July 2nd, 2013, 02:00 PM
Interesting article about Donald Trump threatening to pull plans to build a large golf resort unless a wind farm isn't built in view of the resort. Extremes and competing interest for the locals.
I'm not sure what the problem is though--why does he think wind farms are ugly?
Thar He Blows: Trump Tussles With Scots Over Wind Turbines : NPR
The Scotts should just tell trump to look eslewhere to build his golfcourse. But then I think golfcourses are a dime a dozen and one not built is no great loss. Also, I'm not much of a Trump fan either.Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Yes, those wind farms ruin the landscape, they should build smoke stacks and coal combustion plants or nuclear power plants instead, Mr. Burns would say "excellent".
He should start with a Golf course right next to the Fukushima power plant.
(the region should choose between Wind farms and the option to have as many public buildings be equipped with solar panels that generate electricity for the community).
Some of the irony here is golf resorts tend to be miniature ecological disaster areas in their own right, with invasive species, high water use, run off of excessive phosphates, massive displacement of the native flora/fauna and high demand for energy to heat and light their buildings.
I agree with Trump on this one, though. Wind farms are just plain ugly. They are not as friendly in other ways as the greenies like to claim either. People who work on wind turbines are prone to serious and often lethal accidents. So far, the death toll is sufficiently high that fatalities per terawatt year of electricity produced substantially outweigh that for nuclear power, even taking Chernobyl into account.
I would like to see safety standards tightened, and restrict wind farms to more isolated places, where they are not clearly visible to more than a few people.
Here is the executive summary: Trump has been outsmarted by Scottish politicians, primarily Alex Salmond, the First Minister. He came in with arrogance and expected all to do his bidding. We have the golf course, we have a major investment. He will not walk away.
As to the wind farm - it will be offshore.
A wind turbine has just been erected on the hill behind my house - it is about 700m away. I like it. It is relaxing watching it turn. I'd like to see the farmer put three more in, walking away up the hill, like Don Quixote's giants.
Seeing as his first golf course in the area affected a designated special scientific interest site, his protestations about the environment look a bit shallow.
If he doesn't like the look of it, he doesn't like it and he'll tell anyone and everyone all about it.
If he doesn't see it as having any personal value to him? Send in the bulldozers. (That's not exactly what happened, but it is the mind-set.)
I am not a Trump fan, but I AM AN AVID GOLFER. Most people, especially on the island have to follow pretty strict restrictions in order to not violate the land. I don't think Trump really cares about that. Windmills would more than likely add to the charm of the golf course....a point of conversation. Mr. Trump should well...never mind.....The Scotts should just tell trump to look eslewhere to build his golfcourse. But then I think golfcourses are a dime a dozen and one not built is no great loss. Also, I'm not much of a Trump fan either.
The ones here use recycled water, as do most. They are also ecologically built to not ruin or displace flora or fauna. That may have been how it was many years ago, but that does not happen now.
We call ourselves "Scots".
"Scott" is a surname, and can also be a first name.
Last edited by Halliday; July 3rd, 2013 at 02:43 PM.
It isn't his country. He needs to get over it. Possibly the windmills will ruffle his comb over. Now that would surely be a horrid digression, but I think it might be a great photo moment!
So you think your golf course doesn't use sprinklers and thus large amounts of the water it uses simply evaporates.
They use native grasses and let it grow?
The fauna is allowed to roam free?
It uses permeable roads through the course?
There are no parking lots?
The buildings turn off their lights at night so it doesn't disrupt wildlife?
The water obstacles are full of native wetlands plants?
The course closes certain lanes for weeks during bird sensitive breeding times after nest have been spotted.
I'm sorry...you might not be familiar with what ecologically friendly actually means, or somehow fallen for their hype. There might be some courses that try to minimize the ecological damage--even the best of them isn't all that friendly. Golf courses are damaging to the environment
Noted, and thanks.We prefer to call ourselves "Scots".
"Scott" is a surname.
I agree, but humans by their very nature are an ecological disaster, and golf courses beat malls any day. In Arizona they complain that in the Phoenix area there are so many golf courses that they have actually changed the local weather, because of all the water they use to keep the grass green.
You can take any city in the world and look up all the golf courses in it and be amazed. When I lived in Tucson, I never used to think there were very many golf courses there, because who could play in that 100+ degree heat. But there are hundreds of them. I will say it again golf courses are a dime a dozen and one more or one less won't make much difference.
IT is a resort. Lights are on at night at the hotel. We have no street life, and we have not wildlife that would be disrupted. The water comes from recycled water not from a main water source. We don't have a problem with birds breeding. They do it quite well. I feed them at my home........there are golf cart paths from green to tee only, no others. The fauna roams as they wish. THey usually do at all four courses we belong to. Including mountain lions on the Mainland and deer. There is no native grass in Hawai'i. You water at night, less evaporation and the water is non-potable, it is for watering not consumption.So you think your golf course doesn't use sprinklers and thus large amounts of the water it uses simply evaporates.
They use native grasses and let it grow?
The fauna is allowed to roam free?
It uses permeable roads through the course?
There are no parking lots?
The buildings turn off their lights at night so it doesn't disrupt wildlife?
The water obstacles are full of native wetlands plants?
The course closes certain lanes for weeks during bird sensitive breeding times after nest have been spotted.
I'm sorry...you might not be familiar with what ecologically friendly actually means, or somehow fallen for their hype. There might be some courses that try to minimize the ecological damage--even the best of them isn't all that friendly. Golf courses are damaging to the environment
Sorry Street LIGHTS!!
Find it ironic someone in Hawaii would use non-native species (some which are invasive) to argue how environmentally friendly a golf course is.
Here are 80 native grass species in Hawaii. Here's just one of over a dozen on this one web site (Native Plants Hawaii - Viewing Plant : Heteropogon contortus0 (and grasses have unique species in nearly all places)
Neither deer or mountain lions are native.
You kinda made my point. Most people who are naive of ecology view golf courses as pleasant and environmentally friendly. Those with a bit of knowledge about ecology see them for what they are...environmental disaster areas.
Thank you.
So in other words, the courses are not environmentally friendly. Unless you are talking about Mainland North America, neither of the mammals you listed are native to Hawai'i. What Island did you say you were on again? Lights on at night are a major source of light pollution, and YES they do disrupt many native species, not just the few the you see in your yard (which are most likely also imports and invasive).IT is a resort. Lights are on at night at the hotel. We have no street life, and we have not wildlife that would be disrupted. The water comes from recycled water not from a main water source. We don't have a problem with birds breeding. They do it quite well. I feed them at my home........there are golf cart paths from green to tee only, no others. The fauna roams as they wish. THey usually do at all four courses we belong to. Including mountain lions on the Mainland and deer. There is no native grass in Hawai'i. You water at night, less evaporation and the water is non-potable, it is for watering not consumption.So you think your golf course doesn't use sprinklers and thus large amounts of the water it uses simply evaporates.
They use native grasses and let it grow?
The fauna is allowed to roam free?
It uses permeable roads through the course?
There are no parking lots?
The buildings turn off their lights at night so it doesn't disrupt wildlife?
The water obstacles are full of native wetlands plants?
The course closes certain lanes for weeks during bird sensitive breeding times after nest have been spotted.
I'm sorry...you might not be familiar with what ecologically friendly actually means, or somehow fallen for their hype. There might be some courses that try to minimize the ecological damage--even the best of them isn't all that friendly. Golf courses are damaging to the environment
Yes in some environments more than others. Not all local grasses are good on golf courses, so what can you do? You might say don't build golf courses. However peoples homes in the suburbs of all cities are just as bad or worse than any golf course, and they cover a great deal more area than all the golf courses combined. At least with golf courses you can make sure they stay within any guide lines set for the area. It's much more difficult to control millions of home owners.
Just saying it's probably unrealistic to think more golf courses won't be built anywhere people want to play golf.
Getting back on topic, I think if Trump doesn't like wind generators, he should look elsewhere to build his course.
There's no evidence that most golf courses even look for a native grass that might work.
So what? It's not as if people are trading lawn for golf course--in fact my guess would be the same population that likes to golf, predominantly have the same non-native mono-cultural grass lawns.You might say don't build golf courses. However peoples homes in the suburbs of all cities are just as bad or worse than any golf course, and they cover a great deal more area than all the golf courses combined.
It certainly is if people remain ignorant of the environmental damages common to golf courses. By raising awareness however, people get to make more informed decisions about the restrictions of golf course, how they might be built (or if), just as many people in environmentally conscious city's have switched their lawns to native grasses, made them smaller, or simply replace them with something more ecologically friendly like a native butterfly gardens, rock gardens, storm water wetlands etc.Just saying it's probably unrealistic to think more golf courses won't be built anywhere people want to play golf.
But I do agree Trump should look elsewhere rather than just being the quintessential arrogant and bigoted ugly American that seems to come so naturally to him.
Getting back on topic, I think if Trump doesn't like wind generators, he should look elsewhere to build his course.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Paleoichneum;437517]So in other words, the courses are not environmentally friendly. Unless you are talking about Mainland North America, neither of the mammals you listed are native to Hawai'i. What Island did you say you were on again? Lights on at night are a major source of light pollutionIT is a resort. Lights are on at night at the hotel. We have no street life, and we have not wildlife that would be disrupted. The water comes from recycled water not from a main water source. We don't have a problem with birds breeding. They do it quite well. I feed them at my home........there are golf cart paths from green to tee only, no others. The fauna roams as they wish. THey usually do at all four courses we belong to. Including mountain lions on the Mainland and deer. There is no native grass in Hawai'i. You water at night, less evaporation and the water is non-potable, it is for watering not consumption.So you think your golf course doesn't use sprinklers and thus large amounts of the water it uses simply evaporates.
They use native grasses and let it grow?
The fauna is allowed to roam free?
It uses permeable roads through the course?
There are no parking lots?
The buildings turn off their lights at night so it doesn't disrupt wildlife?
The water obstacles are full of native wetlands plants?
The course closes certain lanes for weeks during bird sensitive breeding times after nest have been spotted.
I'm sorry...you might not be familiar with what ecologically friendly actually means, or somehow fallen for their hype. There might be some courses that try to minimize the ecological damage--even the best of them isn't all that friendly. Golf courses are damaging to the environment
Deer, fox, mountain lions etc. is referring to Mainland North America, not Hawai'i.
I live both places.
We do not have street lights. Either place. Mainland or California.
Our fauna on Big Island are mostly wild pigs, goats and wild donkeys. We are basically desert. Frankly, if light disturbs the scorpions or the centipedes, and trust me, it doesn't, it would not break my heart.
I have met a mountain lion up close and personal on the golf course, MAINLAND, as well as bear, deer, fox, skunks, and a few other species.
We are basically rural. It's pitch black at night.
Donald Trump should just take his crazy self and crazy hair back to Trump Towers.......
The thing is, pigs, goats and donkeys are all invasive feral animals on the big island, not native. And all are destructive the to the native flora and fauna, of which there are plenty of animals you generally wont see, but are there and sensitive to things light light pollution. Also if you are on the desert side of the big island, then a golf course is already using way more water then would normally be present.Deer, fox, mountain lions etc. is referring to Mainland North America, not Hawai'i.So in other words, the courses are not environmentally friendly. Unless you are talking about Mainland North America, neither of the mammals you listed are native to Hawai'i. What Island did you say you were on again? Lights on at night are a major source of light pollution.
I live both places.
We do not have street lights. Either place. Mainland or California.
Our fauna on Big Island are mostly wild pigs, goats and wild donkeys. We are basically desert. Frankly, if light disturbs the scorpions or the centipedes, and trust me, it doesn't, it would not break my heart.
I have met a mountain lion up close and personal on the golf course, MAINLAND, as well as bear, deer, fox, skunks, and a few other species.
We are basically rural. It's pitch black at night.
Agreed, pigs, goats, donkeys, horses, sheep, cattle, and cats and dogs, are all invasive animals on the Big Island.The thing is, pigs, goats and donkeys are all invasive feral animals on the big island, not native. And all are destructive the to the native flora and fauna, of which there are plenty of animals you generally wont see, but are there and sensitive to things light light pollution. Also if you are on the desert side of the big island, then a golf course is already using way more water then would normally be present.Deer, fox, mountain lions etc. is referring to Mainland North America, not Hawai'i.So in other words, the courses are not environmentally friendly. Unless you are talking about Mainland North America, neither of the mammals you listed are native to Hawai'i. What Island did you say you were on again? Lights on at night are a major source of light pollution.
I live both places.
We do not have street lights. Either place. Mainland or California.
Our fauna on Big Island are mostly wild pigs, goats and wild donkeys. We are basically desert. Frankly, if light disturbs the scorpions or the centipedes, and trust me, it doesn't, it would not break my heart.
I have met a mountain lion up close and personal on the golf course, MAINLAND, as well as bear, deer, fox, skunks, and a few other species.
We are basically rural. It's pitch black at night.
We don't HAVE any other animals. NONE NATIVE to the island, that I am aware of that have any sensitivety to light, including the turtles or the seals. Our full moons are much like turning on a light in a house.
And no the golf course is NOT using more water than would be normally present because it is watered with UNPOTABLE water.
You are incorrect.
There's far more native life then you probably realize:
Hawaiian Encyclopedia*:*Native and Endangered SpeciesAnd generally nocturnal animals tend to be sensitive to light and change their behavior to avoid the area as a route of travel, breed, search for food, lay eggs (sea turtle avoid well lite beaches) etc.
I am very familiar with the turtles...they swim around me often. I will check out the site.
HOWEVER!!
My point is. THERE ARE NO LIGHTS AT NIGHT.
This not a lighted area. WE DO NOT HAVE STREET LIGHTS..........we are not populated.....
Is that point now taken?
THIS IS NOT OAHU!
This statement contradicts what you said earlier about the course being lighted. If it is lighted at night it creates light pollution, which is bad for many of the native animals such as the Pueo and the HAwaiian hoary bat. And this doesn't even began to scratch the surface of the insects and other invertebrates which are nocturnal and easily disturbed, such as moths.I am very familiar with the turtles...they swim around me often. I will check out the site.
HOWEVER!!
My point is. THERE ARE NO LIGHTS AT NIGHT.
This not a lighted area. WE DO NOT HAVE STREET LIGHTS..........we are not populated.....
Is that point now taken?
THIS IS NOT OAHU!
Also animal is NOT mammal, you REALLY need to not conflate the two.
Nonpotable simply means the water is not consumable by humans, if it is being taken from somewhere on the desert side of the island, it is decreasing the water available for the native species and placing it into an environment they are very unlikely to enter.
As such how exactly am I incorrect?
I said lights at the resort, not the golf course. The golf course has no lights. The lights at the hotel are minimal. It is not lit up or no one would ever enjoy the stars. The water is being taken that is consumed AT THE RESORT ONLY!! NOT from other sources. As for insects, I have a huge adversity to them, please forgive me, so if they stay away from me because I have one light on, over my computer, in one room of my house, I really don't feel very guilty, and no malice is intended in that statement to you. I plain do NOT like bugs. Maybe it's a female thing. Sorry my paragraph ability seem to not work in here....or rather on this computer as I am on Mainland now.This statement contradicts what you said earlier about the course being lighted. If it is lighted at night it creates light pollution, which is bad for many of the native animals such as the Pueo and the HAwaiian hoary bat. And this doesn't even began to scratch the surface of the insects and other invertebrates which are nocturnal and easily disturbed, such as moths.I am very familiar with the turtles...they swim around me often. I will check out the site.
HOWEVER!!
My point is. THERE ARE NO LIGHTS AT NIGHT.
This not a lighted area. WE DO NOT HAVE STREET LIGHTS..........we are not populated.....
Is that point now taken?
THIS IS NOT OAHU!
Also animal is NOT mammal, you REALLY need to not conflate the two.
Nonpotable simply means the water is not consumable by humans, if it is being taken from somewhere on the desert side of the island, it is decreasing the water available for the native species and placing it into an environment they are very unlikely to enter.
As such how exactly am I incorrect?
Oh, and I live in the country. We don't call them mammals, we all them animals. Our vets are called ANIMAL clinics. Big Animal Clinic and Small Animal Clinic....mammal is not used. Forgive me for using the terminology that I am used to........here was my original post which I did NOT contradict.
Remember that this is a science forum so if you say animals, the readers of the post will assume you really meant animals, and not just large mammals. And do you understand that its not just large mammals that are effected by light pollution? When you say resort, how big is the complex?
Where does the recycled water get piped from though? yes it is greener to use recycled water, but a golf course still a huge drain of water from other uses.
Do keep in mind that without insects we would all be dead. Without insects, ever, we would never have evolved.
And as J.B.S.Haldane is said to have remarked, when asked what he had learned of the Nature of God, from his scientific studies: “God has an inordinate fondness for beetles."
Small resort. And as for small animals/mammals, *S* mongoose sleep at night and I am not fond of rats. That is pretty much all we have. The resort has a hotel with 156 rooms...(give or take one) The residential community is very small, and most homeowners are not there more than 4 months a year, with the exception of myself and possibly 10 max. Very limited number of homes, Very few condo's. It is a tiny resort. The water question....I do not know how it is transferred to the recycle facility, but I do know that all the water on the golf course is from there. I also know that there is no other use for that water than the golf course and landscaping. Please understand....north of us, there is nothing for 3 miles.....east nothing for at least 10 miles, and south of us is one tiny town called Puako, and south of that, nothing for five miles.....west......well you are swimming. We also have this on the island. Mauna Kea Observatories which you might be familiar with.
Yes about two miles up...the next thing north on the map.
Mr. Galt, my post seemed to not make it, but here is how I feel. I understand your scientific need for insects, and I do appreciate their standing in the evolution of things, HOWEVER.......to me a dead bug is just perfect. Maybe it is a girlie thing...and I have done a lot of backpacking in my youth and camping also...but I do not like any insect, ok...ladybugs are cool....butterflys are also...so I should not state all. However, I do not appreciate, flying cockroaches that are at least two inches in length, nor do I like centipedes, or scorpions, and I am allergic to bees, and mosquito bites give me an adverse reaction to say the least. So I humbly submit, that I understand their importance, however, I personally do not want them in my home or my life. I do make up for this in other ways....I daily feed the birds (native) in Hawai'i'....to the point they know my voice.....and as long as I sing.....they don't fly away.....they stay within three feet of me.....and when they hear me about to feed them.....there is quite a chorus of various species of birds giving the "FOOD CALL" bell.Do keep in mind that without insects we would all be dead. Without insects, ever, we would never have evolved.
And as J.B.S.Haldane is said to have remarked, when asked what he had learned of the Nature of God, from his scientific studies: “God has an inordinate fondness for beetles."
What ever it is, IT IS unscientific. Even ecologist often have trouble fully understanding the role of one species, even a "bug" as you put it, on the ecosystem. It's removal might not have much effect (though some would argue it has inherent value in its own right), while others might cause major changes including effects that are worse for humans than having the original "bug" around..to me a dead bug is just perfect. Maybe it is a girlie thing..
I can't for one second see Donald Trump giving two hoots about the enviroment, he cares only for money and doing deals. He puts on a good public image and his Apprentice program is enjoyable to watch, but he's never going to convince folks he's actually a closet enviromentalist. His money as investment may be welcome but some of his business practices leave alot to be desired, as was attested to by a very good ITV documentry detailing the harassment being suffered by some of the local residents at the hands of his security employees. Some of the things they were caught doing actually on camera, yet the local police were arrescting journalists and film crews that were filming the harrasment of the local residents.
Can't see that letting his employees behave in this manner will ever do much for his popularity or credibility.
Its rather sad that you dont see that amount of disturbance to natural desert ecosystem as bad. The amount of water need to keep that large an area green has to come from somewhere and its NOT the environment the native species would use in any way.Yes about two miles up...the next thing north on the map.
I must say two things here. First, how much more costly is a wind farm built offshore, as opposed to on land? Second, my experience of seeing huge tracts of golf course planted in grass in the Desert Southwest, is one of my most disheartening. Water is obviously an issue in the desert, and as residential rates escalate for those folks who live there, the "geld-mongerers" like Donald Trump are given massive exception to the rule of conserve water. Playing golf on grassy desert is just plain the God-damndest most frivolous pastime I have seen! jocular
Your probably right about the roll of insects in our evolution. But insects are no different than any other life on this planet when it comes to survival. We are all products of nature and as such the insects have to put up with humans and their works if they are to survive and no matter how many I kill they continue to breed more than I can count. So I'm not worried about the individual lives of a pest insect or spider that wants to annoy me in my own home. Anyway I'm very sure after all humans are gone there will still be more species of insects alive than I care to speculate about.Do keep in mind that without insects we would all be dead. Without insects, ever, we would never have evolved.
And as J.B.S.Haldane is said to have remarked, when asked what he had learned of the Nature of God, from his scientific studies: “God has an inordinate fondness for beetles."
I agree it is UNSCIENTIFIC. I however still do like bugs, period. Never have.
In my opinion. I consider him an arrogant idiot.
I do not see us agreeing on this. No offense intended.Its rather sad that you dont see that amount of disturbance to natural desert ecosystem as bad. The amount of water need to keep that large an area green has to come from somewhere and its NOT the environment the native species would use in any way.Yes about two miles up...the next thing north on the map.
I agree. I am sure they have a scientific role, but I don't want them near me, or in my house.Your probably right about the roll of insects in our evolution. But insects are no different than any other life on this planet when it comes to survival. We are all products of nature and as such the insects have to put up with humans and their works if they are to survive and no matter how many I kill they continue to breed more than I can count. So I'm not worried about the individual lives of a pest insect or spider that wants to annoy me in my own home. Anyway I'm very sure after all humans are gone there will still be more species of insects alive than I care to speculate about.Do keep in mind that without insects we would all be dead. Without insects, ever, we would never have evolved.
And as J.B.S.Haldane is said to have remarked, when asked what he had learned of the Nature of God, from his scientific studies: “God has an inordinate fondness for beetles."
Four posts in a row- not bad.
Even "extreme bugs," like Arachnids- Black Widows, Brown Recluse and Centipedes do not bother me. I tend to handle most any "bug," insect or arachnid, bare handed and carry them someplace outside of my sphere of influence.
When kids are around, I usually will use a piece of paper to scoop them up because handling them with the hand freaks them out and I get too tempted to pretend to toss it on them.
I've been bitten very, very, few times in my life. One occasion of a Black Widow bite. No real effect other than a welt that lasted a couple days that itched.
Two bee stings total, in spite of holding bees bare handed hundreds of times. Both of those stings happened when I was very young. None since.
Mosquitoes have little effect, within thirty minutes the bump and itch is gone. Even the itch is so minor- I very rarely will scratch one.
Cat Fleas- on the other hand, make an itchy bump that lasts for several days. Itchy as hell. I don't like them. Dog fleas- no problem. Cat Fleas are Satan incarnate.
Cockroaches bother me- not because of the bug, but because of what they might MEAN...
Spiders I leave alone or pick up and move to a safe area outside. I'll duck under a web if it's in my way- unless it's in a high traffic area. I'll catch the spider and move it to a tree, then knock down the web. Bigger animal prerogative.
I dislike waking up to a bug crawling on me. Maybe I fear it will start nesting. In my sleepy state, I'm much more likely to slap at it. If awake- I'm greatly annoyed that I may have to get dressed and carry it outside when I'd much prefer to stay in bed. But I usually carry it out, anyway.
I am allergic to bee stings.....mosquito bites well up to up to 3 inches in diameter and itch like the devil and THEN take about 3 WEEKS!! NO EXAGGERATION, to go away.....I once was bitten several times through a wool sweater and my back looked like a battle ground. Husband got bit by a brown recluse....and got really sick. My son picks them up with a paper and takes them outside.....I am not that merciful, sadly.Four posts in a row- not bad.
Even "extreme bugs," like Arachnids- Black Widows, Brown Recluse and Centipedes do not bother me. I tend to handle most any "bug," insect or arachnid, bare handed and carry them someplace outside of my sphere of influence.
When kids are around, I usually will use a piece of paper to scoop them up because handling them with the hand freaks them out and I get too tempted to pretend to toss it on them.
I've been bitten very, very, few times in my life. One occasion of a Black Widow bite. No real effect other than a welt that lasted a couple days that itched.
Two bee stings total, in spite of holding bees bare handed hundreds of times. Both of those stings happened when I was very young. None since.
Mosquitoes have little effect, within thirty minutes the bump and itch is gone. Even the itch is so minor- I very rarely will scratch one.
Cat Fleas- on the other hand, make an itchy bump that lasts for several days. Itchy as hell. I don't like them. Dog fleas- no problem. Cat Fleas are Satan incarnate.
Cockroaches bother me- not because of the bug, but because of what they might MEAN...
Spiders I leave alone or pick up and move to a safe area outside. I'll duck under a web if it's in my way- unless it's in a high traffic area. I'll catch the spider and move it to a tree, then knock down the web. Bigger animal prerogative.
I dislike waking up to a bug crawling on me. Maybe I fear it will start nesting. In my sleepy state, I'm much more likely to slap at it. If awake- I'm greatly annoyed that I may have to get dressed and carry it outside when I'd much prefer to stay in bed. But I usually carry it out, anyway.
I stopped being afraid of bugs when I stopped killing them. I still will kill a spider if it looks poisonous (recluse or widow). Otherwise, like Neverfly I try to catch and release although I am not brave enough to use my bare hands to pick up anything that might bite. I think a recluse can cause extensive local tissue damage that can require skin grafts.
It is curious how different people and sexes are afraid of different things. I really don't like bees, wasps, and hornets where my wife has no fear of these. She is terrified of snakes. If I see a snake, I tell him to go hide.
The West coast of the Big Island would be a lava field without the development. I don't see the problem with the development there either.
We were at the Mauna Lani last November. We left the East coast of the USA the day before hurricane Sandy went through, and arrived to be treated to a Tsunami evacuation.
Both turned out to be false alarms.
I have always heard there are "no snakes in Hawaii". Still wonder at the un-liklihood of that belief. Having lived in three different Midwestern locations, Northern Illinois, Northern Indiana, and the Missouri Ozarks, Southern Nevada, Central Arizona, Colorado, and now Northwestern Arizona, I can state from experience that of all those, the Arizona Desert areas are the least troublesome regarding nasty insects. Though we live very close to the Colorado River, there are absolutely no mosquitos to be seen, though honeybees are often seen going about their work on the very short-term bloomings of cactus flowers. The Ozarks are was rife with a large variety of biting flies, hornets, wasps of all kinds, coppperheads, and much mold, the worst area in my estimation. However, I have never been to Southern Florida, about which I have heard horror stories! jocular
There are no natural snakes in Hawaii, and to keep it that way there are some very stiff penalties for bringing any snakes to Hawaii.
One of the worst places I've ever lived that had a lot of nasty biting and stinging insects was the Dallas/Fortworth area in Texas. The fire ants are impossible to get rid of completely and they both bite and sting. Also, while I was there they had a giant cricket invasion. They were piling up in the streets and there were big piles in all the business door ways. Now I know what biblical plagues must have felt like. There were lots of crows and seagulls eating them and not making a dent in there numbers. This plague lasted about two weeks.
You are correct. The West Coast of the Big Island would be a lava field and barren w/o the development. It doesn't affect what was never there in the first place, and the golf courses have had no bearing on anything there, being there wasn't anything there! Mauna Lani last November? Did we have a tsunami warning? Ah, I am 7 miles north of there at Mauna Kea.....that was a no worry one. The one in March 2011 however did about 40 million dollars of damage to the West Coast of the Big Island, and I have been there for three now and the big earthquake in 2006.. The last tsunami was tiny but interesting as it did affect the beach.
er there are no snakes in Hawai'i, but *cough* there are other types of "snakes"......and yes the penalties for bringing them in is very very very high! It is very illegal. They can damage our bird population. Like the mongoose.....brought in to eradicate the rats....many many years ago....well er one is a night owl and one is a daylight creature......let's just say it didn't work.There are no natural snakes in Hawaii, and to keep it that way there are some very stiff penalties for bringing any snakes to Hawaii.
One of the worst places I've ever lived that had a lot of nasty biting and stinging insects was the Dallas/Fortworth area in Texas. The fire ants are impossible to get rid of completely and they both bite and sting. Also, while I was there they had a giant cricket invasion. They were piling up in the streets and there were big piles in all the business door ways. Now I know what biblical plagues must have felt like. There were lots of crows and seagulls eating them and not making a dent in there numbers. This plague lasted about two weeks.
The are deer on Molokai, but they are not native. They are asian fallow deer and were a gift from the King of Siam to the king of Hawaii.
The mongoose thing is made worse by the fact that Mongoose like people, and are perfectly happy in an urban environment.
That would be King Kamehameha, I would belive.....nor were they native to any of the islands!!!!! Someone brought some to BI...and they have a all hunt out....to eradicate them. Idiots!! Mongoose really do NOT like people. They are also vicious! I did however have one chew through my dryer draft vent (he got into through the outside vent) and when I observed some unwanted items on a floor in the laundry room, by the garbage and one in the guest room, I knew I had a "creature". Well I am walking into the guest room (also my office) and there is a MONGOOSE looking at me...and I'm looking at it, and I run out, close the door, run in and chase the little shit into the toilet room, with a golf club, and close the door. I have just trapped a freaking mongoose in the house! I therefore proceeded to call Maintenance to get the dang thing OUT of my bathroom. Watching five Hawai'ian men (they were so excited 8 of them drove up to help me in my distress call) giggle like little boys on an adventure. The mongoose was set free, but that little thing is still trying to get into the house!
They discussed this extensively in the movie You've been trumped, I think that his reasoning was the golfers would see it as being unpleasent and it might hurt his big wallets.
I haven't gotten any farther into the thread yet, but I want to address this.
When I worked in permitting, I was shocked at how many people thought golf courses were environmental. The fact is that they are often just as guilty of draining wetlands, altering waterways, and destroying local flora as many other businesses. One course even removed a local population of endangered box turtles who had made a home in the local "water trap" (which is very much illegal) because they were travelling along the golfers' courses.
Now, there may be some courses which are truly environmentally friendly, but I've never seen an example. I find the idea of any large natural area being kept mowed with an intentionally non-diverse species of grass as the primary cover being environmentally friendly to be a hard pill to swallow.
I think many of the Scottish links courses may come close to fitting the bill. The rough is often denser than Amazon rainforest and the bunkers provide homes for high handicap golfers who have never been able to find a way out.
He's a jerk.They discussed this extensively in the movie You've been trumped, I think that his reasoning was the golfers would see it as being unpleasent and it might hurt his big wallets.
which endures to our frustrationI think many of the Scottish links courses may come close to fitting the bill. The rough is often denser than Amazon rainforest and the bunkers provide homes for high handicap golfers who have never been able to find a way out.
Our course here is very environmental..and as to our courses in Hawai'i well cut out of lava rock...and there is lots and lots and lots if it on the course still.....*S*.....the birds sure like the golf courses...their population (native) have grown!
As have the wild pigs....not native, goats, not native....
And with such forms of lawn, would come fertilisers and pesticides and chemicals to keep the weeds in check and the grass that brilliant vibrant green. Which could also affect the bore water tables or the underwater tables in the long run as the chemicals seep into the soil below over a number of years.I haven't gotten any farther into the thread yet, but I want to address this.
When I worked in permitting, I was shocked at how many people thought golf courses were environmental. The fact is that they are often just as guilty of draining wetlands, altering waterways, and destroying local flora as many other businesses. One course even removed a local population of endangered box turtles who had made a home in the local "water trap" (which is very much illegal) because they were travelling along the golfers' courses.
Now, there may be some courses which are truly environmentally friendly, but I've never seen an example. I find the idea of any large natural area being kept mowed with an intentionally non-diverse species of grass as the primary cover being environmentally friendly to be a hard pill to swallow.
Not to mention the land is often sculpted to fit into this ideal of the course, often altering natural watercourses.
This is VERY important. By removing vegetation from very specific areas, we impact the flow of water. This can lead to runoff (most courses are fertilized and watered even in heat waves) into stormwater passages. I know golf courses are pretty to look at and they attract more migrant birds than, say, a highway, but the fact still remains that they are large-scale alterations of the natural landscape. If they are not created with responsible environmental practices in mind, they can be a burden on the environment.
I'd be interested in seeing more about the Scotland courses. That's several thousand miles outside my area of knowledge.
Just the opposite is done here in the U.S. Desert Southwest. "Silt" is usually brought in, since the original soil is primarily gravel, rock, and "hardpan", and not suited for growing turf. Then, after getting established, enormous amounts of precious (to the ecology, but not to the well-heeled) water is dispersed, sometimes daily, on great acreage. Disgusting, to me, that money prevails. jocularThis is VERY important. By removing vegetation from very specific areas, we impact the flow of water. This can lead to runoff (most courses are fertilized and watered even in heat waves) into stormwater passages. I know golf courses are pretty to look at and they attract more migrant birds than, say, a highway, but the fact still remains that they are large-scale alterations of the natural landscape. If they are not created with responsible environmental practices in mind, they can be a burden on the environment.
I'd be interested in seeing more about the Scotland courses. That's several thousand miles outside my area of knowledge.
Frankly, I thnk some of you guys are getting too precious about this "golf courses are not natural" stuff.
Of course they are not natural. Nor is 99.99% of the land area of planet Earth. Even the middle of the Amazon rain forest is no longer 'natural'. Even Antarctica has undergone change at the hands of man. What that means is that the ecosystems are modified. Not killed. Just changed.
A golf course is different to the original ecosystem that existed before people came along. But long before the golf course was formed, the 'natural' ecosystem was altered out of all recognition. I remember being in the north of England a couple decades back, and reading a sign stating that the land in front of me was a national park, reserved for wild life. I was staggered, because what I saw was farm land, cattle grazing, trimmed hedges etc. In England, there is no longer any 'natural' ecosystem left. Planting a gold course on top of all that is not a crime.
That may be courses of old, but not new and not any that I play..they were sculpted to fit the land. Pesticides *L* do you have ANY clue how not ok that is at all at ANY golf course? You need to do some research on what most golf courses really do to maintain ...lime for fertilizer, is natural.......and no pesticides at any course that I play.And with such forms of lawn, would come fertilisers and pesticides and chemicals to keep the weeds in check and the grass that brilliant vibrant green. Which could also affect the bore water tables or the underwater tables in the long run as the chemicals seep into the soil below over a number of years.I haven't gotten any farther into the thread yet, but I want to address this.
When I worked in permitting, I was shocked at how many people thought golf courses were environmental. The fact is that they are often just as guilty of draining wetlands, altering waterways, and destroying local flora as many other businesses. One course even removed a local population of endangered box turtles who had made a home in the local "water trap" (which is very much illegal) because they were travelling along the golfers' courses.
Putting all golf courses into a "can" is as bad as putting all vegetables in a "can". I suggest you research more on golf as it is today than yesterday.
Now, there may be some courses which are truly environmentally friendly, but I've never seen an example. I find the idea of any large natural area being kept mowed with an intentionally non-diverse species of grass as the primary cover being environmentally friendly to be a hard pill to swallow.
Not to mention the land is often sculpted to fit into this ideal of the course, often altering natural watercourses.
My issue is the misconception that golf courses are "green". Your value of 99.99% of land not being "natural" is also absurd. The point, for me, is simply that golf courses do not always accurately allow for the required hydrologic function of the land on which they are built. Replacing a wetland with a duck pond is not an appropriate substitution in the eyes of an hydrologist.
I'd like to see the information on these courses. Can you provide links to documentation? They sound vastly different than what I'm used to here in Indy.
I am aware of which states have more comprehensive environmental law and that Indy is not representative of all states. However, I also think you should distinguish that the courses on which you play may not be the norm for environmental standards.
I am not deeply knowledgeable about the links courses in Scotland, having -as I do - some justification for for claiming to be the worst golfer in the world. However, they are basically built on sand dunes left by retreating glaciers, since thoroughly encroached by vegetation - coarse grasses, gorse bushes and the like.I'd be interested in seeing more about the Scotland courses. That's several thousand miles outside my area of knowledge.
Eroded pockets provide natural bunkers and the main landscaping involved is creating the greens. The fairways, for the most part, follow the natural contours of the land and simply have cut grass. Obviously it is not a natural environment, but it is certainly more natural than the fields that lie inland of the courses. My suspicion is that their environmental impact is minor and that they afford some excellent niches for wildlife.
I honestly know nothing of the hydrology of Scotland. Sand dunes, at least what is left of them here in Indiana, are some of the most sensitive ecological regions we deal with. We had major erosion and sediment loading in streams from people walking on the dune, killing the stabilizing vegetations, and causing soil loss. Most of our remaining dunes are completely protected now.
I am going to look more into these courses in Scotland as I've long been an enemy of the golf course. If they're doing it right in Scotland, it could be ammunition for change here in the States.
To Flick
Of course a duck pond is not a wet land. It is a fraction of the area for a start. So what?
The point I am making is that modifying ecosystems is what humans do, all the time. There is no eco-disaster caused by that. If you have a different frequency and density of various species in the new ecosystem, then that is just what happens. Golf courses are no different, and are, in fact, a damn sight better ecologically than car parks, or other urban alterations. Golf course have trees, and they have water features, and they have grass. Life thrives in those environments.
If you want to preserve what is 'natural', in a form as little altered as possible, then you do this by setting up reserves. I am all in favour of those reserves, and I have worked as a volunteer on developing several such reserves (like pulling out alien weeds to preserve natural plant life). But in the world that humans occupy, you do not have a reserve, and you will not have a 'natural' ecosystem. Golf courses are one of those modified areas, and are one of them that is less harmful to natural life than many others.
Most human activities do exactly that...cause eco-disasters. Stating it's already messed up is no argument and only compounding the problem usually interfering with natural processes to return the land to a natural environment. "Golf course have trees, and they have water features, and they have grass," which is why many uninformed people think they are ok, or even environmentally friendly--even as they often destroy wetlands, displace native habitats and introduce many, often long term invasive non-native species.The point I am making is that modifying ecosystems is what humans do, all the time. There is no eco-disaster caused by that.
And while I'm not environmentally crazy who thinks all human activities should stop....I greatly object to unnecessary displacements and interruptions of natural processes across vast areas for recreation. Frisbee Golf would be a lot better.
Lynx
While I do not think you are an environmental crazy, it appears that in this case you are not assigning priorities. Creating golf courses is one of humanity's least environmental sins. Yes, trees, water features and grass are assets to the environment. If nothing else, they harbor insect life and the soil beneath becomes humus rich and harbors an immense diversity of soil life. Insects and trees mean birds. If you wander around golf courses, you will see a lot of birds.
Sure, an environmental purist will see anything other than pristine virgin natural habitat as a crime. And there is no reason why we cannot, and every reason why we should, set aside such habitats as reserves, and care for them. But human inhabited land tends to be very different to such. Farms are no better than golf courses. And golf courses are way better than parking lots.
If you want to campaign to influence golf clubs, then campaign to get them to plant more trees and keep their water hazards as close to natural wetlands as possible.
I suggest you look up courses in California and in Hawai'i. Or any major course in the USA.I'd like to see the information on these courses. Can you provide links to documentation? They sound vastly different than what I'm used to here in Indy.
I am aware of which states have more comprehensive environmental law and that Indy is not representative of all states. However, I also think you should distinguish that the courses on which you play may not be the norm for environmental standards.
I know at my course here, and in Hawai'i, they use lime as a fertilizer. They use SAND to treat the greens, after they have been punched, and I have yet to see anyone out there with anything not environmentally sound in either State. I cannot speak for others. We have strict laws as to what can be used. We are a huge habitat of deer, chipmunks, mountain lions (yes, I did meet one on the course) and bear who sometimes take to playing in the sand traps.
I would be interested to know what you find out. As I say, my impression is that the impact of the links courses is minimal, because if major changes are made to the environment it is no longer a links course. This is how the game emerged and evolved, by playing on these wind swept dunes along Scotland's coast. (Remember we are Scottish, so actually spending money to create the course would be against our national heritage.)
Perhaps Trump likes off shore oil and gas rigs better. They are so much more environment friendly.
And at night the fires look so pretty.
Why The Latest Gulf Leak Is No BP Disaster : The Two-Way : NPR
I'm only assuming you are not in the environmental sciences.
I think Lynx summed everything up very nicely, but I will add that many environmental concerns are not visible. A duck pond and wetland do not have set sizes. Wetlands can be hundreds of acres or 20 feet in diameter. They can also be of different qualities based upon the function they provide. The problem is that they do not offer the same hydrologic function. Non-native grasses, while being grasses, are not equivalent to native ones. Not all trees are created equal, either.
The problem with the golf courses I have encountered are not visible to the majority of golfers playing on them or the public at large. You don't have to be a "crazy" or "purist" to understand the destroying features of a water shed will have a negative impact over a large area. It is not about wanting to leave nature undisturbed, it is simply about REQUIRING that hydrology (and for biologists, perhaps things like migratory routes or native veg) be maintained at a level which will mitigate environmental impact.
The problem we run into is that natural wetlands are not as attractive as open water. They also cannot be treated and are a breeding ground for mosquitoes and ticks. Golf resorts would NEVER allow that.
As for farms, while they are often disasters for hydrology, a wetland can actually be farmed and still maintain its soil hydrology. I don't want to sound rude, but you sound like you're speaking above your level of expertise on this matter. Some of us who have worked in these areas have some insight to offer. I'm not a terrific contributor to this board, but I DO know water.
Flick
You have just repeated what I said. Golf courses are not the same as pristine natural wilderness, and if you are an environmental crazy, you will settle for nothing less. But golf courses are less harmful to the environment than a city, or industrial area. It is a moot point as to whether a farm or a golf course is less or more environmentaly friendly.
But golf courses, like farms, harbor a range of bird and insect life. An environmental purist will demand only native trees and native water weeds etc. But an environmental purist is not really very pragmatic. Non native trees and grasses and weeds also make their positive contribution.
Your entire arguments seems to infer that we need golf courses, just like we do farms. We don't. You are arguing false equivalency and than trying to say people aren't prioritizing. Sorry, the problems with the argument are transparent and I'm not buying it. There is absolutely nothing non-pragmatic or environmentally extreme about demanding either "only native trees and native water weeds" or no unnecessary golf courses at all--it's not the same as farms or many other non-optional human activities.
Lynx
The argument "we don't need that" is one that can be applied to a million aspects of human life. I am not myself a golfer, and if all golf courses magically disappeared overnight, it would not bother me in the least. However, there are a lot of people who get great pleasure out of golf. I would not want to be so mean spirited as to deprive them of something that gives them joy.
I am a keen scuba diver. It would not harm human survival in the least if all scuba equipment disappeared overnight, but it would cost me a source of pleasure and satisfaction. Would you wish me to suffer that loss?
The question is, do we "need" entertainment? Golf courses provide a distraction from life's everyday hassles. Need them? Hell, no, not if the overall picture is viewed. Too many people, too little resources, as they continue dwindling, dictate that for the long haul, humanity's gotta mend it's ways! jocular
Well said and true. Walking in a forest disturbs the flora and fauna, so it is a moot point. I am sure there are golf courses that don't use the natural beauty of the land they are built on, but frankly, I have never played one that wasn't with native trees, WEEDS, streams, ponds, etc. In Hawai'i, there would be nothing green....lava rock....with weeds....and there is still lava and still the native weeds and of course the Kiawi, which IS NOT NATIVE......brought in well I have read two different thoughts on that one. I can't even find Kiawi trees on WIKI!
Why am I seeing this extreme viewpoint?
I believe, and I hesitate to speak for Lynx, that we are suggesting priorities. That is all. At no point have we said we want to remove all golf courses. Yet, I'm seeing allusions to "environmental crazy" in some of the responses.
The crazy thing to do is NOT build with natural cycles and environmental health in mind.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have golf courses. I'm just saying that they, like farms and structures, need to be mitigated in terms of their impact. They are NOT green space simply because they contain grass, trees, and water.
In a word Yes. Human recreational activities shouldn't ever be prioritized above maintaining or restoring the natural environment--and when it is allowed it should be done in such as way that its impacts should be minimal.
One of the most insidious things about golf courses is they look natural to people ignorant about the natural environment.
Which group is comprised of 99% of Americans, or? Are folks elsewhere more well-informed, or care more, or are less self-centered than Americans? jocular
MODS! Attempted to edit above, failed. 4 tries to get above posted. Each time it claims I'm logged out, though header above says logged in. Can anything be done about it? Lots of time wasted here. Does anyone care? jocular
Jocular,
Instead of left clicking the edit button, do a right click and "open" the link. Also I found that selecting advanced mode prevents a lot of problems
When it comes to the environment and things humans do that harms the environment, I think we could do a lot better. However, we are all in the Earths biosphere where most life lives in an equilibrium with the environment. No species disrupts the environmental equilibrium more than humans do. We are just getting started in paying the price for that extended period of disruption.
I do think there should be regulations that require golf courses to be built where the local environment is considered in the planning. But like others have stated, we have a long list of things that need fixing that are higher on the list than golf courses.
Thanks! Will do! joc
Agreed 100%! First, paying the price may entail far more in the long run than humanity can pay. Second, I wonder what couple of things might come to mind: perhaps the littered oceans, with "dead zones" sometimes as large as some of our States? jocular
Edit: Once again, cut & paste to a new forum page; trying advice given for edit
On that note, golf courses must submit to the same regulations as any other business that disturbs the environment. You can't built a golf course on a class 3 wetland any more than you could build a steel mill on that land (I say 'can't', but it's often up to the discretion of the agency).
Thus, "regulations", which already limit new building in certain arid areas, namely desert, because of water concerns, are lax or non-existent pertaining to the laying down of hundreds of acres of perpetually-watered grass on barren hardpan? jocularOn that note, golf courses must submit to the same regulations as any other business that disturbs the environment. You can't built a golf course on a class 3 wetland any more than you could build a steel mill on that land (I say 'can't', but it's often up to the discretion of the agency).
I absolutely agree that any course built should be built according to the local environment. 100%.....
Golf is NOT a new sport....it has been around for hundreds of years.
You would have to ask an agency in a state with desert. Here in Indy, we don't have to consider water usage to permit construction. We simply limit water usage during times of drought.Thus, "regulations", which already limit new building in certain arid areas, namely desert, because of water concerns, are lax or non-existent pertaining to the laying down of hundreds of acres of perpetually-watered grass on barren hardpan? jocularOn that note, golf courses must submit to the same regulations as any other business that disturbs the environment. You can't built a golf course on a class 3 wetland any more than you could build a steel mill on that land (I say 'can't', but it's often up to the discretion of the agency).
You would have to ask an agency in a state with desert. Here in Indy, we don't have to consider water usage to permit construction. We simply limit water usage during times of drought.Thus, "regulations", which already limit new building in certain arid areas, namely desert, because of water concerns, are lax or non-existent pertaining to the laying down of hundreds of acres of perpetually-watered grass on barren hardpan? jocularOn that note, golf courses must submit to the same regulations as any other business that disturbs the environment. You can't built a golf course on a class 3 wetland any more than you could build a steel mill on that land (I say 'can't', but it's often up to the discretion of the agency).
So does California.
Hawai'i, recycles a lot of it's water for irrigation purposes.
I'm sure that is, at least in part, due to the cost of importing fresh water and desalination, but it's still nice to know. Much of Indiana is still farmland and we REALLY struggle during times of drought. Because we have wiped out 89-95% of the wetlands that used to cover our state, we basically hold water like a sieve. Our water table drops very rapidly when it isn't being recharged.
Water is a precious commodity. If it can be reused, it is a means of conservation. It is usually not potable or suitable for human or animal consumption for any other use, than irrigation.I'm sure that is, at least in part, due to the cost of importing fresh water and desalination, but it's still nice to know. Much of Indiana is still farmland and we REALLY struggle during times of drought. Because we have wiped out 89-95% of the wetlands that used to cover our state, we basically hold water like a sieve. Our water table drops very rapidly when it isn't being recharged.
Yes, but you fail to recognise that the courses themselves are not natural. Usually there will have been quite a bit of clearing of vegetation. In desert or arid areas, vegetation is added, which will alter the natural habitat of that area. I am sure you understand that echo systems are very delicate and sensitive. If you clear trees and shrubs and plant grass.. This is not natural. It is an added burden on that echo system. When you clear trees and low lying plants and plant grass you are dramatically altering the environment and destroying the native habitat of the local and native wild life. Certainly, you can say you have seen local wild life walking across the course, for example, but that proves even more that they are no longer in their natural environment when they are wondering across those courses. Their habitat in those areas no longer exist. Instead what they get is well tended grass and sand bunkers. Even the use of things like lime, while lime fertilisers are natural. Adding it to the grass to fertilise it is not natural to that area.
When you strip trees away, it does and will affect the local water table.
When you build golf courses on usually arid or desert areas, you are completely transforming that local environment. You are completely altering the local eco system. Someone linked an image or a google map to a golf course in Hawaii which is on one such arid area of land. Any insects and birds and reptiles that relied on those insects, for example, think of the impact it has had on them when you have large swathes of arid desert land transformed into lush and green golf courses.
Saying it is all natural or the fertilisers used are natural. A desert area with a giant golf course is not natural. Just because it is near the ocean does not make it a Links course.
No one is suggesting that golf courses are 'natural'. So what?
Nothing much in our human influenced environment can be called 'natural'. In fact, I would find it hard to find any environment anywhere on the entire planet that has not been influenced by human activity. Golf courses are a tiny, tiny part of the land area of the countries we live in. The impact of those few golf courses on the total ecology is next to zero. Why are people getting their knickers in a twist about such a miniscule effect?
Because the argument that land is already influenced by humans is hollow--it's like an arsonist arguing that because the windows were already broken and he only burned down one house, a "minuscule effect" compared to the hundreds in town, that arson was ok.
They are not actually so small in some countries, nor do they take up such little space. Looking at Hawaii for example, it isn't that big. It is made up of small individual islands. Yet it has more than 70 golf courses. I am not sure if they also include the private courses which are owned and managed by hotels and resorts. Then when you take into account the land area required for golf courses, they are no longer really that tiny in relation to the areas we live in. And the ecological impact can no longer be deemed to be next to zero. Quite the contrary.
That is not next to zero impact on the local ecology.
Even so. Creating a golf course is not some great and terrible sin against the environment. If you are interested in 'saving the ecology' there are far more important things to do than worry about golf courses. The greatest evil that was done in my country was to introduce a whole bunch of alien species, predators and competitors to the native plants and animals. There are still people who want to continue doing that. Nor is my home the only place where that happens.
In the same way, the destruction of natural forests is a far, far greater harm than a few relatively harmless golf courses. Join a pressure group opposing such desecration. Plant a few native trees yourself. I have done so. I have planted literally thousands of native rain forest trees in a personal effort to combat the harm done by 100 years of intensive logging.
As well: Burning of the rain forests, seen in, South America, I believe, from the orbiting Space Shuttle. jocular
| « Iraq's First National Park | how harmful is environmental pollution? specifically air quality to humans » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
36Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
