How to assess the merit of each individual tree when considering removal?

[Brian Potash]

Presuming that one likes their courses with as much open vistas as possible (think Oakmont or Plainfield), why would you hesitate to remove any trees unless they had strategic merit? 

Why should any tree remain standing if not for strategy, aiming point or maybe safety?

I am not necessarily advocating taking down all interior trees, but rather want to know what questions to ask when assessing each individual tree and deciding if it should stay or go.

Thanks,

Brian

[Tyler Kearns]

Brian,

I think the first thing to consider when assessing the value of any tree on a golf course is whether or not you can live with the negative impacts they have on the surrounding turfgrass.  Trees cast shadows over turf, block drying winds and out compete turf for nutrients in the soil, not exactly a symbiotic relationship.  Unless those trees are serving to improve the safety on a golf course, they should probably go, especially near greens and tees. 

On the other hand, nice specimen trees are very appealing and can add a lot of visual interest and provide some vertical element to terrain which is lacking in good golf contours.

TK

[Mike Nuzzo]

"If in doubt, take it out."
                  - Don Mahaffey

[Alex Lagowitz]

Other things to consider:
- penalty for a wayward tee shot: ball has less clear view to green and is knocked down early
- block from adjacent holes; especially if parallel
- beauty: many of us overlook the sheer beauty of a single massive tree, especially of age

[Scott Warren]

Didn't Flynn have a list of five or six things trees should do on a golf course?

Shade is nice when you live in a hot climate.

And nothing wrong with trees out of play that block something unsightly outside the course.

[Sean_A]

I think in terms of convincing members to remove trees the agronomy argument has to be most important.

Trees can be a source of natural beauty, but their effect on playability cannot be overlooked.  The case of trees narrowing corridors where no winter light hits the fairway can't be seen as good.  While the turf may not necessarily be less healthy, for courses open all year, the shade definitely creates wetter fairways in winter. 

From a PoV, I like specimen trees and the odd copse of interesting trees to be showcased.  Few things are more disappointing than seeing "unworthy" trees bury the magnificence of an oak (etc) thus creating a virtual wall of green monotony.  I still dream of what Huntercombe could be - heavy sigh. But I do understand that my opinion is in the minority. 

As Scott points out, shade can be a wonderful relief for golfers.  Unfortunately, where shade is needed most (near tees) there is often the least amount of space to plant trees in such a way as to keep turf healthy. 

I have a hard time buying safety as a reason to plant trees, but I guess it works sometimes.  Usually though, I want to see where the danger is and trees often don't allow this to be the case. 

Of course it goes without saying that trees can be employed to great effect as visual blocks and for safety among neighbouring properties. 

Ciao

[Mike Policano]

Brian,

Like many things, each tree is fact specific. We use the following policy to evaluate our trees.

We first speak with our retained architect and our tree company.

We the use the following 7 criteria which I will list.

1. Agronomy
2. Maintenance
3. Golf architecture
4. Playability
5. Aesthetics
6. Safety
7. Cost

I have found that these seven criteria cover all the issues regarding trees.  It gives the decision makers a construct to consistently evaluate trees. And finally, since trees are very sensitive with members, it allows you to explain a reasoned and rational process. It also makes members more aware of the issues that some trees cause.  Most members who love trees still won't agree with you, but the process will give you as good a defense as you can get, especially with input from the architect and the tree company.

[Dunlop_White]

It's a process of evaluating how various tree species and their structures interact with their golf surroundings in the following contexts:

-- Hole Strategy and Recovery Play Options: How do trees affect the strategic playability of golf holes?
-- Agronomy and Conditioning: How do trees impact surrounding turf quality, especially in close conjunction with important playing areas?
-- Aesthetic Landscaping: How are trees situated to enhance and/or camouflage desirable and undesirable on and off course perspectives?
-- Health and Physical Condition: Whether trees propose a danger to golfers (and other trees) or whether they need some loving care?
-- Safety: How are trees positioned to protect golfers from errant shots?

[Rich Goodale]

"If in doubt, take it out."
                  - Don Mahaffey

Mike

To support and elaborate on Don's point, why should the burden of proof lie on those who wish to remove trees rather than those who wish to preserve them?  If I were in charge of a tree-infested golf course I'd first ask for somebody to defend the existence of each and every tree.  If nobody can give a cogent reason as for why any particular tree should stay, I'd say "Off with it's head!"  Pretty soon, you'd have a golf course which was not only more aesthetically pleasing and playable, but also one which was easier to maintain and on which the growth of fine golf grasses was much ameliorated.

Rich

[Scott Stearns]

Said another way.  The question should be  "why should this tree remain"  "not why should we take it out."

[Tom_Doak]

I don't understand the hatred some people on this site have for trees of any kind.  There are lots of courses built in parts of the country where trees are natural, and add beauty to the landscape.

A lot of courses have too many trees, but the argument that they should all be removed is absurd, not to mention unrealistic.  But I guess that sort of black and white thinking is all some people can muster. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Rich
Trees are like bunkers, there is always some crazy reason for another.

Don's (and now also my) philosophy takes M. Policiano's listed criteria into consideration.
i.e.
Does the tree impact agronomy in a negative way?
If the answer is I'm not sure - take it out.
Does the tree impact maintenance, without adding to the architecture?
If the answer is I'm not sure - take it out.

The tree will grow, and get worse.
Other trees will succeed in its place.

Tom has seen we left a lot of cool, natural & old trees.  And our client likes them.

Cheers

[Chris Shaida]

I don't understand the hatred some people on this site have for trees of any kind.  There are lots of courses built in parts of the country where trees are natural, and add beauty to the landscape.

A lot of courses have too many trees, but the argument that they should all be removed is absurd, not to mention unrealistic.  But I guess that sort of black and white thinking is all some people can muster. 

Well, from my limited but direct and, let's say 'virbant' experience, I think it's more like a piece of paper that's been rolled up one and you're trying to get it flat -- you don't just make it flat, you have to roll it the OTHER way.  We had a bunch of 'bad' trees at my club that weren't indigenous, detracted from the surrounding landscape and made maintenance more difficult and costly.  But we also had a material group of people who thought that removing any tree was really bad and would yell and scream at the first mention of the removal of ANY tree (the paper rolled one way).  It's hard in those circumstances to get everybody immediately to be rational and dispassionate (that is, trying to just make the flat paper). And after a while it can seem that one has to meet the initial yelling and screaming with some force in the other direction (rolling the paper the other way) as a way to get back to a rational discussion and decision-making process.

[Jay Flemma]

I like the Ed Scissorhands Gibstein test: does the tree have architectural significance.

[Jud_T]

The less trees you have the better the ones you leave will look in relief to the landscape IMO.  Imagine the course with zero trees.  OK great, it's a links.  Well perhaps you don't live on the coast of Scotland but rather the north woods.  Congratulations, you've just built Mr. T Links (He famously cut down all the old trees on his property in Lake Forest Illinois due to allergies forcing all the local towns to hastily draft regulations).  Now pencil in trees one by one that ADD to the landscape, agronomy, strategy or safety concerns.  Don't add one if you don't absolutely need it.  Leave the drawing for a week.  Come back and see if there's any more you can put in that ADD visually or to playing characteristics.  See if you need to subtract a few that you mistakenly added.  Wait another week and look at it again, repeat.  That's the right amount of trees...

[Rich Goodale]

Rich
Trees are like bunkers, there is always some crazy reason for another.

Don's (and now also my) philosophy takes M. Policiano's listed criteria into consideration.
i.e.
Does the tree impact agronomy in a negative way?
If the answer is I'm not sure - take it out.
Does the tree impact maintenance, without adding to the architecture?
If the answer is I'm not sure - take it out.

The tree will grow, and get worse.
Other trees will succeed in its place.

Tom has seen we left a lot of cool, natural & old trees.  And our client likes them.

Cheers

Mike N

I think that you and Don and I are saying the same thing.  As long as the trees are cool and "natural" (not sure about old), let them be.

Tom D

I don't undertand what you are saying.  Surely nobody on this post has advocated removing "all" trees even from any course.  I think what I and others are saying is apply the same criteria to trees as you might to bunkers, following Mike P's list.  I think that if one is honest in delaing with these criteria, most of Chip Oat's "stupid trees" would be eliminated through points 1-3, and if so, most courses would be far better and more interesting places to play.

Rich

[Keith Phillips]

I think Mike's list is excellent - of the seven factors the one I had not fully considered until 'Sandy' was the impact of tree debris on the maintenance requirements and budgets of golf clubs - at our club in New Jersey our much of our staff spends 4-6 weeks each spring AND fall cleaning up fallen leaves, needles, limbs etc., and of course must do the same after every significant storm - it is a far greater undertaking than I had appreciated, and I am now better-armed to add 'reduced maintenance costs' as a benefit of more aggressive culling. 

[mike_malone]

 Trees  can be a very important part of a golf course. On a parkland course trees are natural to the setting. They can be incorporated in the design as doglegs to great advantage. As one approaches the green or parallel to play they detract from the playability and reduce the amount of golf that can be played.
 For other parts of the course I think of Flynn's advice. Trees can separate holes, provide a backdrop and shade on a hot day. They should be out of play for the most part.
 Once the agronomic hurdle has been jumped then we should find ways to keep the trees rather than remove them.

 The greatest offenses are usually trees planted after the original design which ruin the architecture. Those need to go!

  For many courses an individual analysis is not possible.

[PCCraig]

I don't understand the hatred some people on this site have for trees of any kind.  There are lots of courses built in parts of the country where trees are natural, and add beauty to the landscape.

A lot of courses have too many trees, but the argument that they should all be removed is absurd, not to mention unrealistic.  But I guess that sort of black and white thinking is all some people can muster. 

Tom,

Would you mind explaining your rational for deciding what trees should be removed when you are consulting or completing a master plan for a course?

Thanks.

[Greg Clark]

I don't understand the hatred some people on this site have for trees of any kind.  There are lots of courses built in parts of the country where trees are natural, and add beauty to the landscape.

A lot of courses have too many trees, but the argument that they should all be removed is absurd, not to mention unrealistic.  But I guess that sort of black and white thinking is all some people can muster. 

Amen

[Bradley Anderson]

The trees that give greenkeepers the most trouble are:

Silver Maples - liter the greens with wind blown seeds in the spring and you have to keep staff on all day for several weeks to blow the greens off.

Willows - clog drain lines, keeping the course wet after a rain fall.

Norway Maples - they have the wider leaf blade that casts shade so deep that grass can't grow under them.

Get rid of all these you'll have a much better golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Would you mind explaining your rational for deciding what trees should be removed when you are consulting or completing a master plan for a course?

Thanks.

I have never tried to prepare a checklist as Mike Policano did, but his list of reasons is pretty good.  I would have substituted "room to play" for playability and "views" for aesthetics, but it's a good list.

In the master plan phase we are deliberately vague about such things, because no one really wants to hear the number of trees that ought to be taken out.  I've worked at clubs where we had to take out 600, 800, even 1000 trees -- and we never would have gotten permission at the start of the process if we had used those numbers.  Usually, though, I've found that when we open up a couple of holes to where they should be, the light comes on for most members, and most of the resistance melts away ... although there are a few members at any club who feel strongly that NO tree should ever be removed.  [I just wish those same people hadn't overplanted the course to begin with.]

We have been whittling away at the trees on Medinah #1 for the last month, and it is a VERY different course now than it was a month ago.  Some of the trees had to go for grading work including drainage detention, so there are some big holes in the landscape where it would be nice to plant a few trees when we're done [if the engineers let us!].  There are also places along the perimeter of the course (Medinah Road) where more planting is warranted, and we have some nice trees we've preserved to move into those spots.  But at the same time, we've adjusted the engineers' plans to preserve a few more big old oaks, and done our best to highlight the big trees which remain -- whereas previously you couldn't see the trees for the forest of little ones that had been planted.

[Brian Potash]

Thanks to all who responded.  My goal was to confirm some things I thought and learn some things I didn't.

The responses didn't disappoint.

Brian

[Matthew Essig]

I don't understand the hatred some people on this site have for trees of any kind.  There are lots of courses built in parts of the country where trees are natural, and add beauty to the landscape.

A lot of courses have too many trees, but the argument that they should all be removed is absurd, not to mention unrealistic.  But I guess that sort of black and white thinking is all some people can muster. 

As I was reading this thread, I was beginning to think that no one would say this.

Thank you, Tom.

As Greg said... AMEN!!!!

[Paul Gray]

Exactly my thinking, Matthew. Amen indeed.

I can think of a number of good British heathland courses which overtime have matured into tree lined affairs. Whilst I'm not in favour of narrow lines of an excessively penal nature, some of the courses I can think of are seemingly excellent as they currently stand and, because of the under soil, don't suffer drainage issues. I do worry slightly that the current trend for the removal of trees is becoming a little too arbitrary. Certainly the 'if in doubt, take it out' mentality strikes me as a case in point.