Golf and the environment

[phillyk]

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and even though I'm an avid golfer, I still feel bad for what the making of a golf course entails. To start this off, I was in Mexico last summer in Cabo Pulmo, a very protective coral reef, that houses some of the largest corals and coral fish found anywhere around Mexico.  The locals will fight off fisherman in this area, and are very protective to keep this reef in as pristine condition as possible. Because its a very rural area with no bigger town for a couple miles away, its hard to get recognized for the importance of this reef and secure a international animal refuge permit. There is another small town a couple kilometers north of this town that has sold itself to a French company.  This company plans to build a new resort for a couple thousand tourists, including 3 coastal golf courses.  I like golf, but the runoff of chemicals used to make the courses for years, will obliterate the reef within a year of the making. Of course chemicals from the building of the resort will also do damage, but the chemicals just from the course is enough to kill the reef.  Even though this town is a couple kilometers north, the current runs straight from that town to Cabo Pulmo, so this pristine and amazing environment will be gone.

I love golf, but the making of courses, especially the chemicals used on the grasses, around the world, destroys any environmental waterway around it and the organisms in it, except for the few families of organisms that can survive toxic chemicals.  As well, the amount of water used to keep the course playable is substantial.  Even with the water table giving some water back, there is a lot of water lost from the watering of the courses. This makes golf look bad, but I won't ever give up golf for it.

What are everyones thoughts of this?  Should we reduce what we use to keep golf courses playable, or just ignore environmental impacts?

[iPutt]

I agree with you completely. In the midwestern deserts of the United States (Arizona, New Mexico, etc) the main aquifer that supplies water to the region is fed by the rockies, and runs all the way south into Mexico. Because of the water needs of golf courses and other such green areas in the region, this aquifer is being depleted at an alarming rate. There are no signs that it is even replenished at a close to fast enough rate to sustain this usage, and the people down the Colorado River (fed by this aquifer) will soon be in danger of not having a viable water supply. Would this problem be fixed by the absence of golf courses and their water needs? Probably not completely, but it would help. I agree with you, Phyillyk, in that I'm not going to stop playing because of it, or that I'm going to boycott desert golf courses. But I do believe that environmental awareness needs to be increased when it comes to golf courses, and I would be fine with browner courses if it meant more water conserved. I think that in today's age, there definitely is more environmental awareness in the golf industry as you're seeing more environmentally sound courses being built, but I still think that there is a long ways to go.

[NEOHMark]

I think it you asked a lot of course supers, they'd tell you they are only giving the public what it wants/demands.  A golf course doesn't have to be such a huge environmental impact on the area, but few players want to put up with less-than-pristine conditions.  You don't NEED fairways lush and green and cut to a perfect 1/2" height to play the game, but we expect it anymore.  I'm 50 years old and I can remember the average playing condition of typical munys and other public courses being MUCH lower than it is today.  The expectation is so high though now, that if a golf course wants to attract any appreciable amount of business, they have to keep their course's condition at what would've been considered resort-level just a couple decades ago.  Golf courses are no longer 'placed' on a terrain - taking advantage of the local lay of the land, they're now 'carved' out of the terrain.  Many newer courses don't even remotely resemble the lay of the land they've replaced.  The architects of these tracts do it because they are paid handsomely, and the playing public expects nothing less.

[phillyk]

Originally Posted by NEOHMark

I think it you asked a lot of course supers, they'd tell you they are only giving the public what it wants/demands.  A golf course doesn't have to be such a huge environmental impact on the area, but few players want to put up with less-than-pristine conditions.  You don't NEED fairways lush and green and cut to a perfect 1/2" height to play the game, but we expect it anymore.  I'm 50 years old and I can remember the average playing condition of typical munys and other public courses being MUCH lower than it is today.  The expectation is so high though now, that if a golf course wants to attract any appreciable amount of business, they have to keep their course's condition at what would've been considered resort-level just a couple decades ago.  Golf courses are no longer 'placed' on a terrain - taking advantage of the local lay of the land, they're now 'carved' out of the terrain.  Many newer courses don't even remotely resemble the lay of the land they've replaced.  The architects of these tracts do it because they are paid handsomely, and the playing public expects nothing less.

Very true, however, I think we can find ways that surpasses the current methods to keep these courses pristine and use methods more environmental friendly.  Of course this is the thinking for many activities in the world today.  With all the money golf courses and golfers put into a course, I'm sure they can put some amount of money into researching more organic methods of fertilizers that doesn't runoff and kill everything, maybe even mowers that don't run on gas. A lot of courses use electric golf carts, why not mowers (at least I haven't heard of them yet).  There are many ways to make golf more eco-friendly, but as you said, this may not be what the general public wants, so a golf course won't risk something that could lose customers if it doesn't work.

[iPutt]

Courses already are striving to be more eco-friendly today though, just maybe not the percentage that one would conceivably like to see. However, like the rest of the world today, the change towards environmental efficiency is slow, and nothing is going to be done in the immediate future. I do know, though, that Golf Digest awards eco-friendly courses annually I believe for their efforts, and I think this is the positive change golf needs to strive for

Originally Posted by phillyk

Very true, however, I think we can find ways that surpasses the current methods to keep these courses pristine and use methods more environmental friendly.  Of course this is the thinking for many activities in the world today.  With all the money golf courses and golfers put into a course, I'm sure they can put some amount of money into researching more organic methods of fertilizers that doesn't runoff and kill everything, maybe even mowers that don't run on gas. A lot of courses use electric golf carts, why not mowers (at least I haven't heard of them yet).  There are many ways to make golf more eco-friendly, but as you said, this may not be what the general public wants, so a golf course won't risk something that could lose customers if it doesn't work.

[tanktwo2]

Gas powered golf carts and gas powered lawnmowers is hardly the issue...You can't tell me mowing the grass on a regular basis at golf courses makes any significant difference when there are probably a million tractor trailers on the road in the United States at any given time

Pesticides, on the other hand, can't be good.  Some of those greens almost look radioactive!

[WUTiger]

Quote:

... Because of the water needs of golf courses and other such green areas in the region, this aquifer is being depleted at an alarming rate. There are no signs that it is even replenished at a close to fast enough rate to sustain this usage, and the people down the Colorado River (fed by this aquifer) will soon be in danger of not having a viable water supply.

The aquifer which feeds the Colorado River is being depleted by farming and metropolitan areas downstream. March article in Wall Street Journal gives latest on crisis. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703739204576228823641659148.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Golf courses are one user of the water, but by no means the biggest drain. Plus, golf courses and country clubs have to pay for the water, so they have switched to grass strains which slow down their growth in hot weather. Also, the modern desert courses water the tees, fairways and greens, but leave most of the rough on its own.

Numerous golf courses work with the Audobon Society and receive the society's designation if they operate in a nature-friendly manner. And, new golf courses have to pass environmental impact analysis in order to get permits to build. For more than 20 years golf courses on the edge of wetland areas have learned to dress their edges and prevent runoff of chemicals into the main water supply.

Many greens keepers are upset with the PGA for mowing tournament fairways in a checkerboard pattern to impress TV viewers. This requires a double mowing to get "the look." Double mowing = extra labor + extra fuel costs. Then, their members expect the same thing at their home course. Golf isn't perfect yet, but the industry has stepped up in recent years to do their part environmentally.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by tanktwo2

Gas powered golf carts and gas powered lawnmowers is hardly the issue...You can't tell me mowing the grass on a regular basis at golf courses makes any significant difference when there are probably a million tractor trailers on the road in the United States at any given time

Pesticides, on the other hand, can't be good.  Some of those greens almost look radioactive!

Actually gas powered lawn mowers and golf carts are probably worse for the environment than cars and trucks because until this year there were no emission standards for them.  Lawnmowers produced this year will require catalytic converters and be required to meet certain emission levels.  The new regulations expect to eliminate emissions totaling 600,000 tons of hydrocarbons, 130,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1.5 million tons of carbon monoxide.

[tanktwo2]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Actually gas powered lawn mowers and golf carts are probably worse for the environment than cars and trucks because until this year there were no emission standards for them.  Lawnmowers produced this year will require catalytic converters and be required to meet certain emission levels.  The new regulations expect to eliminate emissions totaling 600,000 tons of hydrocarbons, 130,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1.5 million tons of carbon monoxide.

Very interesting...I guess the size of the engine has nothing to do with it.

[phillyk]

Well, certainly the pro tournaments have no respect for nature, with all the lawn mowing, human impact from stomping around everywhere, and they prolly put a lot of pesticides on for those greens and tee boxes.  Even if they had Audobon certifications at those courses, I wouldn't believe it.

Even normal private clubs or public courses that have Audobon society certifications will have a lot of chemical runoff.  It has to go somewhere. They might try to protect certain areas, but it will reach a water supply eventually destroying what life there is.   The waterway going through my home course, even though it does go through urban settings destroying whatever is there anyway, only has carp in it. Nothing else.  Yes carp are invasive species and kind of take over everything, but that is all there has been for a number of years.

I do realize that many industries are trying to reduce environmental impact, but I believe there is a lot more we can do at golf courses to reduce their own impact on their respective environments.

[jamo]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Actually gas powered lawn mowers and golf carts are probably worse for the environment than cars and trucks because until this year there were no emission standards for them.  Lawnmowers produced this year will require catalytic converters and be required to meet certain emission levels.  The new regulations expect to eliminate emissions totaling 600,000 tons of hydrocarbons, 130,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1.5 million tons of carbon monoxide.

Regular commercial ride-io mowers are about 32 times as bad as the average car. I can only imagine what the more industrial mowers are like.

[caniac6]

I have a degree in Turf Management, and worked as an assistast superintendent. Most people that work in the industry have great respect and love for the environment. Safe and prudent use of chemicals and fertilzer is stressed to protect their budgets as well as the environment. Compare the acreage of residential yards to golf courses,and then compare the knowledge of a golf course superintendent to the average home owner, and I believe there is a bigger impact to the enviroment at the home owner level. That may be a biased opinion, but I have never known a superindent that did not consider the environment when developing their fertility and chemical programs.

[ND Fan]

I am pretty sure the Bahamas and Hawaii have golf courses.  There coastal waters are not a dead sea by any means.  I think your guessing about the reef and guessing in some guilty over zealous Al Gore fashion.  This resort will likely improve that local economy 10 fold.  I would be shocked if the reef dies.  The ocean is bigger and more resilient than people think.

[phillyk]

Originally Posted by ND Fan

I am pretty sure the Bahamas and Hawaii have golf courses.  There coastal waters are not a dead sea by any means.  I think your guessing about the reef and guessing in some guilty over zealous Al Gore fashion.  This resort will likely improve that local economy 10 fold.  I would be shocked if the reef dies.  The ocean is bigger and more resilient than people think.

I studied the effects there as a program, I know what the effects of this project will be over a period of time.  Yes, the ocean is very resilient but on a highly sensitive reef that has had no urbanization for its history, the reef will degrade over time as a result of the new pollution it will experience.  If you want an example, search San Jose del Cabo, Mexico, it is a town south of Cabo Pulmo that had a great coral reef before urbanization occurred and obliterated the coral reef.  As you said, the project will boost local economies, but some locals minds, they don't want many tourists scrummaging around.  As for Hawaii, yes there are many reefs in there of course, but the more protected ones that have a greater diversity of life are far out from urban areas and courses, at least of what I remember.  I'm not at all saying this is completely done by golf courses, I'm saying they contribute to the pollution.

Originally Posted by caniac6

I have a degree in Turf Management, and worked as an assistast superintendent. Most people that work in the industry have great respect and love for the environment. Safe and prudent use of chemicals and fertilzer is stressed to protect their budgets as well as the environment. Compare the acreage of residential yards to golf courses,and then compare the knowledge of a golf course superintendent to the average home owner, and I believe there is a bigger impact to the enviroment at the home owner level. That may be a biased opinion, but I have never known a superindent that did not consider the environment when developing their fertility and chemical programs.

I know that superintendents care a lot for the environment, the one I work with is very cautious about it and insures the Audobon certified areas don't have any cart of walker intrusion.  I just think there is more we can do to not only reduce toxic fertilizers, but find a viable substitute that isn't toxic as well as use mowers more friendly.

[GolfHippy]

Maybe keep the chemical usage to just the greens and try and let the fairways care for themselves. Maybe that is a compramise?

[BrushCaddy]

I'd like to see the fertilizer makers come up with some chemicals that don't harm or don't harm as much, the environment around the courses.  But, I'm guessing this won't happen until the government starts regulating this a bit more.

[jamo]

Originally Posted by BrushCaddy

I'd like to see the fertilizer makers come up with some chemicals that don't harm or don't harm as much, the environment around the courses.  But, I'm guessing this won't happen until the government starts regulating this a bit more.

I'm sure there are some less harmful fertilizers, but it all comes down to money, they certainly cost a lot more. Might be a nice selling point though. Pay $x more a round but get to play a course that isn't as hard on the environment. I'd play there as long as x isn't prohibitively high.

[NEOHMark]

Originally Posted by BrushCaddy

I'd like to see the fertilizer makers come up with some chemicals that don't harm or don't harm as much, the environment around the courses.  But, I'm guessing this won't happen until the government starts regulating this a bit more.

I work in the chemical industry.  The big names are all very active in trying to be able to market a 'green' product that the public will buy (their R&D; depts are immense).  jamo is correct - it comes down to the price the market is willing to pay.