OB stakes and Audubon certification?

[Chris Pearson]

I'll preface this by saying I don't give a damn if a course is Audubon certified. I care if the routing is interesting, the holes offer options, and I don't encounter seemingly out-of-place OB stakes along the way...which brings me to the topic of this thread.

I recently played Fuzzy Zoeller's Champions Pointe in Henryville, IN, which touts its Audubon sanctuary certification just about everywhere. (I'm quite sure this has never sold a round of golf or an adjacent lot, but I digress.)

Anyway, the course was littered with OB stakes, and in many cases, these stakes formed long chutes through which you were required to drive the ball. The par-5 third was particularly offensive, with a 280-yard, tree-lined chute...complete with OB stakes on both sides.

Although the tree-lined areas were common woods from which a wayward shot could be recovered, the OB stakes blew these routine recoveries—and my scorecard—all to hell.

Miffed and dumbfounded, I inquired about these stakes after the round, and I was told that to receive the Audubon sanctuary certification, they had to use the OB stakes instead of red hazard stakes to keep players out of the woods.

This line of reasoning is dumb enough that I am inclined to believe it's true. So, for those of you in the know about such things, is this true?

The environmentalist crowd has already done enough damage, but now they're after my scorecard? This could be my Waterloo.

[Jon Wiggett]

Chris,


I am always amused about these sort of requirements and how the so called experts seem to be of the opinion that the protected areas are so fragile that they will not survive even the slightest of intrusions and that every single golfer who plays will trample through the entire protected area.


In truth in the vast majority of cases it is how you create and maintain an area and not the number of people (within reason) who pass through it. As to OB posts why not have lateral water hazard stakes with a ban on entering the hazard. Just because a place is OB does not necessarily mean you cannot enter it.


Jon

[Jason Topp]

We ran into this in marking our course at my old club when native areas were introduced.  The club's options for environmentally sensitive areas under the USGA's rules are to either mark them as out of bounds or a free drop. 

They cannot mark them as water hazards (consistent with USGA Rules) unless the areas meet the definition of a water hazard, which basically means they actually have water at least some of the time (a wash that is dry most of the time is OK, presumably because water is in it some of the time).

Free drops and OB stakes were both very unappealing for opposite reasons.  We chose to mark them as lateral water hazards which meant we were choosing to ignore the rules.  While I was not involved with the decision I could live with that stain on my character.   

[Joe Hancock]

Jason,

I'm probably not understanding your situation correctly; Are you saying the club quit mowing certain areas, then labeled them ESA's, then had the rules decisions debacle? Was there something that dictated the ESA's vs. just having unmowed areas that could be playable? I've seen and played many courses that had "native" areas that were through the green.....as it should be.

[Steve Lang]

    Most ESA's I've seen were delineated to create a habitat, versus mark an existing one, which makes it doubly hard to wonder why one can't go in...


I'd tell tell the proshop that you're not coming back because of the ridiculous boundaries and you're looking forward to discussing same with the next owner.

[Jamey Bryan]

I'm more than a little baffled by the discussion here.....   Following is the definition of an ESA from the suggested local rule:

"1. Definition  An environmentally-sensitive area (ESA) is an area so declared by an appropriate authority, entry into and/or play from which is prohibited for environmental reasons.  The__________(defined by__________) are 'environmentally-sensitive areas' (ESAs). These areas are to be played as (ground under repair - water hazards - out of bounds).



I presume the Audubon Society would qualify as an "appropriate authority" though I don't really know that.  Presuming that to be the case, though, the area can be marked/played as any of GUR, water hazard, or OB.  The key point is that you're barred from entry into or playing from the area.


Jamey

[Joe Hancock]

Jamey,

I'm sure you're right. I also know from having met you and golfed at your course that you would never sacrifice the golf by incorporating ESA's solely for marketing....which is a major component of the Audubon Sanctuary Program. Environmental stewardship doesn't NEED an agency, consultant or corporation...it needs good stewards.

[Peter Pallotta]

My grandfather was the best steward I've ever met - and he learned it all not from books (he was an Italian farm boy who'd lost both his parents and had to quit school after the 4th grade) but from the land itself.

One year, when he was in his 80s and near the end of his life, his backyard vegetable garden was looking particularly healthy and robust, and I complimented him on it.

He smiled and said: "Yes, I hadn't been feeling very well and so in the spring I said to God, 'God, if you want Your garden to flourish You're going to have to do even more than You usually do, because I'm not strong enough anymore to be of much help'. And God did it, like he always does. After all, I don't own this land: it's not my land, it's God's. A thousand people have lived here before me and a thousand will live here after me -- my job is just to take care of it while I'm here. 

We should all go and do likewise, methinks. And I think it starts with being willing to say, and really believe, that it's not our land: not the land that is home to a golf course we decide to play once in a while, and especially not the woods and streams that surround it and that might sometimes inconvenience us to the extent of a stroke and distance penalty (that we no doubt deserve anyway). I mean, if you're a pet owner and you say "That's my dog", do it mean it's yours to take care of and love and be gentle with, or does it mean you can kick it and chain it up and starve it to death because it's 'yours'?
       

[Dave McCollum]

I may be wrong, but I think I read that Audubon Certification has nothing to do with The Audubon Society.  It may be a for-profit outfit or a PR type firm plugging environmental awareness for courses to their customers.   

[Jamey Bryan]

Dave,

You piqued my curiosity so I looked into it.  You're correct, the certification is issued by "Audubon International" (which has had its certificates for its web site revoked), a 501(c)3 "not for profit" organization and which is not affiliated with the National Audubon Society.  In fact, the Audubon Society sued back in 1991 to prevent them from using the Audubon "brand" but lost.

Audubon International actually seems to have some reasonable programs and have been praised by some groups not usually identified as environmentalists but they're clearly intentionally misleading as to their origins.

Learn something new every day......

Jamey

[Pete_Pittock]

I'm more than a little baffled by the discussion here.....   Following is the definition of an ESA from the suggested local rule:

"1. Definition  An environmentally-sensitive area (ESA) is an area so declared by an appropriate authority, entry into and/or play from which is prohibited for environmental reasons.  The__________(defined by__________) are 'environmentally-sensitive areas' (ESAs). These areas are to be played as (ground under repair - water hazards - out of bounds).



I presume the Audubon Society would qualify as an "appropriate authority" though I don't really know that.  Presuming that to be the case, though, the area can be marked/played as any of GUR, water hazard, or OB.  The key point is that you're barred from entry into or playing from the area.


Jamey

Jamey,
Going out on a limb here, but appropriate authority should be a governmental agency which has authority to delineate protected areas. They also have the power to ticket trespassers.

And in the original post an OB stake has never kept me from looking for my OB ball, maybe a snake sign, or an ESA sign, but never an OB stake.

[Kalen Braley]

Pete,

That's funny you mention that.  Last year, I left my lawn up to God and now nearly the entire thing has to be replaced...

[Jamey Bryan]

Pete:

Basically, we agree.  However:

1)  My original intent on my post was to make the point that the Rules allow an ESA to be played as GUR, hazard, or OB as preferred by the course.

2)  I naively thought originally that Audubon certification was directly tied to the Audubon Society.  In my admittedly limited experience dealing with Governmental groups involved in such things (Corps of Engineers, EPA, SC Coastal Commission), I have at least as much faith in "independent" groups reasonably identifying truly sensitive areas.  I wouldn't object to such designations (by legitimate organizations).

3)  Generally, I assume (and this gets us back to GCA!) agreements are made during the permitting process to identify certain areas as ESAs.  Therefore, the architect's intent in providing for the "hazard/ESA" should give direction for how it should be identified.

4)  I'm in complete agreement that OB stakes have never kept me from looking for my OB PV1+.  In fact, "No Trespassing" signs are ignored or uprooted (any asshole who buys a fairway home and doesn't expect that type of intrusion deserves what he gets).  I haven't yet gone into a swimming pool to retrieve my ball, though.

Again, my point is primarily that ESA designation gives flexibility as to how to treat a ball in that area.  It's interesting to note that the Tournament Committee is specifically prohibited from designating an area as Environmentally Sensitive.

Jamey

[Dave McCollum]

Hi Pete,

You have way more respect for "government agencies" than I do.  To me the environmental regulatory community is mostly about politics, keeping their funding, justifying their jobs, and so on.  The EPA doesn't solve environment problems.  It declares itself infallible and enforces its own rules by fining the hell out of people and companies who fail to comply.  If anyone disagrees with the system, they have to sue them and they have a lot more lawyers and money than most.  I'm not anti environment at all and a very reluctant developer.  However, having so called experts from the enviro regulatory community tell us what we can do with our land makes me very nervous, cynical, and cautious. 

I have the scar tissue to support the evolution of my beliefs.  Take a look at that aerial of the Wolf Pt. property done by a private landowner with respect for his own land.  Then take a look at almost any golf reclamation project when the government is involved.  Old Works and Ferry Point come to mind, but I am sure there are many more.  Not saying anything critical of those projects other than, with the government involved, the tens of millions it took to build those courses compared to the low-cost simple beauty of the owner built course and how it fits its landscape.

Be careful what you wish for.   

[Mike_Young]

Dave is correct.   Just check out http://thesustainabilitycouncil.org/ .  I began as a proponent of the Audubon Sanctuary etc and after having one of my projects spend about $50,000 in fees for the certificate etc I realized it was just another leech to the game. Any good supt can do what was required without the "certification".  I'm sure someone will come on here to say this is a negative post.  Sorry if it is taken that way but I tire of the BS strangling so much of the game.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jamey, Dave - good posts, and good points.

My post was mostly a reaction to Joe's -- his use of the word "steward" reminded my of my grandfather. But also: I don't in fact have much faith in government agencies anymore -- for many reasons, not least because of the truism that if you pay people to make regulations, many regulations they will more than gladly make.  But I think to mock/demonize some of the initiatives and/or results of said agencies (leaving aside the essentially for-profit marketing and PR groups -- in which I have even less faith than I do government to serve the common good) is to miss two opportunities: 1) to find ways to imaginatively work around/with these guidelines (as Jamey suggests) and 2) to ask ourselves, personally, about our relationship with land and nature, and whether we want to be "stewards" or "users".  That said, I think it is better in general to leave the rhetoric aside, i.e. if I played a course that has one or several golf holes that are really bad and/or annoying because of the use of OB stakes (for environmental or other reasons), I'd simply choose someplace else to play rather than make it a thing...

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

I'm probably not understanding your situation correctly; Are you saying the club quit mowing certain areas, then labeled them ESA's, then had the rules decisions debacle? Was there something that dictated the ESA's vs. just having unmowed areas that could be playable? I've seen and played many courses that had "native" areas that were through the green.....as it should be.

Yes although I do not know whether or not the areas were designated by some authority.  As to my original post, here is a part of the intro to the local rule discussed by Jamey:


"The [/size]Committee[/b][/color][/size] has some discretion in terms of whether the area is defined as [/color][/size]ground under repair[/b][/color][/size], a [/color][/size]water hazard[/b][/color][/size] or [/color][/size]out of bounds[/b][/color][/size]. However, it may not simply define an area to be a [/color][/size]water hazard[/b][/color][/size] if it does not meet the Definition of a "[/color][/size]Water Hazard[/b][/color][/size]" and it should attempt to preserve the character of the hole."[/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:


The reason the authorities shy away from marking ESA's as lateral hazards is that the Rules of Golf entitle you to play a ball out of a hazard if you want to try ... so, the Rules sticklers think the ESA should only be either Out of Bounds or a free drop. 


You can make a local rule if you want that they are hazard lines but players are not allowed to enter the hazard or play their ball from it, but don't be surprised if someone from the state golf association challenges you on it.

[Chris Pearson]

"The reason the authorities shy away from marking ESA's as lateral hazards is that the Rules of Golf entitle you to play a ball out of a hazard if you want to try ... so, the Rules sticklers think the ESA should only be either Out of bounds or a free drop."

I get this line of reasoning, but I also think too many OB stakes ruin a golf course. (In the same vein, I think too many "native areas" that pinch drives on both sides also ruin golf, and based on his writing, the good Doctor would agree.)

Bottom line: Audubon certification is something sold to city councils and development committees, but it does absolutely nothing positive for the game of golf. Encroachments of this nature are becoming more numerous in many areas of our lives; I'm over all of them.

[Jon Wiggett]

Chris,


it appears the bottom line is that it the Audubon certification is not about golf. Does the USGA have a similar certification program and if not why not?


As for the hazard rule it would not be difficult to create a hazard definition where through local rules it is forbidden to enter a hazard/area. The reason I suspect that the USGA does not have an environmental certification program is because if they did they would have had to address this point.


Jon

[Jeff Taylor]

The golf balls stay there? How is that sensitive to the environment? I should put up stakes around my yard just to see if the deer respect them. I guess humans are not natural.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Metropolitan (next to the Oakland Airport) has a local rule for their ESA's, as detailed on this scorecard.  The areas are treated as "hazards" but no play is allowed from them.  The stakes have green tips: