ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) as GUR

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

From the R&A; guidelines for running a competition:

Note the part that I put in bold and red font.  It would seem that the R&A; tends to agree with what I've been told by the USGA in regards to ground under repair.

I wouldn't say this helps your argument though. "As it is hoped" doesn't sound very definitive. Also, their third example mentions a turf nursery ... If a turf nursery is what I think it is, that is a very permanent condition.

It also fits the definition of ground under repair as it is constantly being tended - sod cut for course repairs and then replanted and cared for.  I've known courses to have their own tree nursery too, for the same reason and with the same playing restrictions.  Although most such areas I've seen are marked as out of bounds, and usually quite a long distance from the typical line of play.

The phrase "as it is hoped" sounds to me like they discourage such a designation for any area that is not temporary in nature.  I don't know what it sounds like to you.

[Golfingdad]

It also fits the definition of ground under repair as it is constantly being tended - sod cut for course repairs and then replanted and cared for.  I've known courses to have their own tree nursery too, for the same reason and with the same playing restrictions.  Although most such areas I've seen are marked as out of bounds, and usually quite a long distance from the typical line of play.  The phrase "as it is hoped" sounds to me like they discourage such a designation for any area that is not temporary in nature.  I don't know what it sounds like to you.

I would agree with that ... It absolutely sounds like they discourage it, but it also sounds like they don't forbid it.

[MS256]

Again, no knowledge of the rules here so I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but if you are correct, then they worded this definition VERY poorly.  As its worded, @turtleback's interpretation makes a lot of sense.

Seems very poorly worded to me. I feel sure that nobody intended for a committee to literally declare an environmentally protected area as GUR unless it actually fit the normal criteria for GUR.

Problem is that it is worded as a list of possibilities followed by "at the discretion".

[iacas]

@Fourputt , I disagree with you.

First, unlike water hazards, the definition for GUR does not include requirements. It simply says GUR is any part of the course deemed as such by the committee. They can mark GUR as an area with a bunch of divots they're going to let heal, a low point that is either routinely muddy or grassless (which they have no plans to fix), etc.

GUR is employed by courses to make the conditions "fairer" (I'm using the general definition of the word).

So if you have an ESA that is a water hazard, great. I support marking it as such.

But if you have a dry ESA - say a field that houses a protected species of mouse, or salamander or lizard or bird or whatever, but you do not wish to penalize players when the area is within the boundary of the course (perhaps even between holes) AND from which they could otherwise play a shot, marking it as OB when they could at least pitch out sideways and lay two is harsh, so the GUR designation lets players drop in a more "fair" situation that acknowledges the situation.

The R&A; quote is talking about GUR itself. It's not talking about ESAs. Of course the very nature of GUR is that it's transient, though in some cases (see the above about areas a course does not intend to fix - and turf farms and tree farms, almost none of which I've seen marked as OB) are "temporary.

You can believe what you like, but any area so designated should still meet the definition.

The only requirement in the definition is that the committee marks it as GUR. It doesn't say anything about being a temporary situation, etc.

I have also seen GUR where play was prohibited to protect new growth on the course, but always as a temporary condition. Anytime there was a permanent or normal condition where play was not allowed, it was either an ESA water hazard or out of bounds.

I've seen ESAs as GUR and its made sense.

I've also seen permanent GUR - like the turf farm at Lake View CC:

It's permanent, and GUR. They don't want people playing shots from it. They don't care if you retrieve your ball (signs often indicate you cannot drive a cart in the area, though).

Due respect but you are not at all addressing the clear language of the local rule and Appendix I.  There is nothing in that rule or anywhere else in the rules that I have seen that supports your position. I do not see why the USGA would codify a local rule allowing something they consider as not an acceptable practice.

Agreed.

I'm moving these posts to a new thread, too.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It also fits the definition of ground under repair as it is constantly being tended - sod cut for course repairs and then replanted and cared for.  I've known courses to have their own tree nursery too, for the same reason and with the same playing restrictions.  Although most such areas I've seen are marked as out of bounds, and usually quite a long distance from the typical line of play.

The phrase "as it is hoped" sounds to me like they discourage such a designation for any area that is not temporary in nature.  I don't know what it sounds like to you.

I would agree with that ... It absolutely sounds like they discourage it, but it also sounds like they don't forbid it.

I never said it was forbidden.  I simply said that it was not the preferred way to address the issue.  Unless there were some extenuating circumstances.

[Patch]

Just a side note on ESA's. Some years back there was a GC show that was shot up in Mesquite Nevada. It might have been one of those "Big Break" shows, but I am not sure. At the course they were using, there were some ESAs that were clearly marked. During the show, on more than few occasions. the golfers hit balls into some of these restricted areas. Every time, the golfers were allowed to enter these areas and play their ball. Also, the camera man doing the filming, (inadvertently?)  showed some of the signage prohibiting entry into these areas. I had a good laugh about it. Only reason I picked up on the fact, was that I was very familiar with the course, and was also an EPA compliance person.

[Rulesman]

Ground under repair designation is not intended to be a catch-all for modifying the rules.  GUR must be some sort of abnormal ground condition.  If the area in question is always in that condition then it is NOT GUR.

" Ground under repair ” is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative.

There is no constraint on the Committee as to it being 'abnormal'.

AGC simply includes GUR, it does not specify its condition.

There is certainly no time constraint. I seem to remember a permanent unsurfaced path at Royal Birkdale or Royal Lytham. It is designated GUR. The R&A; run the Open there and don't modify the local rule.

Re it applying to an ESA, the committee cannot declare it to be a WH or LWH if it does not meet the definition of either. The only options are to declare it OOB or GUR. If the committee believe OOB too punitive or otherwise inappropriate then it can only be GUR.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There are ways to accomplish what they want without playing fast and loose with the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Maybe because for most people the phrase "ground under repair" is self explanatory?

It would be really nice if we could disagree without you accusing people of playing fast and loose with the rules.  Or treating us as if we are somehow mentally deficient because we disagree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

From the R&A; guidelines for running a competition:

Note the part that I put in bold and red font.  It would seem that the R&A; tends to agree with what I've been told by the USGA in regards to ground under repair.

What do the R&A; guidelines say abut ESAs?  Because the USGA pub on holding competitions addresses ESAs directly.  And contains no statements of any kind about what criteria the Committee should use in deciding how to exercise their discretion on how to mark the ESA other than the water hazard restriction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

Seems very poorly worded to me. I feel sure that nobody intended for a committee to literally declare an environmentally protected area as GUR unless it actually fit the normal criteria for GUR.

Problem is that it is worded as a list of possibilities followed by "at the discretion".

I think you are drawing an unwarranted inference.  There has been NOTHING presented that would overlay the GUR definition on the ESA local rule.  And the fact that they DID incorporate the water hazard definition in the local rule but chose NOT to incorporate the GUR definition argues further against your inference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I never said it was forbidden.  I simply said that it was not the preferred way to address the issue.  Unless there were some extenuating circumstances.

No you DID say it was forbidden.  When it was described your exact words were:

Quote:

They may call it a "local rule" but it isn't an authorized one.  Playing by such a rule would invalidate any round for handicap recording.  Allowed local rules are authorized by the USGA and are found in Appendix I of the Rules of Golf.  To modify or suspend a rule of golf like your course does is expressly forbidden.

That is pretty definitely saying it is forbidden.  You may wish to revise that statement.  Particularly since the local rule IS in Appendix I and is completely authorized.

[Golfingdad]

I think you are drawing an unwarranted inference.  There has been NOTHING presented that would overlay the GUR definition on the ESA local rule.  And the fact that they DID incorporate the water hazard definition in the local rule but chose NOT to incorporate the GUR definition argues further against your inference.

Yeah, he was just agreeing with me when I said that IF fourputt happened to be right about his interpretation of the definition you supplied, then it was a poorly worded definition.  At this point, its pretty clear that he was wrong, in which case, it's very clearly worded and just misinterpreted by fourputt.

P.S. @BuckeyeNut , you need to read this thread and then realize you owe a couple of people (specifically @Meisce and @CR McDivot ) a pretty big apology.

[Meisce]

Gents - per the Coyote Creek example - I called the pro shop this morning, after reding this thread. They said that they offer the choice of local rules OR USGA rules ( where the environmental area plays as a hazard ). Now I have only ever been instructed there to play the local rules - but this makes sense to me having read all of this. I wasn't aware that these local rules may no be USGA conforming. That's three rounds in 2014 that I've submitted towards my handicap that I'll have to get a ruling on. Sorry for stirring this discussion, but I'm glad it led me to call and find out. When they told me the local rule was a free drop, I didn't know enough to ask if there was a separate USGA one.

[iacas]

The discussion has almost moved on from the specifics of that one course, @Meisce , but it is still a good discussion and your scenario brought it to light.

[MS256]

No need to be sorry. I'm glad you did stir it up. I would have gone on not knowing how the rule was written and being wrong about the options a committee has at their "discretion".

[Fourputt]

My apologies for raising such a stink about it.  If it was my choice, such areas would not be so designated.  I think it's a bit of a cop out by the course that Meisce was referring to.

[Rulesman]

My apologies for raising such a stink about it.  If it was my choice, such areas would not be so designated.  .

Out of curiosity, how would you handle an area such as that which @iacas described?

"if you have a dry ESA - say a field that houses a protected species of mouse, or salamander or lizard or bird or whatever, but you do not wish to penalize players when the area is within the boundary of the course (perhaps even between holes) AND from which they could otherwise play a shot?"

[David in FL]

Out of curiosity, how would you handle an area such as that which Iacas described?

"if you have a dry ESA - say a field that houses a protected species of mouse, or salamander or lizard or bird or whatever, but you do not wish to penalize players when the area is within the boundary of the course (perhaps even between holes) AND from which they could otherwise play a shot?"

You mean, outside of calling in an exterminator to get rid of the damn mice?!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

My apologies for raising such a stink about it.  If it was my choice, such areas would not be so designated.  .

Out of curiosity, how would you handle an area such as that which @iacas described?

"if you have a dry ESA - say a field that houses a protected species of mouse, or salamander or lizard or bird or whatever, but you do not wish to penalize players when the area is within the boundary of the course (perhaps even between holes) AND from which they could otherwise play a shot?"

If a critter is that threatened, perhaps the course never should have been built there.  Such a restricted area should never be so close to the line of play that it gets regular traffic - that would be terribly poor judgement in course design.  The area could be fenced and restricted to foot traffic only, minimizing any human impact.  In such a small area as we are talking about, maybe such a critter could be captured and relocated?  Or perhaps we're going a bit too far in our concern for trying to curtail the course of natural selection?

If a species is restricted to such a small habitat, don't you think that it is likely to pass away despite any efforts at protection?  An area as small as we are talking about can't possibly make a real, world impacting difference.  It's the natural way of things to die out if they can't adapt.  It's one thing to do as man did to the passenger pigeon and slaughter them by the millions, but it's another to go overboard for a species which is destined to die out anyway.

Man has often gone too far in his attempt to prevent the normal workings of nature.  That is what is being blamed for the wildfire problems we have here in the west now.  We kept preventing fires from burning naturally, and now there is an abundance of dead, dry fuel in places which would normally have burned off on a natural cycle, so that fires are much worse than they would be if such prevention and containment had not been used.

Back in the 70's there was a big battle to save the snail darter, a small fish there was thought to only exist in one small watershed which was threatened with TVA dam construction.  After a hugely expensive court battle, many project delays, the dam was built anyway, the fish was transplanted to another drainage, and it's no longer on the endangered species list.  I read somewhere that they have now even found it living naturally somewhere outside of the original threat area.

[Golfingdad]

You mean, outside of calling in an exterminator to get rid of the damn mice?!    ;-)

These ain't Canadian geese were talking about here, they're AMERICAN mice! Come on!!!

[iacas]

If a critter is that threatened, perhaps the course never should have been built there.

Your entire post is an off-topic cop-out that doesn't answer the spirit of the question.

And as for "poor design" and "maybe they shouldn't have built there," maybe the critters weren't threatened before the course was built - a lot can change in several decades.

@Fourputt you know as well as anyone that we play golf in the real world, not some idealized world where such situations never exist. So, you have a situation where it's unfair (common sense of the word) to mark an area as OB, it's not a water hazard at all, and yet it's an ESA. What do you do? Because "go back 50 years and not build the course there" isn't gonna work.