Members Feedback
Posted on: 14 March
After reading the Clubhouse News of 27 Feb, I have a couple of queries:
The section under Environmental Sub Committee, contains the following statement.
The ringbarking of trees between the 4th tee, and the 5th green has been unsuccessful, resulting in epicormic shoots growing from the trunk, and main branches. In the future this will result in these trees needing more maintenance and even becoming a safety issue. Therefore, whereas they were originally planned on becoming “habitat trees”, the Board has now decided that later in the year, they will be removed.
The queries l have from the above are:
- The pruning, and subsequent ringbarking of trees undertaken by Surfcoast Tree Srevices, has not been successful in killing the trees. l assume then that this company would be obligated to return, and deepen the ringbarking, to fulfill their contract, at no extra cost to the AGC?
- Rather spending more money to remove the trees, l wonder why the Board didn’t decide to enhance these habitat trees by employing a contractor to grind nesting holes in them?
I believe that this would be at a much lower cost than removing the trees, and would be in line with the Board’s original intention.
On a separate issue
As one of the many Roo Tour volunteers, l would be interested to see regular updates on the number of tourists paying to go on these tours, and the financial benefit the AGC is getting from this service.
I’m sure all the volunteers would enjoy seeing the results stemming from their continuing commitment to act as guides for the Roo Tours.
