The result of reinforcing the trend is that

[Patrick_Mucci]

more and more courses are embarking on restoration/renovation programs that include massive tree removal and the results are truly stunning.

Somerset Hills,
Hollywood,
Mountain Ridge,
Sleepy Hollow,
Shinnecock,
National,
Southampton,
Westhampton,
Oakmont and
Ridgewood

Are just a few of the courses in the greater MET NY/NJ/CT area and beyond that have embarked upon a combination project.

Will these great courses serve to influence others to begin similar projects ?

I understand that North Jersey has also untaken a tree removal project.

Anyone who saw those courses, pre and post project, has to be impressed by the results.

Has the trend for tree removal taken hold, or, is there still considerable resistance ?

What courses could really benefit from a systemic tree removal program ?

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

I think for the majority of clubs the biggest catalyst has been the data that proves agronomic benefit by increasing airflow and sunlight.  This is where clubs have seen the biggest improvement and reduced costs dramatically.

However, I also think that underestimating the aesthetic improvement is foolish.  Most clubs you mention probably had good turf to begin with, and the reasons were more aesthetic than agronomic.

Resistance is only as strong as the influence of those that haven't seen what tree removal can do.  If power at a club rests with those that don't travel to play, aren't into the history of great golf courses, and care only about how the course looks than how it plays; those are the clubs that will struggle with approving tree removal.

[Mike McGuire]

I think for the majority of clubs the biggest catalyst has been the data that proves agronomic benefit by increasing airflow and sunlight.  This is where clubs have seen the biggest improvement and reduced costs dramatically.

Ben,

Can you, or anyone, show an example of said data?  Would be interesting to see.  I have used the agronomic benefit  argument for tree removal but never had any numbers to back it up.

 For me it sounds good but really has a minor impact on the budget. Factor in the cost to remove the tree and it's a wash at best?

[Terry Lavin]

I can't fathom how it's a long term money saver, but based on some good anecdotal research in Chicago, I can tell you that the vocal dissenters all but disappear after the removal is done. The reactions of pretty much everybody are overwhelmingly positive. The Mark Studer effect is what I call it.

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

I'll gather what I have.  Off the top of my head, the data has mostly to do with removing fans, minimizing leaf removal issues, increasing sunlight to the turf causing more efficient photosynthesis (i.e., less inputs needed), increased airflow on courses with air issues (reduces leaf canopy temp and soil temp during summer), and not having to deal with storm damage.

[JSlonis]

Resistance is only as strong as the influence of those that haven't seen what tree removal can do.  If power at a club rests with those that don't travel to play, aren't into the history of great golf courses, and care only about how the course looks than how it plays; those are the clubs that will struggle with approving tree removal.

Ben,

Very well said. Selling a tree program is not an easy task. It takes time and education to get the general membership on board. The tree issue has been a hot topic at many clubs over the past few years and I think it's helped that higher profiles courses have lead the charge in some respects with this.

[PCCraig]

Patrick,

Of the clubs that you mentioned above, how much of the tree removal was done over a long period of time (~10-30 trees a year) vs a one-time large removal?

One of the main excuses I've heard against tree removal is the cost of removing the trees, particularly the big old ones which I've been told can cost thousands of dollars to remove. Also, my club's course sits on less than 100 acres, so safety is also cited as a reason to hold onto certain trees.

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is the trend took brush and other low lying - thick vegetation. Many times the removal of such has the same effect as tree removal.

[Dan Herrmann]

Advantages of no trees:
1. No fans
2. No root damage
3. Great turf health
4. No lost balls due to fallen leafs.
5. Wonderful open vistas
6. The course plays the way the original architect designed it (usually because there were few trees when the course opened)
7. The course feels "big"

All these are observations from guests I've had out to my club that has bout 10 trees in play on the entire course (there are more than 10 trees, but the 95% of them are outside the OB markers).

Ironically, I played a course a couple years ago that was GROWING trees to replace some that were felled by a tropical storm.  What a wasted opportunity!

[John Ezekowitz]

Springdale (also a MET club) has embarked on tree removal under the direction of the club president. I believe a USGA agronomist came out and did a survey to provide data to back up the turf quality claims. The program has gone on for 3-4 years now and has opened up great views.

There were some complaints in the beginning, but they quickly went away when the work got done. The only tree that I felt was strategic and shouldn't have come down actually came down in a storm. It has been a great success.

Now if only we could get that tree removal trend moving northward to Massachusetts...

[Jason Thurman]

While tree removal is a tough sell for a membership initially, it seems almost impossible to sell on public courses, at least in the US.

Are there notable public courses outside of Lawsonia that have successfully executed a tree removal program? How has it been received by their customers?

I have a hypothesis that public course golfers are more willing to accept poor turf as an issue of "I came at the wrong time of year" and poor playability as "That's a good, tough course." I think the fact that most play a given course no more than 4 or 5 times a year makes them less apt to think about how it plays on a day-to-day basis and whether or not it's a course that really poses consistently interesting shots.

I know one golfer who travels the entire country playing, but refuses to stop in the Sandhills of Nebraska again after seeing "treeless Wild Horse, which had no standout holes." I think his attitude is common, but seems more so among public course golfers.

[Alex Lagowitz]

Pat,

I'd hardly say Ridgewood has gone through a MASSIVE tree removal program, especially in comparison to some of the others on that list.
That course is still chocked with trees and has a long way to go regarding trees.
I don't remember which nine it is, but the hole 1 that runs parallel to the range is really tight, as is the ninth on that side.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think for the majority of clubs the biggest catalyst has been the data that proves agronomic benefit by increasing airflow and sunlight.  This is where clubs have seen the biggest improvement and reduced costs dramatically.

Ben,

Can you, or anyone, show an example of said data?  Would be interesting to see.  I have used the agronomic benefit  argument for tree removal but never had any numbers to back it up.

 For me it sounds good but really has a minor impact on the budget. Factor in the cost to remove the tree and it's a wash at best?

Mike,

if the trees are hardwood they must be worth a fair amount. An operation of any size should be just about self financing.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'd hardly say Ridgewood has gone through a MASSIVE tree removal program, especially in comparison to some of the others on that list.
That course is still chocked with trees and has a long way to go regarding trees.
I don't remember which nine it is, but the hole 1 that runs parallel to the range is really tight, as is the ninth on that side.
Alex,

"embarking" 

[Adam Clayman]

Dan Herrmann, You forgot one of the more counter intuitive ones.

Safety.

While most think the trees will protect someone from an errant ball, from an adjacent hole, the opposite is more likely. The trees block the errant player from seeing the potential target, while giving the target less time to see and react to the incoming projectile.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Herrmann, You forgot one of the more counter intuitive ones.

Safety.

While most think the trees will protect someone from an errant ball, from an adjacent hole, the opposite is more likely. The trees block the errant player from seeing the potential target, while giving the target less time to see and react to the incoming projectile.

Adam,

How has that worked out at TOC over the last few centuries ?

[mike_malone]

 At Lancaster we found out that they calculated the savings in labor from fewer trees.

[Tyler Kearns]

I think for the majority of clubs the biggest catalyst has been the data that proves agronomic benefit by increasing airflow and sunlight.  This is where clubs have seen the biggest improvement and reduced costs dramatically.

Ben,

Can you, or anyone, show an example of said data?  Would be interesting to see.  I have used the agronomic benefit  argument for tree removal but never had any numbers to back it up.

 For me it sounds good but really has a minor impact on the budget. Factor in the cost to remove the tree and it's a wash at best?

Mike,

My superintendent detailed the benefits of improved sunlight penetration and airflow by walking me across our 5th fairway, which runs north-south. Trees border the hole to the west, and thus, the left hand side of the fairway is in shade for the vast majority of every morning. As we walked away from the tree-lined side, the turf looked better and better, and drier, owing to getting more sun and less impedment of airflow.

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tyler,

I wonder how that translates to reducing maintenance costs ?

Mayday,

Can you elaborate on the calculation ?

And could you quantify the savings ?

[Joe Sponcia]

Mr. Mucci,

...Also curious if anyone has any hard numbers on labor savings from 4-6 weeks of leaf removal in the fall, and costs of trimming?

[Jason Thurman]

After this year's amateur, we should add The Country Club to this list.

My club has recently started to cut down a few ash trees (the borer) and clear some trees around a green and tee here and there. Nothing major, and no program is imminent, but it's amazing how well received the changes have been.

I'm growing more optimistic for the success of tree programs going forward. It seems like if you can assure members that their beautiful, tall, stately old trees will still stand, and the course will still hold up when it hosts qualifiers or other tournaments, it's easy to get people on board with better sightlines and turf quality.

[Peter Pallotta]

Excuse the sidebar, but when I see a list like that, of quality courses with fine and long-standing pedigrees, I find myself wondering "Who planted the trees in the first place, and why?"  I know, it's easy to dismiss past committees and chairs, easy to dismiss their (to us antiquated or foolish or short-sighted) concerns with/desires for more bucolic settings or ensuring safety or creating tougher tests or even maintaining  architectural/design integrity in the face of changing technology -- it's easy to dismiss all that as misguided concerns and poor decisions; but someone back then, at each of those courses, probably a chair or a committee member, probably as proud of his course and as interested in it as some of us our today, made those decisions and planted those trees for what he thought was the good of the course (maybe even with the architect's blessing), and with the aim of making it better. Are we so certain that we, with our new rationales and ways of thinking, know so much better and see so much more clearly than they did? I suppose the answer is "yes" -- but the certainty we all seem to have about that is striking. It's probably, I'd guess, the same kind of certainty they had back then.

Peter

[Grant Saunders]

Excuse the sidebar, but when I see a list like that, of quality courses with fine and long-standing pedigrees, I find myself wondering "Who planted the trees in the first place, and why?"  I know, it's easy to dismiss past committees and chairs, easy to dismiss their (to us antiquated or foolish or short-sighted) concerns with/desires for more bucolic settings or ensuring safety or creating tougher tests or even maintaining  architectural/design integrity in the face of changing technology -- it's easy to dismiss all that as misguided concerns and poor decisions; but someone back then, at each of those courses, probably a chair or a committee member, probably as proud of his course and as interested in it as some of us our today, made those decisions and planted those trees for what he thought was the good of the course (maybe even with the architect's blessing), and with the aim of making it better. Are we so certain that we, with our new rationales and ways of thinking, know so much better and see so much more clearly than they did? I suppose the answer is "yes" -- but the certainty we all seem to have about that is striking.

Peter

Peter

I think anyone who is part of a movement is doing the right thing as far as they are concerned regardless of the goal.

[Peter Pallotta]

You're right, Grant. But that's probably why all the wise ones have always praised humility and warned against the dangers of intellectual pride and of smug self certainty and righteousness. Not saying for one second that anyone of this thread has fallen into that danger -- but when trends become consensus opinion and conventional wisdom, I tend to want to look for the other side, the forgotten point of view, the minority opinion.

Peter

[Grant Saunders]

Peter I agree with what you are saying.

I guess there comes a point at which any idea may become a trend and people join in or respond purely because others are. No longer is there the idea of why its being done but rather a fear of not doing it. This to me is the more dangerous mindset and situation. I see a movement towards minimalism but a trend towards minimalism also. I believe the first is a positive but the latter less so.

[JWL]

 Shoal Creek can be added to that list.  Big difference over the past year and a half.

Mr. Herrmann
You can add to your list another important benefit....the most fun shot in golf, the 'recovery shot' is part of the game.