Oakmont CC - 'our planet is in peril'

[Gary_K]

I saw a post on another golf board regarding a letter to editor in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.  The letter writer was upset about the tree removal program at Oakmont Country Club.  The letter can be read at the following link (or at the end of this post):

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07052/763622-110.stm

The letter is about the 6th one down the list.  The original article about the tree removal program can be found at the following link:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07042/761220-382.stm

Here is the letter to the editor, enjoy   :

Gary K.


About going treeless

How sad. As if golf courses aren't enough of an ecological nightmare (with excessive fertilizers, runoff, absurd misuse of water, etc.) now Oakmont Country Club has, stealthily (obviously they knew it was wrong), removed thousands of trees, which were at least ameliorating some of the negatives ("Oakmont Reverts to Treeless Links Look for Open," Feb. 11).

Our planet is in peril -- and this is a prime example of why.

MARY ELABARGER
Bethel Park

[C. Squier]

Perhaps she should really get to the root of the problem.  The squirrel on Oakmont's crest mocks her as it gnaws on an acorn, depriving the life of one of the trees she so loves.

CPS

[Ryan DeMay]

(with excessive fertilizers, runoff, absurd misuse of water, etc.)

Surely, it is us and not Joe Sixpack using the "more is better" approach on his home lawn.

[Dan Herrmann]

believe me, I'm a firm believer in protecting the environment.  But come on, removing some trees from a golf course will have zero impact - plus it sure helps playability!

The letter writer should concern himself with more imporant things like deforestation and trying to become 'carbon neutral'.

[Brad Klein]

It would be very interesting to see how much less chemical input is enbabled thanks to sustained tree management programs like Oakmont's. That's the true ecologically responsible position to take. Healthier turf suffused with air and sunlight is much less disease prone.

[Tom Dunne]

I find this so ironic given that the Pennsylvania Turnpike bisects the golf course. "Prime example", indeed.  

This aspect of golf's image problem makes me nuts (with apologies to the Oakmont squirrel... ). I wish someone would produce a documentary film about golf's environmental best practices, how it can be part of a solution--perhaps in conjunction with some type of organized "Green Open" to promote eco-friendly design and maintenance.

[JMorgan]

FYI: Bethpage Green project.  Interesting stuff:  

http://www.usga.org/turf/green_section_record/2004/may_june/research.html

[Jay Flemma]

Too bad the Oakmont squirrel can't gnaw on her skull..."absurd misuse of water"...try absurd misuse of oxygen.

[Matthew Hunt]

I was thinking about this in geography the other day.

[RJ_Daley]

Remember when Paul Harvey was on this same kick?  

The GCSAA had tried mightily to get the other side of the story out regarding the supers shared concern and respect for the environment, and comparative data on where much - if not the vast majority of fert, chem, and other environmental impacts were really sourced.  

But, it seems that golf is always going to be misperceived as an environmental burden by those that don't know too much.

[Doug Ralston]

The solution to their problem, plus your own desire for minimal impact, is obvious; and it is up to you architects to encourage it.

Build a golf course ith 18 holes and 18 starting points ..........; that's it! NO ground moving, NO grass replanting, NO fairways. Let trees be in the way, streams be were they are. play the whole damned thing 'as is'. First, of course, the player must FIND the hole ...........  

Doug

[Kyle Harris]

Remember when Paul Harvey was on this same kick?  

The GCSAA had tried mightily to get the other side of the story out regarding the supers shared concern and respect for the environment, and comparative data on where much - if not the vast majority of fert, chem, and other environmental impacts were really sourced.  

But, it seems that golf is always going to be misperceived as an environmental burden by those that don't know too much.

It's awful hard to justify any such use regardless of comparison to other uses with something as superfluous as golf.

For agriculture, it's a necessary evil.

For golf, it's superfluous and useless.

I don't like that argument for that reason - it assumes golf is necessary.

[George Pazin]

Golf is superfluous and unnecessary?

PURE HERESY!!!

 

[Kyle Harris]

Golf is superfluous and unnecessary?

PURE HERESY!!!

 

George,

All kidding aside - I've sat here since I read this at work earlier and have tried to refute it.

I can't.

I just can't.

This isn't an attack that can be refuted based on comparisons to other uses of fertilizers, pesticides and water. This isn't a "lesser of evils" debate.

This is a debate on the use. Period.

Golf has been mired in a complacency regarding the footprint and impact of the activity for decades, and very few revolutionary developments in terms of usage, management and values have occured.

Each point has an underlying truth:

Excessive fertilizer:
What has been done to mitigate and minimize the need and usage of fertilization, the types of fertilization and the delivery of fertilization in the past 30-40 years? How has the ever changing demands placed on a golf course in terms of stress, playability and appearance changed the usage of fertilizers? Are we making the correct compromises in regard to appearance and playability and are we able to truly assess what is needed to play the game?

Absurd misuse of water:
What has the golf course done to ensure a program that uses water in the most effeceint and effective manner?

The answer to this dilemma is in assessing and realigning our values such that such objections can truly be labelled as absurd.

In terms of need and utility, remember, economics ALWAYS wins.