USGA and TREES ?????

[Mike_Young]

Check out the following link :  http://www.usga.org/green/WHATSNEW/regional_updates/south_east.html
This type of crap is all it takes for a supt to justify keeping trees to clubs such as ours.  As you know, armed with USGA "certified" documentation they can convince a green comm of anything.

[Dunlop_White]

This is specifically the type of endorsement that Golf Architecture DOESN'T need. Coming from the publicists is bad enough, but from the USGA green section, I simply don't understand. Pat O'Brien, the co-author, I know, has been anti-tree for years. I'm surprised his name is attached to this.

[Mike_Young]

Dunlop,
I know Pat also but have never discussed trees with him.  All I can say is that this type crap carries much weight with club committees.  As for USGA and Green committees " In the land of the blind...the one-eyed man is king"  with the USGA being the king

[Brad Klein]

Mike, Dunlop, I have to disagree with you guys - slightly. In this Sotheast Region-Green Section report, Pat O'Brien and Chris Hartiwger are not talking about heavily treed areas so much as the dense understory and brushy areas alongside in-play areas. I'm not sure the distinction holds up as well as it should, and I think they are actually discussing a very narrow point and missing the main point, which is sound tree management (which they otherwise adhere to).

What they are trying to address here is the need to let overgrown areas stay natural and unkempt rather than having clubs trying to groom everything. They are trying to resist the "wall-to-wall gromming" view that pushes superintendents to drink. There is nothing here that negates sound tree management. Though i think in the course of formulating a rather esoteric point about letting marginal areas go native they make it easy to draw the kinds of conclusions that Dunlop and Mike Young come to.

Having said that all of that, I for one would rather see understory and treed areas removed - and I can think of no better example of what's needed to be cleared out than the area on Mike Young's home course of Athens CC between the 11th and 12 holes.

[Mike_Young]

Brad,
Hope all is well.
I see your point but they don't say that.  they specifically mention "being able to find a ball".  
My problem is that when someone doesn't know the difference and a club has let an "in play" treed area become overgrown then this type of information confuses a club.  I HATE MULCH and these guys start to encourage such with these types of articles and next thing you know, all our trees in play and out have mulch 15 feet in diameter.

[TEPaul]

If you ask me that article is an excellent description of the various examples in golf course maintenance and management of "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"! Not on the part of the authors of that article but on the part of those they are speaking of in the article when they mention that interesting "Law of unintended consequences"!

I agree with Brad Klein that the intent of that article is to make a rather fineline point that is valid. Unfortunately for that rather fineline point to be completely understood and applied properly it just might take a bit more "than a little knowledge"--something that most green committees seem to possess.

So given that reality I can certainly understand the concerns of people like Dunlop White and Mike Young. As always the hallmark of all things to do with golf course management (whether it be straight architeture) or its sister--maintenance--is education, education, education!

I know from experience that the "Law of unintended consequences" certainly exists when it comes to managing and maintaining golf courses and that "law" really does depend upon the reality of "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"!

Or somewhat alternatively, that other old cliche--"the road to hell can be paved with the best intentions", may also apply to some degree.

[TEPaul]

And on this note of leaving some wooded areas unmaintained it makes more sense to me now reading that article and its fineline point where Bill Kittleman was coming from not long ago when I had a fairly extended phone conversation with him. I think we were talking about naturalism in golf and architecture but he departed from that general point and started talking about some of the added maintenance costs that are apparently beginning to go into Merion West--certainly one of Bill's all-time favorite courses. He said it drives him nuts that the club was proposing to go into the woods and clean up everything in there. He said they should just leave it alone, leave it natural, leave the broken limbs or whatever was growing in there alone and save some money!!

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  I agree with Brad and Tom on this one.  The authors should have been more specific.  In the mean time:

   If you want to see a case book example of what is wrong with trees on a golf course, come see mine.  We  have to many trees, poor varieties of trees, trees that shade greens and limit air movement, trees that we can't keep grass under and roots are exposed and even trees with low limbs that you can't play a recovery shot from under. It's a mess.  I can't imagine using this article to defend trees but it might help stop your course from looking like mine 20 years from now. Just this year there are a few people on committee that will even talk about tree removals.  I have a huge list ready for them.

[Dunlop_White]

Brad Klein and Mike Young

Thanks for your input.

I understand the burdens that superintendents face when clubs expect "wall to wall" maintenance and grooming. Additionally, no one is a bigger fan of unkempt, natural areas, especially in the form of native fescues, than I am.  Having said that, clearing out the understory of select wooded areas comprises sound tree management in my opinion and falls outside the realm of wall to wall grooming.

As we have always agreed, clearing out the understory has benefits.

1. Recovery Play: Dense wooded areas with low reaching limbs restrict recovery play. Clean out the brush, raise the canopy to a reasonable height, and remove undesirable evergreens within the hardwoods.  Under these conditions, the golfer may at least assess the risks for his next angle of attack, and depending upon his skills, may shape the ball through alternative openings to safety.

2. Specimen Hard Wood Tree Exposure: Here, grand specimen trees may be exposed. Bring to view prominent trees which have always been hidden among impinging neighbors.

3. Air Circulation: Agronomically, clearing out walls of underbrush can also creat enough air movement to dry moist turf areas on a case by case basis.

4. Visual Depth: Aestheticaly, the added dimension of visual depth created is very nice, particularly with loose -moving, instead of straight, tree-lines.

While the publicists applauded Dr. John R. Williams for "enhancing" Oak Hill by planting 75,000 saplings...........  when major tournament venues, such as Oak Hill, expose their 20 yard tree-lined fairways to the world, and ANGC continues to plant 40 footers alongside landing zones........... when the PGA demands that Q School sites plant oaks in preparation for tournaments...........During a time that tree huggers are already abundant and sensitivities are naturally high............I simply think it is crucial that the USGA make the distinction between the benefits of sound tree management and the burdens of wall to wall maintenance, especially when people rely on their advice.

[Dunlop_White]

Tom Paul and Brad,

I absolutely believe that superintendents can clean out the dense understory of wooded areas and still maintain a "natural" presentation by exposing specimen oaks and other hardwoods. The appearance is ordinarily more "natural" than even before the impinging understory was ever removed.  My images below reveal the visual impact of tree management in progress at Roaring Gap.

Before

Just look at how the dense understory of pine saplings suffocated the wooded areas. Recovery play was non-existent as all balls were simply sucked-in never to be found. Additionally, turf suffered as there was little air movement to dry moist low-lying areas. And the tree-lines also evolved into unnatural straight lines.

After

After removing the understory of pines about 20 yards deep into the woods, specimen hardwoods instead were accentuated and highlighted, turf dried, recovery play vastly improved, and a loose, free flowing  tree-line became exposed which in fact appears quite natural.

Before

Again, look at how the dense understory of pine saplings suffocated the wooded areas. Recovery play was non-existent as all balls were simply sucked-in never to return. Additionally, turf suffered and there was no visual depth. The tree-lines also evolved into unnatural straight lines with the dominance of the understory.

After

Again, after removing the understory of pines about 20 yards deep into the woods, hardwoods instead became accentuated and highlighted, turf dried, recovery play vastly improved and a loose moving tree-line became exposed which appears quite natural.

If you have the budget and the man-power, in my opinion this falls within the realm of tree management. The benefits are absolutely amazing and should be encouraged by the USGA.

[TEPaul]

Dunlop:

While I can still see the validity of the fine-line distinctions the author of the article was trying to make it just may be a subject that shouldn't be presented at this point with all the other problems inherent with poor tree management and golf. On balance I think you make a better case. You convinced me! When it comes to golf course management and cost, generally the way to go is to figure out the best or at least better thing to do and then figure out if its of enough value to the club to pay for it!

[Dunlop_White]

At Roaring Gap, we additionally have an entire off-season (five months/year) to get the job done. We need it though as selective stump removal takes time.

Pat O'Brien (S/E Green Section) and/or Dave Oatis (N/E Green Section) of the USGA would endorse our effort.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The before and afters are stunning.  

Just a question here for the agronomy history buffs here....In the past wouldn't a lot of these areas have been burned off periodically(either naturally or unnaturally) to reduce the underbrush/understory?  

Is this another indication that our attempts to love our woodlands has resulted in some pretty serious degradation of our specimen trees and forests.  On a grander scale isn't this the same problem that our Western forests are self correcting each fire season.  Nature must be allowed to clear out competing species to promote healthy woodlands.  If nature can't do it due to restrictions isn't it necessary for us to go in and help?