[Mike_Young]

http://www.decodedscience.com/why-the-decline-of-golf-is-good-news-for-the-environment/50036#comments

[RJ_Daley]

Of course the golf maintenance industry will never receive a fair hearing from this lot.  It is just a wise industry and GCSAA administration and PR effort to put out honest and understandable refutation of some of the spurious positions that the envirohadists put out.  And, the industry needs to never stand pat and status quo in efforts to address the valid bits of the enviro crowd's criticism. 

[jeffwarne]

Perhaps the environment would be better off if the author's house, yard, and any recreational field he or his family frequents went fallow.

[K Rafkin]

Although the article is accurate it doesn't really provide any new insightful information, or level of intrigue.  Yes less golf courses is better for the environment just like less cars are better for the environment.  Just about less of anything manmade is better for the environment.  Im not going to attack the author because i disagree with the idea behind my article, but id be happy to jump on the bashing bandwagon for having just read an entirely uninteresting jumble of words posing as journalism.   

[Mike_Young]

THERE ARE ONLY 2.250,000 ACRES OF GOLF COURSE IN THE USA..... there is no excuse for such an article...

Overview of Land Use in the United States-The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.

To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103 million acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20 million acres.

Developed Land- Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S., yet this small land base is home to 75 percent of the population. In general, urban lands are nearly useless for biodiversity preservation. Furthermore, urbanized lands, once converted, usually do not shift to another use.

Rural Residential Land-This category comprises nearly all sprawl and subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The total acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44 million acres are lots of 10 or more acres.

Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1 percent of total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant until you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder corn and another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are consumed by livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect more of the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural residential, highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and golf courses combined.

Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.

The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres.

Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3 states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are forested lands that are grazed.

Forest Land- Forest lands comprise 747 million acres. Of these lands, some 501 million acres are primarily forest (minus lands used for grazed forest and other special categories).

[Ronald Montesano]

any "science" site with a .com surname is not a science site.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

Thanks for providing the numbers above.  The total acreage devoted to golf in the USA is more than I thought, but the key statistic is that it still accounts for only 0.1 percent of the total land area in the USA.  

If converted all to crops, you could increase food production by 0.6 percent.  We waste a hell of a lot more food than that!  [And, some of the people would prefer to live next to a golf course, rather than a farm and all the ag chemicals used on those.]

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

Thanks for providing the numbers above.  The total acreage devoted to golf in the USA is more than I thought, but the key statistic is that it still accounts for only 0.1 percent of the total land area in the USA.  

If converted all to crops, you could increase food production by 0.6 percent.  We waste a hell of a lot more food than that!  [And, some of the people would prefer to live next to a golf course, rather than a farm and all the ag chemicals used on those.]

Yep.  discussing chemical usage on golf courses is sort of like the lab rats getting cancer from aspertame at a rate equivalent to 2000 diet cokes per day for a human.         Soybeans....edamame...hmmmmm...the real culprit...

[Matt Neff]

Although the article is accurate it doesn't really provide any new insightful information, or level of intrigue. 

What in this article do you feel is accurate?

[Marc Haring]

Golf courses should have a positive affect on the environment. I'm assuming they mostly do compared to agriculture. Vastly more biodiversity for fauna and flora. Chemicals should be totally filtered out before entering environmentally sensitive areas.

[Lou_Duran]

Although the article is accurate it doesn't really provide any new insightful information, or level of intrigue. 

What in this article do you feel is accurate?

From Melvyn's perspective, all of it.  For me, not too much.

Golf's decline if that is what is happening has more than a couple fathers, the biggest being the scarcity of disposable income for many younger people and the fears, real or imagined, of Baby Boomers that their savings in a zero-interest environment as well as escalating healthcare costs will result in them running out of money before they die.  In Melvyn's world, golf is very small.  People who enjoy the game in different ways don't really play golf.  If his thinking would prevail, golf would not decline gradually, it would be in a death spiral.

[Jason Topp]

I believe I am as enviromentally concerned as most.  However, has anyone seen a golf course returned to a natural environment after it closed down?  In my experience they turn into subdivisions.  I am pretty confident subdivisions are not better for the environment than golf courses.

[BHoover]

I believe I am as enviromentally concerned as most.  However, has anyone seen a golf course returned to a natural environment after it closed down?  In my experience they turn into subdivisions.  I am pretty confident subdivisions are not better for the environment than golf courses.

The former Acacia CC outside Cleveland was slated to be turned into commercial real estate a couple years back.  Much to the dismay and anger of the local mayor, who was already thinking how he would spend the additional tax revenue, the club's shareholders sold the property to a conservation group, which promised to turn the former Ross design into a permanent greenspace.  That is precisely what ended up happening.  So in the middle of the busiest commercial shopping district on the east side of Cleveland sits a park that formerly was Acacia CC.

[Lou_Duran]

I believe I am as enviromentally concerned as most.  However, has anyone seen a golf course returned to a natural environment after it closed down?  In my experience they turn into subdivisions.  I am pretty confident subdivisions are not better for the environment than golf courses.

I guess that depends on how one looks at "the environment".  From the perspective of people, housing fulfills a basic need, shelter, and is thought by most to be a good thing.  Golf on the other hand seems to be of benefit to a small slice of mankind, mostly white men with ample money.

My subdivision hosts hundreds of rabbits, squirrels, ducks, egrets, herons, two or three red-tailed hawks, a few owls, innumerable fish, the occasional coyote and bobcat, any number of song birds and several types of varmits.  My home club is mostly devoid of wildlife save for a few squirrels and armadillos (or perhaps they only come out late at night).  So, from the standpoint of the animal kingdom, they would probably vote for the subdivision as well.  But being that my home club is in the middle of a residential area, maybe the critters have the best of both world here.  Not so much for Melvyn.  I am one of only two regular walkers, the rest, even most of the kids, play cart golf.   

[Paul Gray]

Although the article is accurate it doesn't really provide any new insightful information, or level of intrigue.  Yes less golf courses is better for the environment just like less cars are better for the environment.  Just about less of anything manmade is better for the environment.  Im not going to attack the author because i disagree with the idea behind my article, but id be happy to jump on the bashing bandwagon for having just read an entirely uninteresting jumble of words posing as journalism.  

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that golf courses are the sanitised, artificial playground which so many outside of the game assume them to be. Thankfully, Connor and a few others have addressed such points in their responses. Mention is made of the preservation of wetlands. I'll add to that by mentioning, yet again (), that golf courses are responsible for the vast majority of heather which remains in the UK? Apparently very few people are aware of this because, rather than coming out and explaining these kinds of facts to a broader audience, we tend to just hope that environmental arguments will go away. They won't. And all the while of course, because of our silence, the likes of Trump are seen as representative of golf.

[Mike_Young]

if interested , this is a good article about the supt at Cateechee and an environmentally friendly golf course.

http://www2.gcsaa.org/gcm/2000/feb00/02southern.html

[Paul Gray]

Mike,

Excellent stuff. It's exactly these sorts of things I feel we should be shouting about. The average member of the public knows nothing about these types of environmental programs. I was half tempted to copy and paste the link into the responses to the article but felt that was your prerogative.

[K Rafkin]

To clarify my response to the thoughtful individuals that chose to respond...I find the article about as senseless as humanly possible.  That being said i do not disagree with the basic premise that more golf courses (or of pretty much everything human created) is bad for the environment.  This logic applies to everything including cars, water bottles, and pairs of underwear.  The author chose to start off by arguing a point that no one is really arguing with, and i didn't disagree. 

Thanks mike for posting something written with less arrogance and more thought.  Although it hasn't happened as quickly as in other fields i can see golf couses in the future being built with the intention of being as environmentally friendly as possible.  Although many of the older courses were built in an era when people were less concerned with such things, many newer courses have adopted the principal of environmentalism. 

[Carl Rogers]

As an end consumer, I am getting all kinds of specials via e-mail.  Just got back from the Homestead (special room rate).  Played the Old Course for $40 (with tax and the etc)  and the Cascades for $55 (with tax and the etc).
Cascades lives up to its hype and then some.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()