[Matt_Cohn]

What is a good conversational reply to somebody who makes this statement? How should one respond in something like 3 or 4 sentences?

[Garland Bayley]

What is a good conversational reply to somebody who makes this statement? How should one respond in something like 3 or 4 sentences?

If that is so, then why do Canadian Geese insist on camping out on every course they can find? Is it becuase your back yard is so eco friendly?

[Jason McNamara]

Assuming the interlocutor eats organic food only, re-direct to non-organic farms.  In the past couple years I believe there were stats here comparing the pesticide / fertilizer amounts on farms vs. golf courses.  I think this is the thread, which also has extensive useful comments from Jeff Brauer:  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,31196.0/

Ask if a disc golf course would be more acceptable green space.  :-)

You could also mention Liberty National, Old Works, and Harborside as remediation projects, and there are presumably many more.  And you're in CA, right?  Don't most of the courses there use gray water?

Beyond that, recommend that if the true goal is improving the environment and getting the biggest bang for the non-profit buck, then the questioner should quit pestering golf courses for the next 100 years, and US farms for the next 10 years, and worry instead about cleaning up Shanxi province or Norilsk.

[Sean_A]

Assuming the interlocutor eats organic food only, re-direct to non-organic farms.  In the past couple years I believe there were stats here comparing the pesticide / fertilizer amounts on farms vs. golf courses.  I think this is the thread, which also has extensive useful comments from Jeff Brauer:  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,31196.0/

Ask if a disc golf course would be more acceptable green space.  :-)

You could also mention Liberty National, Old Works, and Harborside as remediation projects, and there are presumably many more.  And you're in CA, right?  Don't most of the courses there use gray water?

Beyond that, recommend that if the true goal is improving the environment and getting the biggest bang for the non-profit buck, then the questioner should quit pestering golf courses for the next 100 years, and US farms for the next 10 years, and worry instead about cleaning up Shanxi province or Norilsk.

Jason

Of course, a devils advocate argument might be that growing food is quite important while golf is not nearly so important. 

I reckon a better approach is to generally agree that some courses are bad for the environment.  Further state that a great many clubs are working toward improving their record and the local environment. Then mention the success stories.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

What is a good conversational reply to somebody who makes this statement? How should one respond in something like 3 or 4 sentences?

Golf is a part of the environment.  So are people.  Get over it.

[Mike Sweeney]

You can sing a better song!


 The opposition was so strong that they even wrote folk songs in opposition to the golf course. Even more outrageous, they were allowed to sing them to the kids in the schools on the island.

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2008/05/environment_carlson


The course was eventually given the go-ahead by the Martha's Vineyard County Commission, but only with several stringent conditions.
Right. One of the biggest reasons that we were successful was that this land was permitted to be a 148-lot subdivision. And I think they just weighed the two things -- 148 houses and all that that brings and demands of the town, versus a 100-percent organic golf course. There was a condition that we had to have 125 low-cost memberships for islanders. We have our local high school golf team play here. We do charity events. We support the community. The golf club has done a lot to overcome the fears that this was going to be a very cloistered, private, stay-away place. It's very inclusive. And Martha's Vineyard is a very inclusive kind of place.

[Mike_Young]

I know of one argument where the course submitted a rebuttal to the Sierra club showing where the damage to the environment caused in printing their material to bitch about the golf course was much worse than the golf course.....
But if I recall an acre of strawberries , cotton or corn uses about 10-14 times the pesticide/fertilizer etc of an acre of bermuda grass in the same area.....AND the bermuda grass slows water runoff much more.....

[Philippe Binette]

My answer to that:

OK, so how many 150 acre continuous green spaces would there be in and around cities and suburbs without golf courses . Probably none.

[JSPayne]

I always play Devil's advocate......challange their own boldness and logic by asking simple questions.

First off, it's easy to state that the basic claim "golf is bad for the environment" is the equivalent of claiming "teenagers drively hazardously fast." The statement is always offensive to somebody, never 100% accurate, but will be true for a number of the population of subjects. So....sure, some golf courses are bad. And once they hopefully agree that not ALL golf courses are bad for the environment (if you can't get past that simple agreement, walk away from the conversation), then start asking for specific examples of HOW golf is bad for the environment.

Even your average semi-avid golfer that truly loves the game and wants to stick up for it will have some simple valid points that can dispell this nay-sayer's claims. And even if you don't, keep asking them to get more specific, or accurate, or better ask them what their resource is for getting the information they may claim they have.

Mostly, statements like this are merely a perception or an ingrained, non-thinking doctrine. It's easy to LOOK at a golf course and say, man, there's no way they can make this place look like this without some crazy stuff that MUST be bad for the environment. So people will make their statements with little to no fact finding done in advance, just on perception.

Find out how "educated" your subject is, then follow-up with research of your own to support golf. There is plenty out there.

Common things people that claim this will use to support their claim and simple rebuttles:

"Golf courses use a ton of harmful chemicals." - Cite organic golf courses. Ask them about chemicals they use in their home, on their front lawn, or home cleaning chemicals they put right down the drain that go into sewer and storm drainage, unfiltered, that then eventually can reach creeks, rivers and wildlife there. Then ask how many houses could be put on the same land as that golf course and how much total chemicals those households would contribute to the environment.

"The area used by golf courses destroys natural habitat for animals." - Ask them to cite which animals the golf course displaced, and prove that these animals no longer still use the golf course as their home. Ask if the golf course WASN'T there what they think that area would be used for. Still natural and wild? Housing tract? Parking lot?

"Golf courses use too much water." - Ask them if they know how much water an average family household uses, especially on their lawns and gardens. Then ask them to try and do the math on which is more efficient. Ask them how much water their local water park uses. Or the local car wash. And ask them which amenitiy they would rather have.

We all know these statements to be bogus, and just knowing that the claim "Most golf courses AREN'T bad for the environment" is more accurate than their claim means that you don't even have to KNOW the answers to why they AREN'T, you just have to be able to point out to them the flaws in their arguement and let them do their own deductive reasoning.

[JC Jones]

I think we should be building golf courses, outside of the environment.

[Greg McMullin]

What is a good conversational reply to somebody who makes this statement? How should one respond in something like 3 or 4 sentences?

Matt, what about:
Them:  "Golf is bad for the environment."
You: "Really -- do you have the time? I'm running late for an appointment."

[astavrides]

What is a good conversational reply to somebody who makes this statement? How should one respond in something like 3 or 4 sentences?

In some ways yes, in some ways no.  I enjoy it. 

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Asphalt or grass; Your choice?

[Kalen Braley]

Jed is on the right track on this one.

I would offer no comments/suggestions but would merely start asking them questions to try to ascertain how they came to thier opinion.  More often than not it will boil down to something they read on the Sierra club website or Al-Goreism and will likely have little or zero to do with actual facts.

In my experience, people change thier mind more willingly when they are encouraged to answer thier own questions.

I shoulda been a shrink!! 

[Lou_Duran]

As is painfully demonstrated on this site with regularity, people hold on doggedly to some beliefs despite hundreds of years of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  When idealized perfection or utopia is the base case, it is senseless to bother; just walk away.

[Lyne Morrison]

It’s easy to be cynical, but not particularly useful. Why not mention that golf has made great advances in this area over the past twenty years or so. Technology has improved irrigation capabilities with significant water savings available as a result, more and more courses use recycled water,  research efforts continue to develop improved turf cultivars and environmental regulations typically insist upon filtering of course run-off, often to a point that it is cleaner leaving the site than when it entered.

Naturalised corridors reduce water consumption and support native flora and fauna - and the overall course footprint produces a green ‘heart’ within an urban environment. These practices can also provide environmental ‘classrooms’ for the benefit of research purposes. Initiatives such as Audubon International support the adoption of sound management practices that not only protect but also restore golf environments.

Matt it is a good question that you ask – if we respond with just a few of the above pointers we are helping to inform those with dated perceptions that the industry is in fact addressing environmental needs in an increasingly responsible manner - and in more than a few cases, such as The Vineyard course that Mike Sweeney mentions above, doing it very well.

Cheers  - Lyne

[Adam Russell]

If they seem to be reasonable, the above points are pretty good. If they're the environmental nut-job type, I usually go with "So are People". Then the discussion stops because they agree and think you're on the good side, or it really flusters the person asking. 

BTW, I changed a few opinions in the landscape architecture department at UGA when I did a six page research paper on the organic practices of The Vineyards. They do a fantastic job that's incredibly labor-intensive, and they need to, because the community keeps a close watch. My teacher was floored because he had no idea golf and progressive stewardship could ever exist hand-in-hand.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Of course golf courses are bad for the environment, things always get disturbed when man and machine come together to rip apart the soil and cut down trees. Animal habitats are disrupted, birds move from the area, all life down the food chain is impacted, and construction means 1000s of hours of diesel powered machinery spewing potentially carcinogenic fumes from their exhaust pipes..
Eventually restaurants pour tons of grease into the atmosphere, paved areas continually leach volatiles, including oil droppings from the cars that park there. The use of chemicals exists, and even if it's done to modern practices it still is worse than no chemicals. These chemicals also include the ones needed to maintain the clubhouse, bathrooms, etc., etc., etc,.

Having said all that, I take a similar approach as mentioned by Lyne. There is no need to be defensive as golf courses are healthy and it's through good PR that more and more people think of them that way. Butting heads doesn't work, and I can drive you by a couple of NEs(Never Existed) that found this out the hard way.

[Lou_Duran]

Anyone who has been to Africa can see the great destruction of the environment caused by elephants.  Reports from explorers and settlers of the Great Plains described the devastating effect of the tens of millions of buffalo on the fragile environment.  A walk through the ruins of Pompei or just perusing the news of the ongoing CA fires only point to the sheer force of Mother Nature and the constantly changing nature of the envrionment.

Is golf bad for the environment?  Compared to what?  Is Dutch Elm disease bad for the environment?  Is lightning bad for the environment?  Or are only things that man might have a hand in candidates for being bad or causing harm?

Though I have no evidence, I would bet that countries with the most courses per capita probably have the most pristine environment.  Cause and effect?  Coincidence?  

[Michael Dugger]

I would tell them blanket statements never paint the entire picture when it comes to environmental issues.

It is a broad generalization...

[Jim_Kennedy]

....just a reminder, when you are arguing in favor of golf courses as good for the environment don't offer insane rebuttals.

[Dan Herrmann]

Show them pictures of Pine Valley GC.  Now show them pictures of the surrounding area.
For example:
Pine Valley:


Not too far from Pine Valley:

[Jeff_Brauer]

Its really a political statement.  And one that will logically gain traction as the country moves "left" and decides that our govt should decide whats best for everyone.  Good thing Obama is at least familiar with golf!  The basic mindset in DC might not be too different than that of the dictator featured in a thread here not many weeks ago.

[Adam Russell]

I would tell them blanket statements never paint the entire picture...

Its really a political statement...the basic mindset in DC might not be too different than that of the dictator featured in a thread here not many weeks ago.

Ironic that a blanket statement comes flying in from *right* field on the same thread...perhaps this is the reason the majority believes golf courses are bad - no one has offered any logical rebuttal to the claim.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Perhaps that is because I am not convinced that its a logical claim!

Most of the environmental arguments I have heard are based on the same three enviro disasters of diazanon kill in about the 1940's, a Nemacure spill in the 1990's and a mud slide in the 2000's.  Those turned out to be a result of human anger in one case.

The rest is based on 'prove a negative" that golf isn't bad for the environment" which is awfully hard to do.  And the scare that something might go wrong.  At least its very subjective.  An enviro will claim leaving it as nature is better and a developer will claim its better than a warehouse district.  Or for that matter, a golf course superintendent can monitor his runoff and find its 99.99999% pure and call it an environmental triumph while an environ would claim the 0.000001% of golf inputs in the stream, while well below any health hazard is a "disaster."  The facts remain the same, just the spoin changes.  And in those cases where water downstream of a golf course actually comes out at 100% pure or even enhanced from upstream,  (and there are many cases of that) a golf course opponent will still claim they could do "better" somehow.  Its all point of view. 

There are plenty of scientific facts to point out the envionmental benefits of a golf course that you could look up.  Those are compared to most other land uses other than nature preserve.  But like so many other things, there is little middle ground, rational debate on these things at this point in time in our country.

If most believe golf courses are bad, its probably because that is what they read in many papers, but the claims usually aren't vetted.  I have heard news clips where the basis of the statment is "everybody knows golf is bad for the environment".  That kind of thing is let go pretty often, but doesn't sound like a vetted claim to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()