How Would You Handle A Listing Of Noteworthy Golf Courses?

I pulled up the transcript of Paul Casey's thoughts on the need for some form of recognition for classic designs and I was heartened to read that Peter Dawson did at least take it slightly personally, as he probably should.

But Casey's remarks are worth a read:

Q. Coming back to the course, do you feel that when it comes to such a big event that it's time for the owner of the course to stand back and leave it to people that understand what's going on, or do you feel that because he's paid and put so much money into it, he has a right to have such an influence?

PAUL CASEY: I did suggest to Peter Dawson yesterday -- I saw him in the car park; it wasn't my idea, but I stole it. The idea was that maybe we should introduce some kind of scheme plan along the lines of that which we have with historic buildings in this country. If you own a Grade II listed building, I mean, Ernie's beautiful house as we know on 16 with the thatched roof and the plaster work, he owns it, but that doesn't give him the right to paint it pink and put a tin roof on it.

When you're on owner of a Grade II listed building it's much like you're the caretaker for the next generation. You know, and if you're going to -- if you are the owner of the golf course, it does give you the right to make the changes you want; is that in the best interests of that particular golf course or golf in general. Peter did worry that maybe I was referring to the new tee at 17 at St. Andrews. (Laughter).

Q. Were you?

PAUL CASEY: Haven't seen it yet. (Laughter) It's just that -- sorry, it's a long-winded answer. Maybe if you are an owner, I don't want to sort of prevent changes from being made. I think we need to keep golf courses in as good of condition as we can, and improvements or changes that are in the best interest, but maybe you need to go through the procedure to make sure these changes are in line. Maybe that's something you have to go through the R&A, whatever it is, I don't know, but along the lines of listing golf courses.

In an ideal world, an architectural protection agency would be run by the R&A and USGA, but having seen both bodies use architectural ploys and setup twists to mask faulty regulatory work, it's hard to imagine either having the credibility to stand up for classics under fire.

Of course, much of this could be prevented if the ball were just rolled back.

So, wise readers, any thoughts on parallel examples that somehow could be incorporated in golf? Obviously as Casey stated and many of us have considered in contemplating such a scenario, golf courses are living, breathing things and such "listings" could be restrictive to the point that even a pure restoration becomes too complicated.