Sierra Club Quote

[Don Herdrich]

Reading through that latest GolfWorld, there is a quote from Eric Antebi, spokesman for the Sierra Club: "The real question is whether or not golf courses are a net positive for the environment, and by and large they are not."

What is good for the environment Mr Antebi??  There are a hell of a lot of things more damaging to the environment than a golf course!

[Kyle Harris]

They lost their PAC status for a reason...

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Check out this link which mentions the quote:

http://g.msn.com/0MN2ET7/2?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8418445&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1

Hugh used to live just down the street from me...

[Tyler Kearns]

While golf courses are not as ideal as an undisturbed landscape, they are a lot more beneficial to the environment than suburban housing developments that would likely be situated on said land. Certainly within large urban centres, golf courses serve to protect a substantial area as green space, which benefits everybody (both directly and indirectly).

TK

[JohnV]

While golf courses are not as ideal as an undisturbed landscape, they are a lot more beneficial to the environment than suburban housing developments that would likely be situated on said land. Certainly within large urban centres, golf courses serve to protect a substantial area as green space, which benefits everybody (both directly and indirectly).

TK

Exactly.  At least two courses in the Pittsburgh area have closed or are closing at the end of this year and will be turned into housing developments.  Does this guy think that is better for the enviroment?

He might, because he would probalby argue that if the golf course wasn't turned into housing some other virgin land would be.  So getting rid of the course is better than not getting rid of it.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, for every Okatie out there there are dozens of courses that are not as well managed w.r.t. environmental impact. 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.

So it's hard to fault a spokesman for a non-golf-industry environmental group who points out that "by and large" they are not a positive environmental influence. Now for all we know the complete context of his remarks might have evinced a more nuanced understanding but the words quoted are not, strictly speaking, false.

In this forum, I'd expect someone to bring up the point that golf courses collectively would be a far smaller burden on the environment is American golfers would take to heart the fact that a healthy, fun to play golf course in most climates is more brown than green. Oops, I guess I did say it...

[Craig Van Egmond]

I'd be willing to bet that that the damage from the chemicals most people dump on their lawns is greater than damage from golf courses.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Well, for every Okatie out there there are dozens of courses that are not as well managed w.r.t. environmental impact. 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.
Could you tell me how Seminole, Pine Valley, NGLA, Shinnecock, Pebble Beach and Cypress Point have damaged the environment ?[/color]

So it's hard to fault a spokesman for a non-golf-industry environmental group who points out that "by and large" they are not a positive environmental influence. Now for all we know the complete context of his remarks might have evinced a more nuanced understanding but the words quoted are not, strictly speaking, false.

How so.

Before you say they aren't false don't you have to factually demonstrate where, how and why golf courses damaged the environment ?[/color]

In this forum, I'd expect someone to bring up the point that golf courses collectively would be a far smaller burden on the environment is American golfers would take to heart the fact that a healthy, fun to play golf course in most climates is more brown than green. Oops, I guess I did say it...

Green's a function of H2O, not chemicals.[/color]

[Brent Hutto]

There must be some reason that every golf course superintendent in the country talks about how much better they've gotten at using less chemicals, controlling runoff, avoiding damage to wildlife habitat, etc. If they're doing it a lot better now then they must have done it a lot worse in the past.

If I were looking for a golf course that was damaging the environment in the 1970's, it wouldn't be Cypress Point. It would be some moderate-budget private club or high-end muni somewhere trying to achive Augusta National perfection by heavy usage of chemicals and methods that have since been regulated out of existence. There are thousands of golf courses out there, examining Pine Valley or Okatie does nothing to inform us about the overall impact.

I'm under no more obligation to prove damage than you are to prove the lack of it. Go lawyer someone else, I'm not interested.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   Don't forget the chchlorophyll                                                                                                                                                          I agree with Brent that there was likely a more nuanced announcement made, but a statement like that is why I no longer am a Sierra Club member.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If I were looking for a golf course that was damaging the environment in the 1970's, it wouldn't be Cypress Point.

It would be some moderate-budget private club or high-end muni somewhere trying to achive Augusta National perfection by heavy usage of chemicals and methods that have since been regulated out of existence.

How do you draw that conclusion absent any concrete facts or legitimate examples to cite ?[/color]

There are thousands of golf courses out there, examining Pine Valley or Okatie does nothing to inform us about the overall impact.

Neither do nebulous accusations of environmental damage by phantom golf courses.

Cite specific examples of where golf courses have harmed the environment and how they harmed the environment and then we can discuss them.[/color]

I'm under no more obligation to prove damage than you are to prove the lack of it. Go lawyer someone else, I'm not interested.

You're not interested because you made an accusation and can't back it up.  You're like the boy who cried "wolf".[/color]

[Brent Hutto]

Go lawyer someone else, I'm not interested.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

Absent ANY facts, I can see why you'd be reluctant to continue with the discussion.

Bob Huntley,

You don't need to color code everything.

And remember what Uncle Miltie said, "I'm only .....

[Scott Coan]

Here is an example of a golf course being a huge net positive for the environment, taking a scarred wasteland where we as teenagers used to congregate on our Friday nights and pound beers and creating course that thousands of people have enjoyed, at the same time pumping up the town coffers and providing an opportunity for the town's kids to have a crack at the great game of golf.

http://www.widowswalkgolf.com/custom.asp?courseid=57&sort=109

Built on the site of an abandoned 100-acre gravel quarry formerly owned and operated by the Boston Sand & Gravel Company, the landscape had been altered and scared by many years of gravel mining—which provided among its many destinations the gravel used in the construction of both the Southeast Expressway and the runway expansion at Logan International Airport.

The excavation of sand and gravel here over the years was so great, in fact, that Scituate, Massachusetts, was once ranked as the #1 port of export in the world, based on tonage.

The "pits" as it was known, presented the Town of Scituate with a unique opportunity to transform this ecologically impoverished eyesore and public nuisance into an aesthetically pleasing, 18-hold public golf course, while maintaining and protecting its uncommon habitat and wildlife.

[Brent Hutto]

Hell, Pat. I'm with you. I'd love to see any facts someone might have to share with us. So far in this thread we've seen two: 1) John mentions that two courses in his area are closing to be turned into housing development and 2) Mike mentions that Hugh was once his neighbor. I'll stipulate to each of those as I don't doubt the people who posted them.

The rest of the posts in this thread are by comparison the merest breaths of opinion, as insubstantial and free floating as the steam escaping a tea kettle. That includes yours and my own, of course. I'm pretty darned sure mine is correct but there's no documentation attached nor is any required.

If the discussion does not meet your standards, you might consider either contributing something more substantial of your own or not reading any farther. Or you can continue to hector if you like. It's pretty much a free forum as long as we maintain some thread of connection of golf. Lawyer away!

[Kirk Gill]

More generalizations from yours truly.

Please check out this article:

http://www.sochaczewski.com/ARTeco-golf-july2001.htm

In it, authoer Paul Spencer Sochaczewski talks about the many real and potential environmental impacts of golf courses, from construction through maintenance practices.

He does not, alas, specifically mention Pine Valley. They are off the hook for the time being.

However, he DOES cite some examples where golf has been very positive FOR the environment. Perhaps Mr. Antebi could peruse this material.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
An acre of corn or cotton uses 8 times the pesticides of an acre of golf course.
Also, there are instances where golf gets the blame because it is more PC to slam golf than farming etc.  I remember PV did have a chemical storage site that created some problems a few years back and it was attacked with a vengance.
I also heard the story once of where the Sierra Club began slamming golf and mentioned ANGC.  Someone took it upon themselves to show where the ink, paper and chemicals used by the Sierra Club for printing the brochure did more harm to the environment than a year of chemicals and fertilizer at ANGC.

[Craig Sweet]

Modern golf course maintainence practices are very much misunderstood, if they are understood at all. Who's fault is that? Partially the GCSA...if you ask me. Yes, I know, they are doing a lot to promote more enviromentally sound practices, but to whom are they doing the promoting? To themselves? To others within the golf industry?

[astavrides]

Pat,
An acre of corn or cotton uses 8 times the pesticides of an acre of golf course.
Also, there are instances where golf gets the blame because it is more PC to slam golf than farming etc.  I remember PV did have a chemical storage site that created some problems a few years back and it was attacked with a vengance.
I also heard the story once of where the Sierra Club began slamming golf and mentioned ANGC.  Someone took it upon themselves to show where the ink, paper and chemicals used by the Sierra Club for printing the brochure did more harm to the environment than a year of chemicals and fertilizer at ANGC.

Mike,
What is the source of your statistic?  Moreover, what point does it make?  We need to eat.  We don't need to play golf.  Though I sure feel like I do sometimes.    
I also think the Sierra Club/ANGC story compares apples to oranges.  The Sierra club brochure may have saved 20 times more enviromental damage than printing it cost.

[astavrides]

Reading through that latest GolfWorld, there is a quote from Eric Antebi, spokesman for the Sierra Club: "The real question is whether or not golf courses are a net positive for the environment, and by and large they are not."

What is good for the environment Mr Antebi??  There are a hell of a lot of things more damaging to the environment than a golf course!

Its unfortunate that they just place that one quote in there.  Maybe Mr. Antebi said other things to the interviewer, maybe not.  Maybe he can defend his point of view, maybe not.  
I'll send him an email and see if he responds...

[Patrick_Mucci]

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]

[Steve Lang]

 

Ahhh if only common people could utter propaganda and have it printed as gospel.. oops the environmental lobbyists have that cornered..

Consider that the information that has been issued by the environmental lobby for the past 30+ years has been more alarmist than true..  psuedo canaries in the mineshaft..

Protecting ground and surface waters from perticide, herbicide, and fertilizer contamination is warranted, but as much as the Env Lobby have flogged that issue, there's no "widespread" impact data to support the contentions being made again and again.  But its a favorite, and sure to get ink..

Things that get into the missisippi river in minnesota or the ohio river tributaries end up in the water going into the gulf of mexico, from silt to nitrates to organophosphates.. and things that get spilled behind the maintenance building get into the local aquifer if the geology permits.. its all site-specifics governing the impacts.  very hard to generalize over large environmental scales..

Until the case studies get published and peer reviewed.. unfortunately we're left with a lot of propaganda.. and "impacts" or "net positives" are not being well defined.

[Brent Hutto]

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]

That's a rhetorical question. 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. 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.

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.

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.

[A.G._Crockett]

Of course, this argument all comes down to alternative uses of land vs. golf course construction and maintenance.  Presumably, and without reading his statements in context, the gentleman from the Sierra Club was referring to golf vs. some sort of preserved "state of nature", in which case he is inarguably correct.  At the very least, there would be some erosion from construction, some pollution from fertilizers and pesticides and mowers, some reduction of wildlife, trees, etc.  It would be silly to assert the contrary, and that would apply to NGLA, Cypress, or the newest courses built today under the strictest environmental regulation.

On the other hand, we here prefer to contrast golf with housing developments and apartment complexes and shopping malls, because that suits our purposes as demented OCD sufferers.  Again inarguably, golf would be preferable to any of THOSE uses.  

As is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes, and has to be determined case-by-case.  The reality is that land gets developed, and a golf course is more environmentally friendly that a heck of a lot of other possibilities.  However, we would be equally silly here as advocates of the game to ignore some problems.

IMHO, in the future the big issue facing golf, especially public golf, will NOT be the environmental problems.  It will be the use of so much land for so few people.  That is going to be a real challenge for the game's growth.

[PThomas]

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...