Whither Golf?

When's the last time you played golf? Do you know anyone under 40 who plays regularly?

Those questions haunt the golf industry today. People have quit playing golf over the last few decades and few people under 30 care to play. The New York Times sums up the problem quite nicely:

Golf has always reveled in its standards and rich tradition. But increasingly a victim of its own image and hidebound ways, golf has lost five million players in the last decade, according to the National Golf Foundation, with 20 percent of the existing 25 million golfers apt to quit in the next few years.

The year 2009 was a landmark year in the decline of golf courses. The financial crisis threw many golf courses that were barely in the black squarely in the red. That was also the year of Tiger Woods' very public personal issues. Before Tiger's meltdown there was some hope that golf would become a sport for younger people. According to American Golfer the average age in 2009 was 46. By 2015 it was 54. Golfers are a dying breed, literally.

Golf RIP. We Hardly Knew Ye.

But the observant among you know that. Golf courses are closing all around the US, with Florida being hard hit because of the number of courses here. On a personal note: From where I live Pine Meadows, Rolling Hills, Sabal Point, Links at 434,Mount Plymouth, and Rock Springs Ridge golf courses are within a 20 minute drive from my house. And all are in various stages of being overgrown with weeds as bankruptcy scenarios are playing out. And I'm probably missing a few. If you're a Floridian you can probably name a list of dead golf courses around you, too.

So what does this have to do with the reason for this blog -- My thoughts on wildlife, wildlife policy and about anything else that interests me in the general subject of plants and animals?

Here's the connection. Golf courses are the biggest tracts of undeveloped land remaining in many cities. As courses fail almost all will be eyed by developers as an easy building area. And golf courses are failing regularly. So what to do?

More Failures than Openings, Always

When golf courses fail it's always messy. Conflicting legal claims can keep old golf courses tied up in court for decades. Here are some thoughts from watching and studying the legal morass play out in roughly 10 dead golf courses in the Orlando Area.

• Running a golf course is a horrible business to be in. If a golf course closes for more than a month it's never coming back no matter what commitments were made to local homeowners.

• Lots of people have claims. Most dying golf courses created since 1980 were built as the centerpiece of subdivision developments. Agreements made when people paid for the house are suddenly null and void. Creditors, shareholders, homeowner associations, developers and individual owners need to have a say. People who pay extra for a view of the fairway are adamant that can't be taken away from them. 

• Maintaining the course becomes a problem. Many times this is the developer's biggest weapon to get agreement. People may be angry in the first year that the course isn't maintained, but after a half decade of growth it changes to acceptance. As the homes on the golf courses lose value people become more willing to negotiate anything to restart maintenance.

Florida Hazard, but only for Baby Boomers

• Another issue is the neighborhood can do downhill. People may be very anti- development of the golf course in the beginning. But homeless people moving into the clubhouse and meth deals happening in the parking lots tend to make people more susceptible to negotiations. And yes, I've seen both of these happen. And don't forget ATV races on the fairways. 

• The fact that the fairways tend to be long and narrow and snake between housing developments make them pretty worthless for large wildlife preserves. The fairways are also not idea for development since they are long and narrow with no road access in place. However the fairways do make good city parks / green spaces.

Fairways Meander Through Subdivision

So what should you do if you want to influence the next life of a dead golf course? There may be an opportunity to influence what happens to the course. But don't think it's going to be easy or quick. Each case is different, but here are some general guidelines.

• Any development to the golf course will probably have go through the local planning commission (or planning and zoning or whatever it's called there). Make your voice heard. The local planning board hates issues like this and will look hard for a way to make it go away and anything that unites the developer and local residents will get consideration.

• Compromise is the order of the day. In the end the deal will probably be some development around the clubhouse because there's large piece of property with utilities there and some kind of protection for the fairways. That protection may come in the form prepaid maintenance fees from the developer or maybe getting the local city or county to take over park maintenance.

• The golf course is never coming back. Local residents that get in a position that somebody must run the golf course because it was promised are going to be disappointed. This is always hard to get past.

• Time is of the essence. The developer gains strength every year the issue drags on. If nobody is doing maintenance on the buildings or mowing the grass people get more tired of the situation. Anger gives way to acceptance eventually. Sometimes it's better to cut a deal fast than be forced later.

About the best that can be hoped for from a hiker / naturalist perspective is that a piece of the property is set aside for a park or some kind of public use. Usually the compromise is the developer helping with upkeep for some period of time with the homeowner's association or city taking over that responsibility eventually. For that the developer is allowed to build on part of the property, usually the central part around the old clubhouse.

Getting an agreement on the ground makes it easier for the planning commission to OK new development. Without an agreement on the ground planners see it more as a dead rat being dropped on their desk. So don't be afraid to talk to the commission about competing visions of how a golf course can be repurposed. But also don't be too quick to accept new development on the old golf course, but ruling it out completely will probably not work either.

What's up with the Lox. Part 2

A month ago I wrote a Facebook post about the bureaucratic knife fight between the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) over management of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge which I will refer to as The Lox from here on. The short version is that this isn't the type of intergovernmental disagreement that typically comes out in the open. Government entities tend to shield such disagreements from public view when possible.

The background is that the SFWMD owns The Lox, a 144,000 acre refuge in Palm Beach County. They signed a 50 year lease in 2002 for the USFWS to manage the site. Part of the lease requirement is to make an effort to keep invasive species in check. In 2015 the SFWMD wrote a letter saying that if the USFWS can't get control of one of the invasive species -- Old World climbing fern -- the SFWMD was going to end the lease and take back control of the refuge.

Snail Kite: Bird that nests in trees not covered with Old World Climbing Fern

Well, this week the battle escalated. The SFWMD sent the USFWS a notice of default. This is the first step in replacing the USFWS as managers of the refuge.

So what's happening here? Could it be as simple as a need to control a single fern. Admittedly Old World climbing fern is tough to control. It can choke out native plants and completely change the ecosystem if left unchecked. But isn't there an easier way to treat this fern that would be more cost effective than taking over management of the entire refuge?

Old World climbing fern: One tough invasive

I think the Florida budgeting process figures into this issue. In 2014 Floridians voted for Amendment 1 to dedicate a 33% of the document tax to acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands. For the 2015-2016 budget year that money came to $724.5 million. Of that amount about 72% or $523 million went to environmental protection, where SFWMD gets its funding. The 2016-2017 budget assumes even more revenue from Amendment 1, increasing to $907 million for a 25% increase.

A lot changed with Amendment 1 money.

Now a lot of new projects are happening across the state. With a dedicated source of funds they can commit to completing large projects. Projects that had been on the back burner for years are now being worked.

Likes some invasive species. Not Old World fern

So, I think that's what's driving the SFWMD to want to take the Lox back. It was leased to the USFWS back in 2002 when there just wasn't money available for restoration projects. They had to come from the general budget and there was too much competition for that cash. Water projects sometimes take years to complete. Without a dedicated source of funds projects would be stretched much longer than necessary due to the waning funding.

Currently the USFWS budget for The Lox is about $5.2 million with about $1 million dedicated to invasive species control. The USFWS claims the spend another $1.5 million in non dedicated funds. This will be lost to Florida if SFWMD takes it over. The SFWMD says that a dedicated $5 million /year is needed to combat the invasive species in The Lox. Since SFWMD tends to operate leaner than USFWS they can probably manage The Lox with about $1.5 million instead of $2.7 million that the USFWS spent on General Operations.

In Millions

So here's how I see the budgets working. The SFWMD thinks we need to double the invasive species treatment budget to $5 million. But they will be more efficient than the USFWS in the general operation budget -- fewer people on sight that aren't working invasive species.

So the takeover will cost Florida about $6.5 million / year. Actually that seems like a pretty good price if they can rehabilitate The Lox. But it could be done for less cost to Floridians by keeping USFWS in charge (and funding a large share) and an agreement with SFWMD to help with the invasive costs. 

But I guess neither directors at the USFWS nor the SFWMD earned gold stars on Plays Well With Others. A pity, that.

The Future of Zoos

So what is the function of a zoo today?

I was reading an article on the Brevard Zoo taking delivery of a new zebra. It brings to mind a bigger conversation that is happen around zoos now -- what is the function of a zoo going forward? That function is changing quickly and it's interesting to speculate on what a zoo will look like in a few decades.

Lauren, New Zebra at Brevard Zoo

Only 50 years ago zoos were a very different place than today. There were thousands of little roadside zoos (many in Florida) that had a few animals to show. The large city zoos still displayed animals in the "box with bars" environment. Many animals didn't thrive in either of these environments.

Over time the roadside zoos have largely closed. They still exist across the country (including Florida) but they are mostly gone, victims of stricter animal welfare rules and rising insurance premiums. The very large have been able to keep up with rising costs and the smallest are able to survive by keeping fewer animals. But thousands that once existed are now gone.

Gatorland, King of the Roadside Zoo

The larger zoos have changed their outlook considerably. In addition to their education and entertainment functions they have also taken on the role of providing for the future of threatened species. Once there was little cooperation between zoos to monitor bloodlines of their animals, resulting in animals with some serious inbreeding. They do a much better job of this now. Essentially they're changing their function to being a species sanctuary.

In the age of the internet people don't go to zoos with the regularity they once did. Anybody can do a quick search and find a zebra cam to check out the zebras. The National Zoo never recovered its attendance levels after the financial crash of 2008 (that's the only zoo I could easily find good data for). Zoos that have to charge admission are doing even worse financially.

National Zoo (Washington DC) Visitors

So, where do zoos go from here? Here's my guess. I think the days of the big displays at zoos are over. The elephants, gorillas, giraffes and other animals that need lots of space are probably going to be phased out of zoos. They're really expensive to maintain. A few very large sanctuaries per species will exist in areas with a similar climate to their native one. Zoos will remain but with smaller, more easily maintained exhibits with almost no large mammals. Aquariums will follow a similar path.

Another reason to phase out large animals is the bad publicity they can cause. The Cincinnati Zoo had to kill a lowland gorilla when a boy fell in. The resultant publicity they got was really bad even to the point of death threats coming from the internet. Few care if a gray squirrel or rat snake dies.

I think it's a high percentage guess that zoos will change considerably in the next 50 years. In the last 50 years they've changed from an emphasis on showing the animal to showing the animal in its habitat to helping preserve the species. Where the next 50 years will take them is hard to say. But they will be very different than they are today.