Sierra Club Quote

« **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2005, 10:23:07 AM »

A golf course is no more damaging than a soccer field or baseball field....
problem is the Sierra Club identifies golf with "money" and insinuates
As for watering....golf clourses can filter a lot of water instead of having spray fields in a community

clearings(golf holes) within a wooded area create more wildlife habitat than a completely forested area
Golf is a good way hide areas such as landfills, wastewater spray fields etc in public areas and , in that light can justify land use.
Not ot be advertising but www.cateechee.com created another 200 jobs in a county that needed them, cleaned up an area that was goingto be a spray field and is working as a golf course.

« **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2005, 10:32:44 AM »

The golf industry needs to do a better job of geting the word out. Many of the examples noted here are not known by the "man on the street" in fact many on this site have learned about the positive improvements that a golf course can provide. I have.

A great example is the ad running about a strip mine turned into a golf course. Now which is better a golf course or a strip mine. More info like this needs to come out.

Just a footnote I heard on the radio this morning that the Sierra Club will come out and endorse Ford and its new
Hybred car in their newest edition. A true odd couple. Maybe one day they will endorse the PGA.

« **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2005, 10:50:36 AM »

Quote from: Brent "Net Birdie" Hutto on July 12, 2005, 07:20:11 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 11, 2005, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: Brent "Net Birdie" Hutto on July 11, 2005, 02:09:32 PM

And looking back at the history of golf courses in this country prior to the last 10-15 years I don't think anyone could dispute that a lot of damage was done to the environment in the name of wall-to-wall bright green for golfers to enjoy.

Brent,

This is your statement.

Where are your facts to back it up ?[/color]

...It is obvious from reading what I've posted in this thread that I offer no facts whatsoever because I'm not an expert in golf-course chemical usage[/color]. Nor do I have any intention of doing so, as I've already stated. However, I would love to read any authoritative information from knowledgable posters that either confirms or dissuades me from that opinion.

A rhetorical question of my own. How many facts have you offered on this thread? The answer, of course, is none at all. So basically we're taking up forum bandwidth for no purpose other than your amusement. Pretty boring stuff.
Not really.
I wasn't the one who stated that golf courses had done a lot of damage to the environment, YOU DID.
I merely asked you to provide support or proof of your claim, which you've admitedly failed to do.[/color]

Another rhetorical question. Do you actually believe that your green-font broken records somehow oblige the rest of us to dance to your own beat? Because it appears to offer you endless amusement even though you seem to be a bright enough guy to actually enjoy more substantive discussions. This ain't rhetoric class, debate society or law school.
Don't get huffy because you made an irresponsible statement absent any facts or proof and were called on it.

As to the green print I use that to differentiate my comments from the quoted comments, it makes for easier reading, even for people who make irresponsible claims absent any supporting facts.[/color]

Whenever I have a pertinent fact to offer the forum I do so. That's fun to do and when other knowledgable people post what they know it's fun to read. I also offer my opinions on various topics from time to time and I don't think it's all that unclear as to which posts are facts and which are opinions. What I find totally uninteresting is parsing posts line by line and word by word to see who can lob the most rotten tomatoes. Frankly, I've skipped over the bulk of your massive green laundry lists lately. Nothing personal, man, but that sort of thing just seems boring and pointless.

I can see why you would feel that way.
You, and you alone made an irresponsible, unfounded claim, and the green ink merely asked you to provide the facts that support your claim. If you have them, supply them. If you don't, admit your mistake and retract your claim.

Green ink can be very useful at seperating the babble from the bauble [/color]

« **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2005, 10:53:53 AM »

Quote from: Paul Thomas on July 12, 2005, 10:03:42 AM

a good post AG

the amount of water that courses use to irrigate is going to be a HUGE issue....the wall-to-wall green "Augusta" look has to stop...

Paul Thomas,

Have you ever been to ANGC ?

Are you aware of its months of operation ?
October to May.

It is anything but lush green, save for a limited time in the spring.[/color]

« **Reply #29 on:** July 12, 2005, 10:57:42 AM »

An interesting story I read about Augusta.

Some enterprising individual saw fit to jump the fence and snag a sample of the water in one of the ponds, to find out why it was so pristinely blue. Sent the sample off to be tested.

Guess what was in it?

Hydrogen - hydrogen - oxygen.

John Keenan -

You're fighting a gigantic uphill PR battle there. We can't even convince the thoughtful posters on this site that tax cuts are good for the economy.

« **Reply #30 on:** July 12, 2005, 10:57:59 AM »

Pat -- I should have been clearer and used the phrase "Augusta National Syndrome", which is commonly used to describe a very green, highly maintained course

and yes, I have been to Augusta once!!!! (and that was 12 years ago

« **Reply #31 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:00:09 AM »

If I post something incorrect and the correct information is pointed out to me, I correct my misstatement. Nothing of the kind has happened in this thread.

I stated my opinion and gave no documentation to back it up.

You disagree with my opinion and give no documentation to back it up.

I can hardly apologize every time somebody disagrees with a statement I make, no matter what color they may choose for displaying their disagreement. Have you ever seen the movie Popeye, the one directed by Robert Altman? In it Olive Oyl's father spends the whole movie wandering around mumbling "I think someone owes me an apology..." apropos of nothing in particular. Funny stuff.

« **Reply #32 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:10:52 AM »

Quote from: Brent "Net Birdie" Hutto on July 12, 2005, 11:00:09 AM

If I post something incorrect and the correct information is pointed out to me, I correct my misstatement. Nothing of the kind has happened in this thread.

I stated my opinion and gave no documentation to back it up.

You disagree with my opinion and give no documentation to back it up.

That's incorrect.
Would you cite for me an example of where I disagreed with your opinion ?

I merely asked you to provide facts that support your opinion.

If you're going to make a statement, or offer an opinion you should be able to provide facts or substantiation supporting your opinion. To date, you've offered none.

You chose to yell, "FIRE"
I merely asked, WHERE ?.[/color]

« **Reply #33 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:13:09 AM »

You would be a great prosecutor Pat!

« **Reply #34 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:21:56 AM »

You seem determined to draw me into some sort of line by line pissing contest, Mucci. Not going to happen. You are perfectly free to to characterise my comments in any way you like, in any color you like, as many times as you like. My original comments are right there for anyone to read or skip over as they see fit.

If all you have to say is "Brent did not give any facts, only an opinion" then you've said that and I completely agree. Mission accomplished, such as it is. That's like me saying "Pat Mucci says that I did not give any facts, only an opinion". It may be true enough but I can't see the purpose in repeating it every few hours.

If you have some other point to make, please state it more clearly because I've totally missed it. If you don't have any other point, then I'll just say thanks. Your input is noted.

« **Reply #35 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:23:04 AM »

Quote from: Don Herdrich on July 12, 2005, 11:13:09 AM

You would be a great prosecutor Pat!

Yeah, on the Perry Mason show.

« **Reply #36 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:33:43 AM »

Brent,

Do you understand the impact of implied quilt ?

Like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife ?"

It sends the wrong message.
It draws a conclusion absent the facts.

Why cater to and promote a belief without providing the pertinent facts.

Golf courses are under attack from a variety of sources and your parroting of the message of the Sierra Club isn't helpful.

« **Reply #37 on:** July 12, 2005, 12:16:54 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on July 12, 2005, 10:23:07 AM

A golf course is no more damaging than a soccer field or baseball field....
problem is the Sierra Club identifies golf with "money" and insinuates
As for watering....golf clourses can filter a lot of water instead of having spray fields in a community

clearings(golf holes) within a wooded area create more wildlife habitat than a completely forested area
Golf is a good way hide areas such as landfills, wastewater spray fields etc in public areas and , in that light can justify land use.
Not ot be advertising but www.cateechee.com created another 200 jobs in a county that needed them, cleaned up an area that was goingto be a spray field and is working as a golf course.

Mike,
I actually thought about Cateechee earlier as a good example of doing it right. You don't even mention the wildlife and bird sanctuary status.
I'm taking a buddy there tomorrow a.m., as a matter of fact. He's never seen the course, and we're really looking forward to the trip. We're then heading down 77 to the new Arrowhead Pt. state park course. Keep your fingers crossed for decent weather.

« **Reply #38 on:** July 12, 2005, 12:50:50 PM »

I doubt very much that the Sierra club sees things like I do. As Ed Getka alluded to, they have become almost a parody of a kneejerk extremist response to every issue.

If you construe my statement as an attack on golf courses then my writing and/or your reading are suspect. Feel free to discern whatever hidden agenda you like. Your paranoia is not something I can control nor is it required that my comments comport with it.

« **Reply #39 on:** July 12, 2005, 01:11:21 PM »

Quote from: Brent "Net Birdie" Hutto on July 11, 2005, 02:09:32 PM

.....I don't think anyone could dispute that a lot of damage was done to the environment in the name of wall-to-wall bright green for golfers to enjoy.

Your statement is clear and not difficult to comprehend, despite your protests to the contrary.

So, what damage was done, and by what golf courses ?[/color]

« **Reply #40 on:** July 12, 2005, 01:22:59 PM »

Gee, Pat, I dunno.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not going to answer any of your specific, cross-examination questions. No future in it, not interesting, a fool's errand. Asking again won't change that.

« **Reply #41 on:** July 12, 2005, 04:07:05 PM »

It's always a pain in the arse when you read some quote taken out of context about golf and the environment. Learned(read scientists) men and women from both sides of this issue have done and continue to do extensive research on these questions. Information is readily available from the USGA, NAS, GCSAA, EPA, state DEP's, manufactureres, etc., which shows that golf courses sometimes failed to use proper handling and application techniques in the past but also that improper H&A techniques were not limited to golf courses. Most of the misuse was due to a lack of knowledge about the chemicals themselves and no science to gauge their impacts over time.
This is not the case in our world of today. All the aforementioned groups have ongoing programs which assess
risk and in reading much of what they print it appears, to my untrained eye, that everyone is right to a certain degree.

This is why chemical companies strive to improve product, like herbicides.. Where it was once necessary to apply 10-15 pounds per acre it's now possible to achieve the same effect using ounces per acre.
This is why the USGA conducts tests on soils, to see the flow of nitrogens, pesticides, etc., and at what rates they are absorbed.

I think we should be happy that there are folks who look out for our environment, no matter if they sometimes appear one sided.
I think we should also be happy that we have well trained scientists to assess the potential hazards or non-hazards that chemicals pose to our environment.

But hey, don't let facts stand in the way of your opinions.

« **Reply #42 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:01:08 PM »

I wrote Eric Antebi to ask him to elaborate on his quote and this was his response....

No problem. There are really two main problems with golf courses. The first has to do with the fact that it is an artificial landscape. Unless you live in Scotland, to build a gold course involves clearing the land to replace it with something that is distinctly non-native. To maintain the grasses often involves a heavy use of water and chemicals, and those chemicals pose problems when the runoff into local waterways. It is possible to build golf courses that minimize these impacts to a point, but it's pretty hard to argue that they are the equivalent to a natural state.

The second problem, may in fact be a bigger one. Golf courses, like ski areas, tend to serve as catalysts for unwanted development in areas valued for their natural or scenic beauty. The golf course itself is sold as an amenity for hotels, condos, resorts, luxury homes, restaurants etc. and all of those need to be serviced by roads, which encourage even more development. So in these cases, you can't just look at the golf course in isolation, you have to look at the total impact of the golf-related development.

That said, there are plenty of appropriate places where golf courses are perfectly acceptible, plenty of existing golf courses that could be better utilized, and plenty of ways to minimize the water and chemical use and prevent runoff. But, and this was my point to the reporter, we shouldn't fool ourselves to think that golf courses are somehow neutral or good for the environment, which is how they are billed by their backers. They should be treated like development and evaluated accordingly.

I hope that helps.

Eric

« **Reply #43 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:35:33 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 12, 2005, 11:33:43 AM

... implied quilt ?

Is this a warm and fuzzy thought?

AD

« **Reply #44 on:** July 23, 2005, 09:28:11 AM »

Facts:

• Most golf courses serve as depositories for drainage. Much os this drainage comes from parking lots, streets, rooftops and other urban hardscapes. The turfgrass filters this run-off and cleanses the pollutants, many of which are eaten by the plant.

• Golf courses return water to the ground, from where a majority of it has been pumped for use by civilization. Treated effluent (sewage) is an excellent water source in many communities — and golf courses constitute the single largest user of this water. Again, the turfgrass is an excellent layer on which to dispose of this treated water before it re-enters the ground.

• Golf courses are profit-oriented — there is NO subsidy. Fertilizers and pesticides are regulated by governments and PAID for by corporations and through annual budgets. Waste is minimal, if at all. This is a contrast to agrilculture which is highly subsidized and which is less prone to control because it is falls in non-structural categories. In most U.S. states the structural pest control boards regulate golf pesticides — but they have little or NO control of the farmer or his 13-year-old son who is sent out to the north 40 to spray chemicals before a farm league football game.

• Golf course acreage and chemical application — appreciating that it is less today than in the 1980s — is miniscule compared to agrilculture. I base this on acreage of golf courses — perhaps 2,500,000 acres in turf coverage worldwide. Golf courses are NOT a viable focus for environmental concern...they perform a valid duty for communities and are sustainable recreation sites.

• An 18-hole golf course produces enough oxygen to support a town of 7,000 people.

« **Reply #45 on:** July 23, 2005, 10:23:34 AM »

Like I said, the golf industry has done a lousy job, IMHO, showing the public what it does and doesn't do.

Every single one of my "enviro" friends, when they learn I work at a golf course, make a remark about the "tons of chemicals" I'm being exposed to. They are totally clueless about what goes on there, yet they assume it must be harmful to the enviroment. Sadly, there is little information I can show them to refute their claims, and counter their ignorance.

I tell them to Google golf course pollution studies etc. and see what they find. I tell them to look into the Audubon programs that dozens of golf courses are tied into. Hopefully they will look further,but somewhere, there should be a source, a single source for this information. Like I said, I blame the GCSA and the USGA for not doing a little more to promote good enviro practices.

« **Reply #46 on:** July 23, 2005, 02:23:10 PM »

Both sides of this equation are miles from the truth. It lies somewhere in the middle and is really site and manager specific. Most golf courses are very much a net positive on the environmental balance sheet. However, There are some golf courses, mainly in the metropolitan area's, which never turn off the spray rig. We can argue all day and never come to a conclusion which is satisfactory to all sides. My course is a poster child for clean water and biodiversity in plant, animal and microbial lifeforms, however I know of several courses which have used 6 different pesticides in the last two weeks to try and maintain championship conditions. Most managers are somewhere in the middle. The truth is deeply buried.

« **Reply #47 on:** July 23, 2005, 03:06:24 PM »

Forrest, great post! Let us not forget that golf fills a need for outdoor recreation and some percentage of golfers represent some percentage of idiots not out in the wilderness really screwing up the environment where we can't clean up after them so easily. And Mr. Hutto, don't believe everything you think, it can make you seem foolish. Any objective person that takes a good hard look at golf and the environment will quickly realize that there are much bigger fish to fry than golf. As an industry golf is on the cutting edge of environmental stewardship. The majority of our superintendents are the best educated, most efficient and responsible agricultural managers in the world. Just because a sprayer is out on the course don't assume that there is a pesticide in the tank. I've never known any super that fills a sprayer to make more space in the store room.Those machines can put out micro doses of nutrients, wetting agents, bacterial innoculants, kelp extract, and organic matter. So tell the naysayers to shut their pie holes long enough to get an explanation, they might just learn something.

« **Reply #48 on:** July 23, 2005, 03:11:33 PM »

Firstly, Pat, I cannot believe there is really a course operator which "never turns off the spray rig." Secondly, as far as applying six different pesticides, it is purely a matter of mathematics as to whether the application is harmful to the environment. It may be that the protocol for control of fungus or other conditions suggests the application.

As an anology, it does not matter whether you use 2 or 20 varities of chiles in a stew — what matters is the overall volume of chiles used. It may be that the course in your example was using appropriate mixtures of appropriate agents.

(I am not advocating over-application of control agents — but we do need to protect an investment and maintain a sustainable area for golf. You must balance the harm that having to rebuild a golf green might inflict on the environment...or what effect it may be to own a course which cannot be played as this would lead to poor economics and, potentially, bad management decisions. A healthy course financially is typically one with state-of-the-art measures for managing the course — pesticides included.)

« **Reply #49 on:** July 23, 2005, 03:46:16 PM »

Quote from: Pat Brockwell on July 23, 2005, 03:06:24 PM

And Mr. Hutto, don't believe everything you think, it can make you seem foolish. Any objective person that takes a good hard look at golf and the environment will quickly realize that there are much bigger fish to fry than golf.

I'm sure I've seemed foolish before and will seem foolish again but not this time. Have I ever said that there are no bigger polluters than golf courses? Of course not, that would be idiotic and I'd appreciate you not trying to put words in my mouth.

If some Sierra Club guy says all golf courses are evil polluters I don't believe it. And if some golf course superintendent says that every golf course in the country emits zero pollutants I don't believe that either.

Go back and read what I actually wrote. If you don't agree, fine. But nowhere have I made any claim about golf courses relative to other land uses or other sources of pollutants. So don't try to attribute your own straw man argument to me.

News:

Mike_Young

John Keenan

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

George Pazin

PThomas

Brent Hutto

Patrick_Mucci

Don Herdrich

Brent Hutto

Brent Hutto

Patrick_Mucci

A.G._Crockett

Brent Hutto

Patrick_Mucci

Brent Hutto

Jim_Kennedy

astavrides

Andy Doyle

Forrest Richardson

Craig Sweet

Pat K

Pat Brockwell

Forrest Richardson

Brent Hutto