[George Pazin]

...perhaps this is the reason the majority believes golf courses are bad - no one has offered any logical rebuttal to the claim.

Actually, I'd say several people on this thread offered logical rebuttals, but only if one's mind is open to the question in the first place.

As the old saying goes, from false premises, anything follows.

[Tim Pitner]

The "golf is bad for the environment" arguments I tend to hear are based on the use of water in places like Phoenix and Palm Springs and the use of chemicals--these don't seem illogical to me.  I am also aware of certain environmental benefits.  I don't think the discussion is inherently political. 

[Joe Hancock]

I'm too *right field* to offer any logical position, I suppose.

If the scientists are correct about everything they claim to know about the history of our Earth before mankind imposed all it's harm on the planet, what do we think of:

- Global warming
- Global cooling
- Wild fires caused by lightening
- Dinosaur flatulence (OK, no one really thinks about that)
- Floods, earthquakes, other natural "disasters" (interesting question: Is it actually a disaster if humans weren't/aren't affected?)
- Etc.

One's already formed opinion is going to mold and shape what they consider to be harmful, destructive, etc. regardless of what *new* information they are fed.

Of note, I heard on NPR there was some concern about the vast amounts of new vegetation that exists in place of ice cap. I guess the new plants are adding to the warming problem. Not too long ago, we were concerned about how much vegetation we were losing due to lumber demands and farming and new development. I don't know what to think any more, and I doubt the scientists do either.

Joe

[Adam Russell]

Jeff:

I think your last statement is right on. The enviro's will always have an ax to grind, but as educated people on the other end of the spectrum, I believe convincing the majority who care little either way would go a long way to change the prevailing opinion to golf=good. In terms of society as a whole, their group is not much bigger than the golf industry, yet their opinion is louder and has swayed the public. I've always felt the sport would benefit from more exposure in an ordinary realm of society such as a Liberty National type projects (high dollar in a high exposure area), integrated golf course/greenbelt type developments, or even an architect or super running for office to be a constant public counter-point. Just a thought...

George:

Yes they did, but my thinking is that all of them fall into an agree to disagree camp (even my own comments on the thread). But the more I think about it, a overall in-your-face approach might go a long way towards pulling those in the middle with an uniformed negative view towards a more positive outlook.

Joe:

My comment to Jeff was more on the polarizing nature of what he said, especially given the political slant that was randomly thrown in. Once he explained the reasoning, it was easier to see where he was coming from. I did like your asterisks though 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Me, polarizing?

[Jim_Kennedy]

DDT, Mercury, etc., are just a couple of the numerous environmental hazards we face. If you are a non-believer in enviro health than spend some time at the EPA, and other scientific, websites instead of just carrying water for the party line.

No one thinks for themselves anymore and it's sad.

By the way, just recently a golf course near here sold for 2 million less than the negotiated price. The 2 mil was returned, because of a remediation clause, after the toxic mess that was the maintenance facilty was cleaned up.

This was not a lone example. 

[George Pazin]

No one thinks for themselves anymore and it's sad.

So we have to agree with you to say we think for ourselves...

A zen koan for sure.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
I think you know what I meant.

Here's a starter: the EPA was formed and signed into law by Richard Nixon.

Take it from there. 

[James Boon]

Matt,

As you asked for a good conversational reply rather than a thesis or a diatribe, here is what i usually mention to people who query golfs impact on the environment.

I tell them of the amount of different wildlife I see on my home course or of the courses here that are SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) that have plenty of flaura and fauna both rare and otherwise, all over them. My home course used to be a farm, not an overly intensive one but I'd be suprised if there was such a variety of wildlife there as there is now, and there I cant believe that any course that is within a SSSI can be doing anything harmful to the environment.

There will always be someone who wants an elongated debate, but for a quick response I find this sort of response has usualy helped me out. Alternativly you could mention that not everywhere strives to be as lush green as Augusta, that they have probably just seen on TV 

Cheers,

James

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I won't get into politics again, but the fact that the EPA was formed by Nixon shows how far right the country has drifted from the 1960's.  I often say that Clinton was more of a Republican than Nixon based on some of the legislation they each passed.

I have to ask, but with Mercury and DDT long banned, I would say that throwing those things into the the mix as an argument against golf courses is not exactly fair, is it?  And, given the regulations on golf course maintenance areas, I think your example, together with the "not the lone example" statement isn't fair either. 

You make it sound like it happens all the time, so where else has that happened?  If its not the lone example, please enlighten me, because I haven't heard of any other example of a golf course sale being negated for similar reasons.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
I didn't say negated, I said remediated.

....and perhaps I should have been more clear, but I wasn't saying that DDT or Mercury had any bearng on golf courses, just the environment in general.

The sale of an IBM course just over the border had some issues with the maintenance area. Does anyone buy a golf course without doing an environmental impact statement? Perhaps we have a real estate agent who could add something to the discussion.

Also, I am not arguing against golf courses as I don't think they are harmful, I argue against the notion that they have no impact. I think that's the surest way to alienate anyone you are trying to enlighten about golf's contributions to cleaner air,water, etc..

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree they have an impact.  For pure virgin land (and there is not much of that in the US) its a negative impact, if only because virgin land should be preserved in most cases.  If a golf course is replacing another land use, its usually a positive or at worst, neutral, even in previously undeveloped land.  I think the studies at KSU say the biggest impacts are during construction and then the measureable impacts return to zero or near zero.  You could look it up.

I know people who buy golf courses and they all do due dilligence to some degree. I would not be surprised if there was some clause anymore that allowed a change in price if any environmental hazards are found after the fact.  But, I don't know.

[Craig Sweet]

I usually say...really? And ask them what they mean by "bad for the environment"...typically they give some convoluted argument filled with misconceptions and bad information....then it's my turn....and I start out by saying..."well, nearly everything man does is bad for the environment to some degree" and go from there...

[Kalen Braley]

Ha ha,

This thread is starting to sound like a GCA.com "missionary conversion" training course.

"OK now, when they badger you with this, here's what you say....".    

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
If you recall from an earlier thread, I did  use some info from KSU and it was as you state, very little impact after the fact. That was built well.

As for 'virgin land', some of the recent developments (like the forest denuding for the Indian course/casino in Va.) are atrocious (my view) uses of the land.

[Steve Lang]

 
  I'd advise that one has to start with clarifying the issue..

Do you mean in terms of air quality, surface or ground water quality, or waste management, recycling or beneficial reuse, or habitat for flora and fauna?

There are winners on all these fronts, and better and better approaches to sustaining gains being made by folks active in the field and any number of references that can be found on the subjects.. have you ever researched these things?

[astavrides]

Can anyone come up with something to counter the fact that they use a lot of (or at least some) water?  This is especially a problem in the southwest.

[Adam Russell]

astavrides:

Golf courses in the Southwest do use much more water than comparable courses in the rest of the U.S.,so there may be no way to get around that. However, the daily number of gallons pales in comparison to the amount of water that is evaporated from the artificial reservoirs in the region. The evaporation rate is something like 10% of the storage capacity. Those numbers are mind-boggling.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()