Dangerous Animal definition and relief

Hello,

I've lobbied the USGA about this in advance, but I'd like to know the consensus here.

What constitutes a "dangerous animal" situation? The Rules only mention a few being alligators, bees, snakes, and fire ants. I asked the USGA to add a definition of dangerous animal meaning, "Any insect or animal willing to attack humans and be more dangerous than a nuisance". i.e. something that is willing to attack a human and actually hurt you. Biting flies and mosquitos and gnats need not apply.

I ask because of this situation last weekend.

15th hole I pull my approach into a red, lateral hazard. I saw the point last crossed. It had barely rolled in so I figured I would walk up to it, find it, and more than likely drop within 2 club lengths. As I approach my point last crossed, a red wing blackbird started chirping at me and as I got closer to the hazard, zoomed at my head squawking and batting its wings over my head.

This is a common occurance this time a year while they are nesting in our hazards. As you get closer to one of their nests, they are willing to die to protect it all the way to actually pecking humans on the head. It really hurts.

Now, a red wing blackbird is never going to kill you unlike a swarm of bees, poisonous snakes, and alligators. But I still feel it is a dangerous situation and a dangerous animal just because it is totally willing to attack humans if need be.

So I didn't get to look for my ball. I stood well away and slid my driver to the point last crossed, flipped it for the second club away and marked that spot. The bird was watching and squawking the entire time from the tree in the hazard. I took my drop and addressed my ball. I hear the SQUAWK right above my head and the beating of wings above me. I dive down and out to get away before being pecked.

My playing partners loved it, of course. Just as I laugh when I see this happen to someone else. I don't really want to kill the bird with a wedge as it's just protecting its nest with babies or eggs in it. But I'm trying to play a game here. :)

Okay, questions. Since the blackbird is not mentioned as a dangerous animal, would I get dangerous animal relief in the situation above? I was going to just use Rule 3-3 and play two balls and let the committee decide, but after that awful approach and being attacked a few times I wasn't thinking straight.

How would the relief go? Would I even have to bother with dropping within 2 club lengths for hazard relief first? Or could I just find the nearest point the bird wouldn't attack, (no closer to the hole than where my hazard relief would have been or my Point Last Crossed? IDK.) and drop within ONE club length as per dangerous animal relief in the Rules.

Thanks.

I really have no advice, but this story made my night! Thanks for sharing

1-4/10 gives you the various relief options if the bird were to be considered a "dangerous situation."

IMO a bird that's been attacking should qualify.

Hi Augster:

I think D 1-4/10 would apply to the situation you describe. That means that, IMO, you could take relief by dropping a ball within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest spot not nearer the hole that is not dangerous and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green. Obviously that would not be without penalty (as stated in that decision) since your ball was in the water hazard. You would take the penalty stroke prescribed by R26, even if you could not drop, and then get that free drop to get relief from the dangerous situation.

That brings the question: What if you could have played the ball from the hazard but the bird is picking (or pecking) your brain? In that case I’d say you would be entitled to a drop inside the hazard, with a similar lie in which you would take relief from the dangerous situation but not from the hazard… and then it would be without penalty… and that’s just my guess right now.

Good night gentlemen!

I see you are from Minnesota.

Down here in the South we have plenty of members that keep shotguns in their vehicles. We even have a real live shotgun in the Pro Shop for our Shitgun start tournaments....I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

You call up the 19th Hole and I can promise you there are any number of guys, possessed of liquid courage, that would be mighty proud to solve your bird problem.

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1404871540' post='9663579']
Hi Augster:

I think D 1-4/10 would apply to the situation you describe. That means that, IMO, you could take relief by dropping a ball within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest spot not nearer the hole that is not dangerous and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green. Obviously that would not be without penalty (as stated in that decision) since your ball was in the water hazard. You would take the penalty stroke prescribed by R26, even if you could not drop, and then get that free drop to get relief from the dangerous situation.

That brings the question: What if you could have played the ball from the hazard but the bird is picking (or pecking) your brain? In that case I’d say you would be entitled to a drop inside the hazard, with a similar lie in which you would take relief from the dangerous situation but not from the hazard… and then it would be without penalty… and that’s just my guess right now.

Good night gentlemen!
[/quote]
Hi Cancun. I don't think you have to "guess." From 1-4/10:

If the ball lay in a hazard, the player may drop a ball, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest spot not nearer the hole that is not dangerous. If possible, the ball must be dropped in the same hazard and, if not possible, in a similar nearby hazard, but in either case not nearer the hole. If it is not possible for the player to drop the ball in a hazard, he may drop it, under penalty of one stroke, outside the hazard, keeping the point where the original ball lay between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped.

comin' to getcha...

Falls under the so-called "Hitchcock Rule".

Now if you want really aggressive and dangerous let your ball land in a fire ant mound.

Thanks for the answered and now a follow up.

There was going to be a very good chance I was going to find my ball and a pretty good chance it would be playable toward the green. It barely rolled in and there's quite a bit of cattails and such (that those damn birds nest in) before actually reaching the water.

Since the bird was attacking and semi-dangerous, could I have dropped inside the hazard, without penalty, in a safe spot from the bird without actually going to find my ball?

The dangerous animal ruling allows you to freely substitute a ball, like when it is on a gator, and I was KVC I was in the hazard. This was my thinking while it was happening, but the semi-definition of dangerous animals doesn't mention birds.

Lastly, could I have played 3 balls and asked later? The three being 1. As I played it, 2. Drop in a safe spot outside the hazard under 1-stroke penalty, and 3. Drop in the hazard in a safe spot and play from there without penalty.

Or are we only allowed 2?

Thanks for the help!

I had an encounter with one of those in central MA a month or so ago. I had just cleared a pond. I never saw any nest, I was wondering why the bird was so protective. I must have just been far away enough for it not to have a real go at me, and it stayed just far away from me that I wouldn't hit it with my club during any part of the swing. It was one heck of a distraction though. A pleasant one at that. I have never seen such a nice, radiant glow of man-made red. It was wonderful. I had a bad back that day and it cheered me up quite a bit.

[quote name='station2station' timestamp='1404872187' post='9663675']
comin' to getcha...
[/quote]

Lol! They really are the arseholes of the bird world.

Well, you could have flagged down the cart girl to ask for help.

[quote name='Augster' timestamp='1404873131' post='9663773']
Thanks for the answered and now a follow up.

There was going to be a very good chance I was going to find my ball and a pretty good chance it would be playable toward the green. It barely rolled in and there's quite a bit of cattails and such (that those damn birds nest in) before actually reaching the water.

Since the bird was attacking and semi-dangerous, could I have dropped inside the hazard, without penalty, in a safe spot from the bird without actually going to find my ball?

The dangerous animal ruling allows you to freely substitute a ball, like when it is on a gator, and I was KVC I was in the hazard. This was my thinking while it was happening, but the semi-definition of dangerous animals doesn't mention birds.

Lastly, could I have played 3 balls and asked later? The three being 1. As I played it, 2. Drop in a safe spot outside the hazard under 1-stroke penalty, and 3. Drop in the hazard in a safe spot and play from there without penalty.

Or are we only allowed 2?

Thanks for the help!
[/quote][quote name='Augster' timestamp='1404873131' post='9663773']
Thanks for the answered and now a follow up.

There was going to be a very good chance I was going to find my ball and a pretty good chance it would be playable toward the green. It barely rolled in and there's quite a bit of cattails and such (that those damn birds nest in) before actually reaching the water.

Since the bird was attacking and semi-dangerous, could I have dropped inside the hazard, without penalty, in a safe spot from the bird without actually going to find my ball?

The dangerous animal ruling allows you to freely substitute a ball, like when it is on a gator, and I was KVC I was in the hazard. This was my thinking while it was happening, but the semi-definition of dangerous animals doesn't mention birds.

Lastly, could I have played 3 balls and asked later? The three being 1. As I played it, 2. Drop in a safe spot outside the hazard under 1-stroke penalty, and 3. Drop in the hazard in a safe spot and play from there without penalty.

Or are we only allowed 2?

Thanks for the help!
[/quote]

1-4/10 does not give you the option to drop outside the hazard unless it's not possible to drop in the hazard, so clearly only one additional ball could be played.

But as you may know, before playing a second ball you have to state your intention - including which ball you wish to count. I'm curious which you'd pick in advance, given the dangerous situation is likely closer to the hole and you are risking the danger anyway.

This is why I pack a short barreled shotgun in my bag.

It's a fine bird...with excellent plumage.

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1404874182' post='9663889']
1-4/10 does not give you the option to drop outside the hazard unless it's not possible to drop in the hazard, so clearly only one additional ball could be played.

But as you may know, before playing a second ball you have to state your intention - including which ball you wish to count. I'm curious which you'd pick in advance, given the dangerous situation is likely closer to the hole and you are risking the danger anyway.
[/quote]

I see where I confused this.

Ball 1 would be how I played it.

I would then be taking relief for the dangerous animal and asking about it later. So my drop would be in the hazard. THEN if I didn't like my drop, I could take relief under 1 stroke via Rule 26.

Ah. So if I drop and it's awful, I would then take relief under 26 within 2 clubs of the PLC, and keeping with the Dangerous Bird theme, I would drop, then pick it up and move it, for free, to the nearest spot the bird wouldn't attack and drop within a club.

Then I'd go in and ask the committee. With a bad drop, I would essentially be taking "bird relief" twice before I ever hit a shot, but for the committee, and my score, it'll only be the difference between two situations.

I think I have it now. I certainly wasn't going to figure that out in real time on the course as the wheels were falling off.

Thanks for all the help!

I got the response back from the USGA. This was indeed a "dangerous situation" which is defined in the added language of 1-4/11. It states, "Decision 1-4/10 contemplates a situation which is unrelated to conditions normally encountered on the course."

So 1-4/11 calls back to 1-4/10 and basically makes a "dangerous situation" almost any situation that "could be" dangerous, or situations that aren't "normally encountered" on the course become "dangerous situations" without listing every possible situation and animal that could be encountered.

Is being consistently attacked by a bird that will not be scared away and will peck at you when you address the ball a situation that is "normally encountered" on the course? Obviously not, so 1-4/10 relief would/should be granted. I'd play 2 balls anyway in stroke play if it's a tourney.

I asked in a follow-up about dropping in the hazard for free which, I'm sure, would have been the right way to play this if I thought I was going to get "dangerous situation" relief. As it was told to me by the USGA, if a semi-dangerous situation is not "normally encountered" on the course, you get the free relief under 1-4/10.

[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1404872450' post='9663711']
Falls under the so-called "Hitchcock Rule".

Now if you want really aggressive and dangerous let your ball land in a fire ant mound.
[/quote]
Do you typically hit this like an explosion shot out of a bunker?

interesting that this would be a dangerous situation. We had a major problem with them at my old club. What would happen is if someone hit their ball in an area where the birds were swooping, another guy would stand behind or around and hold up a club, maybe wave it a little. That kept the birds away. But they were nesting in the trees from what we could tell. That may not work so well with pond nesters.

[quote name='Bluefan75' timestamp='1405088015' post='9680051']
interesting that this would be a dangerous situation. We had a major problem with them at my old club. What would happen is if someone hit their ball in an area where the birds were swooping, [b]another guy would stand behind or around and hold up a club, maybe wave it a little. That kept the birds away[/b]. But they were nesting in the trees from what we could tell. That may not work so well with pond nesters.
[/quote]

So would this be a breach of Rule 1-2 (altering physical conditions)?

I was joking when I started this post...but now I have to wonder....

[quote name='Dec. 1-2/2']
[b]Shielding Line of Putt from Wind[/b]

Q. May a player lay his golf bag parallel to the line of putt to shield the line from the wind?

A. No. Such an action taken with the intent to influence the movement of the ball would be a breach of Rule 1-2, even if the golf bag were removed prior to the stroke being made.
[/quote]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1405094017' post='9680857']
[quote name='Bluefan75' timestamp='1405088015' post='9680051']
interesting that this would be a dangerous situation. We had a major problem with them at my old club. What would happen is if someone hit their ball in an area where the birds were swooping, [b]another guy would stand behind or around and hold up a club, maybe wave it a little. That kept the birds away[/b]. But they were nesting in the trees from what we could tell. That may not work so well with pond nesters.
[/quote]

So would this be a breach of Rule 1-2 (altering physical conditions)?

I was joking when I started this post...but now I have to wonder....

[quote name='Dec. 1-2/2']
[b]Shielding Line of Putt from Wind[/b]

Q. May a player lay his golf bag parallel to the line of putt to shield the line from the wind?

A. No. Such an action taken with the intent to influence the movement of the ball would be a breach of Rule 1-2, even if the golf bag were removed prior to the stroke being made.
[/quote]
[/quote]

14-2 a violation, methinks.

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1405096935' post='9681233']
14-2 a violation, methinks.
[/quote]

That's what I was looking for...the umbrella decision.

Installing a scarecrow might have been violation of 1-2.

I just had a flashback and remembered that, when had just started participating in this forum, Sawgrass said something about the “[i]merciless Cancun”[/i]; since I was talking about something deserving to be penalized (I can’t remember what it was). The point is that now it’s precisely our friend Sawgrass who’s been merciless LOL.

I would not see this as a violation (Not of 14-2 or any other Rule). I see a clear difference between “the elements” (rain, sun, wind…) which are a natural part of the game of golf and an angry bird trying to peck your head protecting it’s nest (nothing to do with the game).

At the end, I’d ask: what was this person doing? As I see it he was trying to avoid an attack at the player while he was making a stroke, not providing protection from the elements.

Maybe I’m getting old… LOL

For entertainment purposes, last weekend I hit a ball into the left rough and as I walked to the ball, my new friend popped down from a nearby tree for a closer inspection of my ball. In spite of it being a Lethal, (s)he showed no fear of the ball or me as I walked up. (S)he literally stayed there and posed for a couple of pics and then while I played my shot.

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1405098726' post='9681419']
I just had a flashback and remembered that, when had just started participating in this forum, Sawgrass said something about the “[i]merciless Cancun”[/i]; since I was talking about something deserving to be penalized (I can’t remember what it was). The point is that now it’s precisely our friend Sawgrass who’s been merciless LOL.

I would not see this as a violation (Not of 14-2 or any other Rule). I see a clear difference between “the elements” (rain, sun, wind…) which are a natural part of the game of golf and an angry bird trying to peck your head protecting it’s nest (nothing to do with the game).

At the end, I’d ask: what was this person doing? As I see it he was trying to avoid an attack at the player while he was making a stroke, not providing protection from the elements.

Maybe I’m getting old… LOL
[/quote]

I would tend to agree. Particularly in the case I was mentioning. There was a small ditch that ran about 220 yards down the left side, and had a row of trees on each side of it. The bird(s) came into play if you hit your tee shot into the left rough. The hole is a par 5 double dog leg that goes left then right. Hitting into the left side makes it a very tricky proposition to reach the green in reg, because there is trouble on the other side of the fairway at the dogleg, and it is a lengthy shot to the green from there. Not to mention you still likely had some distance of trees to deal with frmo that same line.

Taking a drop to a "safe" place would take all of that out of play because you would need a good 30 yards to get to where we found the birds wouldn't swoop at you. So which should it be? A guy gets bailed out of his poor tee shot, or the other guy holds a club up to keep the bird away for 20 seconds while he plays the shot he put himself into?

I guess the way 14-2 is worded there could be some serious hair-splitting.

Dave that is a neat looking bird. So cool she just stayed there for you.

[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1405098726' post='9681419']
I just had a flashback and remembered that, when had just started participating in this forum, Sawgrass said something about the “[i]merciless Cancun”[/i]; since I was talking about something deserving to be penalized (I can’t remember what it was). The point is that now it’s precisely our friend Sawgrass who’s been merciless LOL.

I would not see this as a violation (Not of 14-2 or any other Rule). I see a clear difference between “the elements” (rain, sun, wind…) which are a natural part of the game of golf and an angry bird trying to peck your head protecting it’s nest (nothing to do with the game).

At the end, I’d ask: what was this person doing? As I see it he was trying to avoid an attack at the player while he was making a stroke, not providing protection from the elements.

Maybe I’m getting old… LOL
[/quote]

While I in fact may be merciless like Cancun, I prefer to think of myself as incredibly charming.

BTW, I also see a difference between the elements and an angry bird. But 14-2 prohibits all physical assistance, not just protection from the elements. To me, continually waiving off a bird is not much different than a helper (illegally) holding back a branch or blocking the sun. IMO it's illegal . . let's see exactly what 14-2 says:

14-2. Assistance
a. Physical Assistance and Protection from Elements
A player must not make a stroke while accepting physical assistance or protection from the elements.

To defend myself from at least some implication of merciless-ness, let me remind you that I believe the player should be granted dangerous animal relief. I just don't think he's entitled to a body guard.

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1405103564' post='9681835']
[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1405098726' post='9681419']
I just had a flashback and remembered that, when had just started participating in this forum, Sawgrass said something about the “[i]merciless Cancun”[/i]; since I was talking about something deserving to be penalized (I can’t remember what it was). The point is that now it’s precisely our friend Sawgrass who’s been merciless LOL.

I would not see this as a violation (Not of 14-2 or any other Rule). I see a clear difference between “the elements” (rain, sun, wind…) which are a natural part of the game of golf and an angry bird trying to peck your head protecting it’s nest (nothing to do with the game).

At the end, I’d ask: what was this person doing? As I see it he was trying to avoid an attack at the player while he was making a stroke, not providing protection from the elements.

Maybe I’m getting old… LOL
[/quote]

While I in fact may be merciless like Cancun, I prefer to think of myself as incredibly charming.

BTW, I also see a difference between the elements and an angry bird. But 14-2 prohibits all physical assistance, not just protection from the elements. To me, continually waiving off a bird is not much different than a helper (illegally) holding back a branch or blocking the sun. IMO it's illegal . . let's see exactly what 14-2 says:

14-2. Assistance
a. Physical Assistance and Protection from Elements
A player must not make a stroke while accepting physical assistance or protection from the elements.

To defend myself from at least some implication of merciless-ness, let me remind you that I believe the player should be granted dangerous animal relief. I just don't think he's entitled to a body guard.
[/quote]

Okay if I swat that mosquito gnawing on my calf?

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1405103564' post='9681835'] . let's see [b]exactly[/b] what 14-2 says:

14-2. Assistance
a. Physical Assistance and Protection [b]from Elements[/b]
A player must not make a stroke while accepting physical assistance or protection [b]from the elements[/b].


[/quote]

I don't think birds or other animals are considered to be 'elements'.

[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1405104196' post='9681913']
[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1405103564' post='9681835']
[quote name='Cancun' timestamp='1405098726' post='9681419']
I just had a flashback and remembered that, when had just started participating in this forum, Sawgrass said something about the “[i]merciless Cancun”[/i]; since I was talking about something deserving to be penalized (I can’t remember what it was). The point is that now it’s precisely our friend Sawgrass who’s been merciless LOL.

I would not see this as a violation (Not of 14-2 or any other Rule). I see a clear difference between “the elements” (rain, sun, wind…) which are a natural part of the game of golf and an angry bird trying to peck your head protecting it’s nest (nothing to do with the game).

At the end, I’d ask: what was this person doing? As I see it he was trying to avoid an attack at the player while he was making a stroke, not providing protection from the elements.

Maybe I’m getting old… LOL
[/quote]

While I in fact may be merciless like Cancun, I prefer to think of myself as incredibly charming.

BTW, I also see a difference between the elements and an angry bird. But 14-2 prohibits all physical assistance, not just protection from the elements. To me, continually waiving off a bird is not much different than a helper (illegally) holding back a branch or blocking the sun. IMO it's illegal . . let's see exactly what 14-2 says:

14-2. Assistance
a. Physical Assistance and Protection from Elements
A player must not make a stroke while accepting physical assistance or protection from the elements.

To defend myself from at least some implication of merciless-ness, let me remind you that I believe the player should be granted dangerous animal relief. I just don't think he's entitled to a body guard.
[/quote]

Okay if I swat that mosquito gnawing on my calf?
[/quote]

Hey, mosquitoes are no joke!

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/list_mosquitoborne.htm


Also, red-winged blackbirds are a real PITA. They like to nest in short maple trees at my course and they will dive bomb anyone that gets within 10 yards of their tree. One in particular resides in a tree that is adjacent the path to the driving range from the parking lot... gives "lateral hazard" a whole new meaning.

They certainly pass the test for "dangerous" in my book.