Conservation & Ecology


G


olf clubs are often cited by conservationists as ecological dead zones where manicured turf all but wipes out the local wildlife. As we in the industry know, this is simply not the case, with the majority of clubs considering their wildlife habitats (and the residents) in the general scheme of all things golf.


Enormous strides have been taken in the past decade to introduce sustainable management practices, cutting back on chemical use, introducing and enhancing wildlife areas and much more.


There are champions within our industry who have now become highly regarded for their conservation efforts. The STRI’s Bob Taylor, BIGGA’s James Hutchinson, John O’Gaunt greenkeeper Steve Thompson and beekeeper Eddie Ainsworth are well known to many, whilst I like to think that Pitchcare does a decent job of spreading the word through our various and varied articles. New golf course builds are often the subject of debate surrounding ‘conservation’ with national and local ecology groups railing against any proposals.


Coul Links is one such recent and ongoing example. This proposed new development on Scotland’s rugged north east coast has seen Scottish National Heritage (SNH), the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) and the RSPB oppose the development, citing protection of rare habitat as the main reason for their disapproval.


However, studies have shown that the sympathetic course design and layout will cause very little, if any, damage to the topography, whilst the locals support the


project on many levels, not least because it will bring much needed job opportunities and ongoing tourism income to this remote area.


The Coul Links developers highlighted several environmental initiatives regarding invasive species management, remediation of a felled tree plantation, expansion of the habitat adjacent to the SSSI toward the coastal village of Embo, as well as public access and education/information plans, all of which will improve the environmental integrity of the site.


In a Biodiversity Net Gain report, written by the highly respected ecologist Dr. Peter Cosgrove, it was noted that one of SNH’s aims for the Loch Fleet SSSI is to “maintain non‐breeding populations of waterfowl and avoid significant disturbance”, yet the organisation allows for winter shooting of wildfowl to continue! This is the same SNH that has issued a licence to cull 500 ravens in Perthshire to ‘protect waders’.


Coul Links will put a stop to the shooting thereby ensuring that both native and migrating birds will regard the site as a safe haven which, in turn, will see numbers increase. Additionally, they will manage the neglected site in a sustainable way, beginning with rooting out invasive species and returning the area to a more natural habitat.


Clearly, there’s some joined‐up thinking required by conservation groups. Not all new development is a bad thing and, in the case of Coul, there’s a very strong argument in favour of the project, both ecologically and economically.


Now, I am a strong supporter of these PC JUNE/JULY 2018 I 117


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156