As a once promising golfer (before I became the size of an elephant and
joined conservation for protection), I can remember the sixties and the
crises when golf-courses were actually being lost (believe it or not, but
golf only hit its strokes in the 70s). I distinctly remember an article -
in about 1967 in an American golfing magazine - titled: "Ecology crisis"
(quaint how `conservationists' were once called `ecologists'). Surprising
to us today, many golf courses were lost in that decade to housing
developments, and industrial estates, because the land was worth more used
that way. Wouldn't it be just a little something if some of those courses
were still around today in some of those highly developed areas? (sensu
Nevil Amos's posting).
If the tendency is towards more manicured courses, this could be quite
easily changed with a friendly campaign towards golfing clubs and their
associations. Many golfers view their game as a walk with nature. The
problem is, as always, who will do the campaign?
It would be a good one for BIRDS AUSTRALIA.
Scenario: prepare minimum guidelines and a Certificate for Quality
Assurance for a "BIODIVERSITY LINKS" (the pun is intended and not
unattractive). And, each year, with a lot of bell-ringing, give an award to
a links that does an outstanding effort in bird-friendly design.
But don't put one's nose in the air in reacting to the idea. I too remember
a Queensland ALP Government giving Woodwark Bay, a part of a National Park,
to a Japanese Company for a golf course. And I also remember the sleaze
deal when a Liberal Brisbane City Council gave Chandler Park to the posh
Indooroopilly Golf Club. However, I, for one, detest people who let
sentiment get in the way of winning the next fight - almost as much as I
loathe developers who build unneeded golf courses.
Glen J. Ingram
Brisbane, Australia.
"He was a bold man that first ate an oyster" Jonathan Swift.
|
