News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Don_Mahaffey

Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2013, 11:06:57 PM »
check this site:
http://dunwoody.patch.com/articles/dunwoody-native-brings-sheep-lawn-care-business-to-n-druid-hills

we are going to put them on a course in March and see how it goes....
Down my way I'm afraid they'd be dinner for the coyotes.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2013, 11:10:16 PM »
check this site:
http://dunwoody.patch.com/articles/dunwoody-native-brings-sheep-lawn-care-business-to-n-druid-hills

we are going to put them on a course in March and see how it goes....
Down my way I'm afraid they'd be dinner for the coyotes.
That's just natural Don ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2013, 11:48:49 PM »
They used goats at the TPC at Sawgrass for a little while, but they didn't fare too well with the alligators.

Come to think of it, didn't Kohler have some black faced sheep at Whistling Straits when it opened?

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2013, 12:15:16 AM »

Come to think of it, didn't Kohler have some black faced sheep at Whistling Straits when it opened?

Yup, but I'm not sure maintenance was their primary purpose.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2013, 03:54:34 AM »
There is something special about playing courses which are close to nature.  The visual impact of these courses resonates with me, maybe that is I don't mind zero bunkers.  Plus, I greatly admire the idea of weather dictating conditions.  Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a course like this which isn't on higher ground, thus the weather makes the game a bit too rough and tumble to enjoy on a weekly basis.  In the main, one has to be quite choosy about when to venture on these hills.  Additionally, there is also the problem of hilly ground making for tough walks.  Finally, it is often the case these style courses have very low maintenance budgets so the greens eventually lose their firmness (compared to the fairways) after rain because of thatch build-up.  Everyone of these cracking courses I know (except Pennard) needs their greens to be de-thatched very badly.  It seems, there will always be tradeoffs when dealing with very natural courses.  Some golfers can overlook them and some can't.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2013, 04:19:05 AM »
What is the best maintained course per dollar of irrigation for it's given climate?

Any course without irrigation will beat any course with on this one Jud ;)



I'm not sure about this Jon.  There's a certain minimal playability involved.  There's a course near me that has minimal irrigation.  It's nice in that it usually plays pretty firm as you'd expect, except there are shots around the green where there isn't enough good turf to execute the shot that's called for. 

Jud,

my answer was a bit tongue in cheek. Having said that any course with no irrigation is going to have a $0 cost per dollar spent on the irrigation and will beat a course with irrigation regardless of quality of playing surface. I do know however what you are getting at and it really depends on the climate. Here in Scotland we have many couses with no or minimal (snap on hose pipe point by the green) that are in good nic.

Jon

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2013, 04:28:54 AM »
What is the best maintained course per dollar of irrigation for it's given climate?

Any course without irrigation will beat any course with on this one Jud ;)






I'm not sure about this Jon.  There's a certain minimal playability involved.  There's a course near me that has minimal irrigation.  It's nice in that it usually plays pretty firm as you'd expect, except there are shots around the green where there isn't enough good turf to execute the shot that's called for. 



Jud,

my answer was a bit tongue in cheek. Having said that any course with no irrigation is going to have a $0 cost per dollar spent on the irrigation and will beat a course with irrigation regardless of quality of playing surface. I do know however what you are getting at and it really depends on the climate. Here in Scotland we have many couses with no or minimal (snap on hose pipe point by the green) that are in good nic.

Jon

Jon

Some of the problem with natural courses is how people define "good nic".  Somewhere along the line of greenkeeping evolution, natural (or as close an approximation as is reasonable) became unacceptable.  Quick green speeds, varying cuts of rough and fairways mowed to the heights that greens were 75 years ago is deemed important. As I say, some golfers can embrace the rough and ready (nature), but a great many will not.  In this way I don't think there is going to be any mad rush back natural courses.  If anything, I think we will see a reduction of natural courses.  Many hang on by thread now. 

Ciao

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Brett_Morrissy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2013, 04:46:44 AM »
Peter,
Perhaps the music at a Restuarant can be superfluous, one of Australia's greatest chefs and owner of one of our finest restaurants, chooses to not have music playing during dinner, he prefers the "symphony" created by the diners, the cutlery, clinking of glasses, guests conversations, etc  - I think this is pertinent to this discussion, as his goal is to strip away the artificial distractions, so the food (& wine) is the focus. For me, the goal should be to also remove the artificiality of a golf course, and hence more natural, so that those playing, can enjoy their time (in nature) on the course and the sporting challenge of golf, but I think it also helps to emphasise and highlight the course architecture - if you take the general PGA tour course presentation, with its wall to wall green, soft and over watered conditions, only allowing for the focus to be on the golfing professionals and the sporting entrainment and it "hides" and smothers the architecture and design IMHO - which for me is ultimately the most important.
@theflatsticker

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2013, 05:10:09 AM »
It only just occurred to me that many folks are talking about natural courses from a design perspective.  While this is fine, I don't really care about that.  I am far more interested in creative design which best utilizes the natural or man-made features.  If it looks fake - oh well.  Its only the maintenance of the course that I really want to be au naturel.  Interestingly, when courses are kept close to nature, much of the time rank amateur design features (from a natural PoV) seem much more natural.  Its incredible how grass/vegetation influences the aesthetic of a course regardless of anything else. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #34 on: February 10, 2013, 05:34:33 AM »
Sean,

it is logical that 'natural' courses hold on by a thread financially as this is why they are natural in their maintenance programme. However I think you will find their are many non 'natural' courses who are in the hanging on phase too. Funny thing is that I suspect many courses especially in the south of the UK will be forced to return to minimal irrigation maintenance in the next few decades.



Jon

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2013, 09:01:16 AM »
Sean,

it is logical that 'natural' courses hold on by a thread financially as this is why they are natural in their maintenance programme. However I think you will find their are many non 'natural' courses who are in the hanging on phase too. Funny thing is that I suspect many courses especially in the south of the UK will be forced to return to minimal irrigation maintenance in the next few decades.



Jon

I'd agree with the essence of what you're saying Jon, but I can think of one rather positive example of natural golf where the minimal maintenance is an environmental requirement, rather than an economic one. I'm not really sure that I'm going anywhere with this but thought it might bring a smile to the odd face on a very wet Sunday afternoon. It's hardly a unique tale on this side of the pond but nonetheless.......

The New Forest Golf Club is a quintessential 'liitle gem' down here on the south coast and heavily restricted by its positioning in a national park. It has therefore not been subject to man's agronomic fiddling. The greens are indisputably rough, given that the local ponies trample all over them, and it's the only place I've ever played where your attempt at getting up and down can begin with you having to gently persuade one of the aforementioned local residents to exit the sand. The nett result however is that a relatively successful club has prospered where others have gone bust, members still pay something like £500 a year for full membership (an absolute steal in this part of the World) and visitors can get on for as little as £5 (subject to knowing the right places to book). Throw in the fact that your average visitor tends to appreciate the game somewhat better than what our American friends might call something like cartball golfers and you begin to get a fairly accurate and hopefully idyllic picture. Oh, and it's one of the few courses I can think of locally which myself and my father (a confirmed 28 handicap occasional golfer who has never shown any signs of playing the game with any skill) can both enjoy equally.

In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2013, 09:09:53 AM »
Don,

This is a topic I find particularly thought-provoking as any discussion of naturalism in golf must inevitably confront the many points at which man makes overt decisions that impact the field of play, and largely rightly so.  However, if you took the decision points we all take for and asked what would happen if those decisions were made differently:

Should this land be dedicated for golf?

Should the teeing or putting grounds be fixed and pre-determined?

Should the grasses be maintained to a specific standard?

Should the grasses be maintained to multiple standards?

Should the grounds be altered to "better" accommodate or provide golfing interest?

The talk of using livestock goes right at the assumption that grasses should be maintained to specific multiple standards, for instance.  Interestingly, as soon as you lose the definition imposed by mowing lines, you open questions about a fixed routing.  If greens are maintained to a separate standard, the putting grounds remain fixed, but must the route, also?

The formalization of the form grounds for golf happens so early in the process that I suspect most folks can't easily disentangle the formal form from the function, but must it be that way?  Certainly, 'twas a time when golf was played and the form not formalized.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2013, 10:14:15 AM »
A couple of thoughts on this natural idea.
Until the early 70's it seems to me that most clubs told the supt how much they had to maintain the golf course and he would find a way to make that work.  And then the idea of incorporating golf courses without thought for the gameitself came into vogue.  The Charles Fraziers of Sea Pines and other prominent developers were creating 40 lots per hole and needed to create a maintenance level that could not be sustained through dues and green fees but would need lot sales and resort fees.  People came, they purchased and they went back home to let their clubs know how it needed to be done in the future.  Ridiculous ideas evolved such as bringing in bunker sand from Ohio or planting bentgrass in Florida ( and even parts of Ga).  Universities saw a chance to develop turfgrass programs with major contribution from golf course vendors.  And the race was starting.....
My contrarian view is that the universities did not show the respect they should have to the older supts who had been caring for these course for years and were more interested in developing new methods and products.  NATURAL WENT AWAY....  in the past clubs were more involved and could tell employees what they wanted but as the new crept in with employees from club managers to pros to supts , the clubs became to ponder whether the operations had become so large that they needed to leave it all to the "professionals".  That's when it got out of hand.  I'm tired of listening to much of the BS at these GIS shows but then I wake up and realize how HUGE the show has become....hmmmm...maybe that tells us what we need to know.

In an earlier post on this thread Jon Wigget says "it is logical that 'natural' courses hold on by a thread financially as this is why they are natural in their maintenance programme. "  Why does this have to be true?  Are we so out of touch with function in this business that we would let it die on the vine because of maintenance cost?  99 percent of us would not view our cars or homes the way we view golf course maintenance.  So often we expect courses to be maintained at a "Mercedes" level when the "Honda" level will do just fine.  The real problem now is that we have educated so many well trained golf course supts and there are not enough courses out there that can afford to pay for the abilities that they have and yet the schools didn't explain this to these guys.  And it's not really fair because it is a business where in order to advance you have to have higher and higher budgets so that you become noticed.    ;)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #38 on: February 10, 2013, 10:57:48 AM »
In an earlier post on this thread Jon Wigget says "it is logical that 'natural' courses hold on by a thread financially as this is why they are natural in their maintenance programme. "  Why does this have to be true?  Are we so out of touch with function in this business that we would let it die on the vine because of maintenance cost?  99 percent of us would not view our cars or homes the way we view golf course maintenance.  So often we expect courses to be maintained at a "Mercedes" level when the "Honda" level will do just fine.  The real problem now is that we have educated so many well trained golf course supts and there are not enough courses out there that can afford to pay for the abilities that they have and yet the schools didn't explain this to these guys.  And it's not really fair because it is a business where in order to advance you have to have higher and higher budgets so that you become noticed.    ;)

I too wondered why that seemingly has to be.  But, as we cyber-talk, yet another classic hold-out British course is installing sprinklers in the fairways - Rye.  I know that in the world of theory, sprinklers in the UK give Sups maximum opportunity to present a course in good nic, but in practice I always worry about water being used a solution for a course in so-called poor nic.  In other words, after living through the 70s & 80s when clubs went crazy for water, I have a hard time trusting sups not to turn the water on every chance they get - like a routine.  Jeez, I have tons of memories of water pouring from sprinklers when parts of fairways and perhaps more stupidly, parts of rough, were puddle filled.  Guys were taking drops from spots I can only hope local authorities are tough on clubs and don't allow water to be wasted.  Better yet, I hope supers are sensible with water.  I am guessing with the current guys we will for the most part be okay, but its the next generation, the one that has no living memory of over-watered hell called golf courses, that I fear.  Are we doomed to be cyclical in how we approach maintenance?  Time will tell, but I would feel a lot better if watering systems weren't installed where they are not absolutely necessary.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2013, 02:08:05 PM »
From my point of view, most of these insights have not sullied the imaginations of the vast majority of golfers.  Sure, they get the journey through the landscape on a subliminal level in some shape and form.  However, their emotional reaction to maintenance, conditioning, and design is more a product of their experience of the game.   How many times have you heard a golfer repeat some cliché about golf, golf courses, or golfers?  Just as we learn and teach playing etiquette and traditional aspects of the game, most golfers are a product of their education and experience or lack thereof.  If they think bunkers should have six inches of finely-raked, fluffy white sand, that’s what they expect, even if it results in fried egg lies.  If they think fairways should be lush green, that’s what they expect, even though it takes twenty yards off their best drives.

I’ve spouted off about this before, so I’ll spare you another Melvyn-like rant.  I’ve heard golfers, often very good golfers, say some of the dumbest things imaginable about the game.  I’m highly cynical that we’ll see much change in the general golfing public and particularly not an appreciation of “natural” golf golf courses, features, and conditioning.  I think these types of discussions always use examples of classic courses where golfers have been exposed to a long history of honoring the traditions of the game—places like GB&I.  Here in America, and especially out here in the West where golf has only existed since the mid-twentieth century, golfers have been exposed to completely different traditions, experience, and, therefore, have entirely different expectations.

It wasn’t that long ago that this was an uninhabitable wilderness--a barren landscape that settlers crossed as quickly as they could to get the fertile valleys of Oregon or California.  The landscape was transformed by irrigation and water is still our most precious commodity.  Development has always been driven creating something “artificial” or “civilized.”

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2013, 09:05:44 PM »
Dave,
You're out there living it everyday and I get what you are saying; we need to listen to our customer base. But, is that base growing, or shrinking? In the short term, we have to stay alive, but in the long term, do we start looking at ways to attract new people to golf, or keep listening to our shrinking base and hope they play our place more often then the course across town?

We are losing way more golfers then we are gaining. I believe that to be an iron clad fact, no matter what stats get trotted out by whatever association. I am in complete agreement that the general golfing public is not looking for more natural courses. But I'm not so sure about the non-golfing public that is not presently interested in the game. Where does the next generation of golfers come from? Do you see your golf business being better in ten years or worse? I do not see the game attracting young people at the same rate it has in the past. I do not believe that bodes well for the status quo of golf.

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2013, 10:38:55 PM »
Don,

You know I agree with you and many of the sentiments, philosophies, metaphors, and aesthetics expressed here.  I try to do my tiny part to educate golfers about other views and ideas about the game.  But I’ve also suffered my backlashes and frustrations from doing so.  We are fortunate to have a spectacular, rugged, natural location.  I think this rugged beauty is our main asset.  The golf course occupies about a third of the property.  We have tried to preserve the rest as unspoiled native landscape for recreational use.   

I just have learned to be very careful about expressing my personal opinions on such matters to some golfers.  For example, a few years ago I was approached by a group that wanted to put up a zipline course above about forty acres our native grounds.  I thought it over and decided that done under my conditions to preserve the native landscape and operated in a manner respectful of the nearby golfers in a couple of places, it would be a good way to introduce another recreational activity to the property that might contribute a little money to pay the property taxes.  Additional bonuses might come from exposing a younger generation to the golf and the scenic canyon, giving the kids an activity while parents golfed, and selling a few more beers and burgers.

During the planning and permitting process, there was a lot of noise about how we would be wrecking the golf and the scenic native landscape, the views, etc. (that we paid the taxes on and had protected from development).  A small minority of golfers were very vocal that this would be a complete disaster for our golfers.  It took 3 years to get approved.  We put it up last spring and it worked out beautifully just as we had imagined.  The operator gave free rides to our strongest critics and naysayers among our golfers.  They had a ball and had to take a big gulp of shut-the-f**k-up.  Not one complaint and we had tons of compliments and free press.  About the strangest side effect we noticed were more tattoos on folks sitting on our patios sipping beer. 

We can sit around here and philosophize all we want about attracting the younger generation to our game, but this is an ivory tower.  Getting it done and having it pay off in the real world isn’t always easy no matter how smart or right we are.  I don’t know if we’ll attract any more young people to golf because we put up the ziplines.  I did know that giving kids a fun thing to do at a golf property wouldn’t hurt if done the right way.

I can’t imagine what reaction this story will illicit from the treehouse.  Don’t think about the amusement park outside of Pine Valley.  Think more about an aerial nature trail with a little fun thrown in.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2013, 11:07:05 PM »
Dave:

My younger associates and I discussed, more than once, the idea of putting in a zip line to get across the pond on the 7th hole at Streamsong.

There were only two problems with our dream:

1)  Mosaic is the most risk-averse company in the world, and
2)  There are alligators in that pond, which might be a problem if the zip line ever failed.

So, no zip line at Streamsong.  But I salute you for thinking of it.

P.S.  How much does a zip line cost?

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2013, 11:16:04 PM »

We can sit around here and philosophize all we want about attracting the younger generation to our game, but this is an ivory tower.  Getting it done and having it pay off in the real world isn’t always easy no matter how smart or right we are.  I don’t know if we’ll attract any more young people to golf because we put up the ziplines.  I did know that giving kids a fun thing to do at a golf property wouldn’t hurt if done the right way.

I can’t imagine what reaction this story will illicit from the treehouse.  Don’t think about the amusement park outside of Pine Valley.  Think more about an aerial nature trail with a little fun thrown in.

I understand..that's mostly what we do here.
Whatever the case golf will just evolve as it always has.



2)  There are alligators in that pond, which might be a problem if the zip line ever failed.


I swear I've seen that exact scene in one of my kid's movies. I don't think it ended well.

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2013, 01:28:58 AM »
Tom,
 
Ziplines are cheap.  The permitting and all the bullshit the regulators think up because they have no regulations for ziplines are expensive.  They wanted to apply the same standards as an amusement ride, so we had to rewrite all of the codes to define ziplines and make up all of the safety standards ourselves.  A three year nightmare.  Many public hearings.  It tuned into a big project.  What should have been done for a few thousand bucks ended up costing $150K.  The great irony is that all of the redtape, engineering requirements, and utter crappola from the regulators ended up causing far greater environmental impact than we planned for originally.  This from the very people who were purporting to be protecting the environment.  No wonder I’m a cynical SOB.

We put up a private one for my kid for next to nothing.       

It was quite popular and made back most of the investment the first year.  Some weekends the zipline took in more dough than the golf. course.

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2013, 02:48:52 AM »
Tom,
 Your zipline at the 7th at Streamsong Blue could have been put in for a fraction of the cost of that lovely curving bridge as long as you had the elevation change.  From the picture in my mind you could have one flying over to the green and one coming back.  Train the forecaddies to rig up the golfers, hand them their putter and wedge, and send them on their way.  Screw the alligators.  Bring in some Burmese pythons.  Import the piranhas.  You want kids in golf?  Give them a video game version.   The future of golf.

The amusing part of the zipline saga was that the original plan was to rig the zipline up canyon rim to canyon rim—nearly a mile across and starting off 500 feet above the golf course.  The zippers would fly down the cable at speeds approaching 100 mph and be returned by motorized trolley.  I had to research how high golfers hit their golf balls.  Lots of data on how far.  Very little on how high (35 meters).  It would have worked out fine.  Now that would have been a wild ride and the golfers would have to put up with some folks doing some serious shrieking!

Strangely, I thought that would be OK too.  I laugh when pros on TV get all bothered by camera clicks.  On the rim above our golf course there is a gun club.  We’re in a solid rock canyon with all of the typical big canyon acoustics.  When the clay shooters are firing away on busy weekend, the sound of the gunshots echo off the far wall of the canyon, back across to our wall, and so on until it dies away.  It sounds like WWIII sometimes and absolutely nobody notices.  We are accustomed to it just like city folks tune out the white noise from a freeway or country folks tune out the noise from a babbling brook.  Zippers flying high above shrieking their lungs out and shitting their pants?  OK.  This is golf.  It might be novel for the first swing, but I assure you, you won’t notice the rest of the round.  I see/hear it all the time.

Sorry, Don, a serious threadjack here with this zipline crap

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2013, 04:15:39 AM »
In an earlier post on this thread Jon Wigget says "it is logical that 'natural' courses hold on by a thread financially as this is why they are natural in their maintenance programme. "  Why does this have to be true?  Are we so out of touch with function in this business that we would let it die on the vine because of maintenance cost?  99 percent of us would not view our cars or homes the way we view golf course maintenance.  So often we expect courses to be maintained at a "Mercedes" level when the "Honda" level will do just fine.  The real problem now is that we have educated so many well trained golf course supts and there are not enough courses out there that can afford to pay for the abilities that they have and yet the schools didn't explain this to these guys.  And it's not really fair because it is a business where in order to advance you have to have higher and higher budgets so that you become noticed.    ;)

I too wondered why that seemingly has to be.  But, as we cyber-talk, yet another classic hold-out British course is installing sprinklers in the fairways - Rye.  I know that in the world of theory, sprinklers in the UK give Sups maximum opportunity to present a course in good nic, but in practice I always worry about water being used a solution for a course in so-called poor nic.  In other words, after living through the 70s & 80s when clubs went crazy for water, I have a hard time trusting sups not to turn the water on every chance they get - like a routine.  Jeez, I have tons of memories of water pouring from sprinklers when parts of fairways and perhaps more stupidly, parts of rough, were puddle filled.  Guys were taking drops from spots I can only hope local authorities are tough on clubs and don't allow water to be wasted.  Better yet, I hope supers are sensible with water.  I am guessing with the current guys we will for the most part be okay, but its the next generation, the one that has no living memory of over-watered hell called golf courses, that I fear.  Are we doomed to be cyclical in how we approach maintenance?  Time will tell, but I would feel a lot better if watering systems weren't installed where they are not absolutely necessary.

Ciao 

It amazes me that clubs in the south of the UK are still allowed to install irrigation these days given that we know that lack of water will be a big problem. I think Mike has it right in golfer's insane expectations of what condition to expect compared to the price that is paid. Having said that it does not surprise me that even clubs such as Rye are installing expensive irrigation despite many decades of knowing that their course has been excellent to play without it. I suspect it will be over used and that Rye's normally brilliant winter conditions will become a thing of the past.

Wall to wall irrigation, golf carts, concrete paths, emerald green greens, lakes with fountains, distance finders, what will be the next thing to come out to add another nail in the coffin of club golf?

Jon

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2013, 05:55:33 AM »
Jon

At least Rye has access to its own water supply - I think that is the case. 

Part of the problem with water supply is I believe in the future it could well be that clubs will have to demonstrate a certain level of efficiency to access water at the cheapest going rates for golf clubs.  Clubs failing to meet the criteria may be limited as to how much water they are allowed to purchase and also be subject to a higher cost because their system is so inefficient.  So much of what may come to pass in the future is unknown and understandably some clubs are preparing for harsh eventualities now while on decent financial footing.  I disagree with the expense of watering systems having to access purchased water in climates that don't absolutely need them, but I am in a very small minority.  It seems like an awfully expensive "insurance policy" for those years when it doesn't rain enough.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2013, 08:37:42 AM »
It amazes me that clubs in the south of the UK are still allowed to install irrigation these days given that we know that lack of water will be a big problem. I think Mike has it right in golfer's insane expectations of what condition to expect compared to the price that is paid. Having said that it does not surprise me that even clubs such as Rye are installing expensive irrigation despite many decades of knowing that their course has been excellent to play without it. I suspect it will be over used and that Rye's normally brilliant winter conditions will become a thing of the past.

Jon:

They are obviously putting in the watering system now because they're being told if they don't do it soon they might not be allowed to -- probably by an irrigation salesman, of course.

It's the same here in the US.  I've worked at more than one club where they continue to use more water than they really need to, because the rule for drought emergencies is that they'll be cut to a percentage of their normal use, so they want that baseline to be high.   :-X  It's just another example of badly-written laws setting up bad incentives.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Natural golf courses
« Reply #49 on: February 13, 2013, 09:54:09 AM »
Sean,

my understanding is that even private bore hole (and other private extraction rights) are now on a 5 year licence and subject to taxes. At some point in the future as water (especially in the south of the UK) becomes scarce and hose pipe bans the norm all these extraction rights will be revoked and taken over by the water companies.

Tom,

you are correct about badly-written laws or in my experience regulations. I had to prove that it was possible to maintain a golf course without irrigation before being allowed to put in a planning application for my place and this is in northern Scotland ::)

Funnily SEPA was basing its theory that a golf course needed irrigation on a report written for it by one of the UK's bigger GCA firms.

Jon