don't know.

[PThomas]

Time magazine's cover story a couple of weeks ago was about the myths behind ethanol production...well worth reading

[Kalen Braley]

I would classify that as a resource issue.  A very serious issue I will grant you.  And water use is an area where there is room for improvement.

It does not harm the environment.

The environmental damage done by the excess use of river water such as from the Colorado River is contributed to by the use of water coming directly from the river to water golf courses. Certainly, human uses is a more significant fator, but you cannot logically say that using such water for golf courses does not harm the environment.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the following added caveat. Potable water also shouldn't be used for watering lawn/parks/recreation fields, washing cars, etc.

As bad as watering courses sounds, its my understanding that far more water is wasted on the above activities.

Swimming pools are a dilemma to me as well.  You would likely not want to use non-potable water to fill them, yet down in Phoneix, damn near everyone has one, all using valuable potable water, and they all evaporate fast as hell.

So singling out just golf courses is being a bit hypocritical in my book!

[Ryan Farrow]

And this weeks Time Magazine cover that apparently has caused some controversy, apparently the veterans don't think so much of it:

[Garland Bayley]

I would classify that as a resource issue.  A very serious issue I will grant you.  And water use is an area where there is room for improvement.

It does not harm the environment.

The environmental damage done by the excess use of river water such as from the Colorado River is contributed to by the use of water coming directly from the river to water golf courses. Certainly, human uses is a more significant fator, but you cannot logically say that using such water for golf courses does not harm the environment.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the following added caveat. Potable water also shouldn't be used for watering lawn/parks/recreation fields, washing cars, etc.

As bad as watering courses sounds, its my understanding that far more water is wasted on the above activities.

Swimming pools are a dilemma to me as well.  You would likely not want to use non-potable water to fill them, yet down in Phoneix, damn near everyone has one, all using valuable potable water, and they all evaporate fast as hell.

So singling out just golf courses is being a bit hypocritical in my book!

Listen here you aberration on the spelling of my name! Who do you think you are calling me hypocritical? Didn't I go to pains to not single out golf courses?

You have so little water in Utah they should be recycling your toilet back through your tap!


Disrespectfully yours!

[Kalen Braley]

I would classify that as a resource issue.  A very serious issue I will grant you.  And water use is an area where there is room for improvement.

It does not harm the environment.

The environmental damage done by the excess use of river water such as from the Colorado River is contributed to by the use of water coming directly from the river to water golf courses. Certainly, human uses is a more significant fator, but you cannot logically say that using such water for golf courses does not harm the environment.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the following added caveat. Potable water also shouldn't be used for watering lawn/parks/recreation fields, washing cars, etc.

As bad as watering courses sounds, its my understanding that far more water is wasted on the above activities.

Swimming pools are a dilemma to me as well.  You would likely not want to use non-potable water to fill them, yet down in Phoneix, damn near everyone has one, all using valuable potable water, and they all evaporate fast as hell.

So singling out just golf courses is being a bit hypocritical in my book!

Listen here you aberration on the spelling of my name! Who do you think you are calling me hypocritical? Didn't I go to pains to not single out golf courses?

You have so little water in Utah they should be recycling your toilet back through your tap!


Disrespectfully yours!

Garland,

I think all that lack of sunshine in the PacNorWest is getting to you dude.  Did I or did I not agree with your general premise?  I only just expanded on the actual other human uses that many seem to give a free pass on while unduly targeting golf courses.

As for the last bit, it was aimed more at humanity and the natzi tree-huggers at large so I should make that clarification.

In the meantime, go and get some sunshine.