I went golfing yesterday and enjoyed not only the game but the variety of species that I was able to spot.
I understand that this course was carved out of the forest and that a large number of trees were lost. In return, the course created at least 10 small marsh areas that are now home to egrets, frogs, muskrats etc.
Also, this course guarentees that this area will remain as it is for the forseeable future. It will not be ripped down for houses.
I know that pesticide and fertilizer usage affects the ecosystem but the golf courses I have been on all seem to be diverse, viable ecosystems.
Any comments?
Depends on the location. Golf Course in West Bloomfield, MI, formerly used as farmland? Seems like a pretty neutral use of land to me. Golf Course in Scottsdale, AZ, not so much. Where a golf course does not match the local terrain they are a huge drain on water resources, and require the importation on non-local plants that are not well adapted to the climate and need lots of care, for example.
Just my thoughts: it depends.
Don’t know of any studies, but have hacked my way around many golf courses. I think you pretty much hit the highs and the lows of golf courses. They DO use tremendous amounts of ferts and herbicides. However, there are various movements to encourage “greener” practices. One of the first I became aware of was by the Audobon Society. Over the past decade or so it has become more common to see courses that have areas designated “natural” where you are prohibited to enter, and more and more publicize their conservation efforts. One obvious aspect involves nesting for birds such as bluebirds and wood ducks.
Here’s a link from my local course. This course - and many others, function as stormwater management facilities.
Here’s another course I play, that was constructed on an old landfill.
So, as with so many questions, I don’t think yours leads to a simple yes or no answer.
One issue involves worldwide degradation of habitat through golf course construction.
Lots of fuel is used up keeping fairways and greens cut and manicured, and there’s considerable pesticide usage involve, which makes me wonder about what runoff is doing to the marsh areas you describe.
I’d bet that cutting up a golf-course-sized area into housing tracts would result in worse pollution and energy wastage (for one thing, home usage of pesticides on a square-foot-type basis has been cited as being considerably higher than in farmland and would likely exceed that used on golf courses (my property being an exception, of course ;)).
So I have mixed feelings about golf courses. If golfers make their feelings known about environmental issues and are willing to put up with less than 100% lush, manicured courses in order to conserve energy, limit runoff and save water, golf courses can be an environmental plus (or at least less of a minus).
Like everybody else has said, they’re sort of half and half. Habitat good, pesticides bad, water bad, green space good. They used to have oiled dirt putting greens in Florida before they figured out how to grow grass there - certainly most golf courses are an extremely artificial environment.
Golf course cause enormous pollution of the groundwater (pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers leach into the ground water). they have polluted the drinking water in many areas. in addition, the monoculture of grass invites diseases-which require more chemicals. On the plus side-they do preserve some open space-but at great costs
Well, that strikes me as perhaps a tad overstated ralph. You have any authority for that position?
Also, I don’t know that the standard is whether or not golf courses are “better” for the environment than pristine wilderness. I think it more realistic to compare them to other human uses of land.
Aren’t most farms monocultures involving chemicals? And aren’t there continuums for they types of fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides used, as well as how they are applied?
While I can see why this was started in General Questions, I think it’ll fly better in Great Debates. Moved.
samclem GQ moderator
No. All you can do is mitigate the damage they cause.
Yeah, I’m an avid golfer, and I’m really not seeing many substantial upsides to most golf courses from an environmental perspective. Whatever benefits from trees that are preserved in green spaces has got to be more than offset by the chemicals and huge amounts of water that are used. Not to mention those stupid gasoline powered carts – I hate those things.
I agree water is an issue in arid locations, but here in the midwest not so much so. In fact, many courses are located directly on rivers, or are part of water reclamation/stormwater drainage systems.
Yeah, I dislike carts of any kind - prefer walking if course is “walkable.” Many courses have electric carts instead of gas.
As might be expected, googling for “golf course” combined with “ecology” and “environment” yields a bunch of info.
These [url=http://www.gcsaa.org/resources/facts/principles.asp voluntary guidelines are from an industry organization.
I suspect the most likely response is that there is a considerable scale ranging from environmentally “healthy” to “unhealthy” golf courses.
Those are guidelines to mitigate environmental damage. While I welcome and applaud successful efforts in that vein, carrying them out does not make a golf course “good for the environment.”
In my opinion, what’s good for the environment, generally speaking, is leaving it alone. Unless it’s a site that needs to be cleaned up (e.g., Superfund site), leaving it alone is usually what’s good for it.
Considering the golf course in the OP, I think the wetlands may be nice, but do not have anything to do with the fact that you now have a golf course sitting on what used to be forested land.
The same goes for the mention of a possible housing development. That seems irrelevant to me. You could debate whether a housing development or a golf course does more damage, but the fact is that they both do damage. Neither is “good for the environment.”
So do we live in teepees or mud huts or do those do too much damage? Should we be confined to caves and hollowed out logs? What is the threshold of damage to the environment we should not breach?
Not that I think we should encourage environmentally hazardous practices but your seems to be a position of no development at all, or at least only that which is minimally necessary. Is that correct?
He didn’t say that at all. I might just as well come in here and accuse you of thinking that apartment buildings are good for the environment.
Of course clearing trees, paving roads, laying foundations, setting up septic systems, etc does damage to the environment. How could you imply otherwise?
If we define it that way, is any human activity short of rehabilitation or preservation “good for the environment”?
Of course, if you define “the environment” as including humans …
Resolved: Humans are bad for the environment. Something must be done!
It seems to me unlikely that golf courses are routinely hacked out of virgin forest. Clearing land is very expensive, and establishing grass on such land takes years. Years when the owners are not realizing any profit.
So, insofar as it is probably prior farmers who cleared any alleged forest, the onus is on them, not the golf course… and the chances once-farmed land will revert to wilderness is virtually nil aside from that which is bought specifically for conservation purposes.
The desert golf course I play on is watered by reclaimed water. It has a backup fresh water connection but that’s rarely used.
As far as gasoline vs. electric carts, the difference is that with electric carts the fuel is burned someshere else. In effect the fuel is sent by wire. I don’t know whether or not that’s more “environmental” than hauling it in by truck.
Are beaver dams good for the environment?
I guess the answer to my OP depends on your perspective.
The golf course I played had tremendous biodiversity. I belief this is one of the key elements of a healthy ecosystem.
Can the ecosystem and the golf course exist sustainably? That is another question. If they can then, I believe, the golf course has a benefit.
Many of the posts mention the use of pesticides and fertilizers. I have been on golf courses that are fifty years old. Where would I witness that adverse affects of these chemicals? The ponds do not seem overrun with algae. As for groundwater contamination, where is the evidence for this? Any cites as to golf courses overusing chemicals to the detriment of local communities or the local environment?