[Jerry Kluger]

Let's say you are making a presentation to a membership, board or committee on why trees need to be removed from your golf course.  What reasons can you give that will convince them to go along with your recommendation?  I am not in that position but I thought a good summary might be helpful anyway.  I can immediately think of 5.


1. Tree removal allows for sunlight and therefor better grass coverage.
2. Tree removal allows for more air flow which also helps with growing grass.
3. Tree removal can allow a player to hit a shot which gives a preferred angle into a green.
4. Tree removal allows for a shot to wind up in a position which makes for a more challenging approach shot. (Over a deep bunker, water hazard, raised portion of green which will reject shot, etc.)
5. Tree removal will open up views of other holes and surrounding areas which will help players have greater understanding of holes, or purely aesthetics but this is the tougher sell to those who feel holes should be corridors and shut off from other holes.


Any other reasons?  Which of these apply to Pine Valley as I haven't been there for more than 20 years. 

[Matthew Mollica]

Removal of an introduced species / specimen may assist repatriation of an indigenous micro-environment.


Removal of a tree / trees near a green complex may avoid the problem of an encroaching root network from the putting surface.


Removal of trees can also ensure the irrigation effort (both in gallons and dollars) is received by the grass and not robbed by trees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jerry,

Tree removal might improve the health of the other trees, too.  Somewhat ironically, the old trees most of us love the most are often not as healthy as they appear.  A tree survey is always in order.

It might help to add an easily found sun angle chart for your zone.  And, if in the south, get it for winter when the sun is lowest but turf still needs sunlight.  In the north, clearing can also remove frost and add a few early morning tee times (or avoid delays) in spring and fall, if more clearing takes place on the NE (check those early morning sun angles)

Matthew is correct, BTW, that trees do use more water than turf, so you can cast it as a water conservation measure.

When speaking of views, I would use the visual approach  -  Side by side pictures of some distant vista, and then one where the trees block the view (could actually be any nice vista and then a pix of solid forest.....)

Sadly, I would lead with those kind of things, and then just point out that, while some might think it makes the course easier, it probably doesn't, and may make it more interesting.  You could lead that section with fewer:

- Lost balls,
- Play Delays (proven fact its always the group in front of you that has trouble with the trees.....
- Uninteresting chip outs sideways (as opposed to scattered tree clumps which just cry out for an inventive shot)

I wonder if some slope ratings or course ratings of generally wide courses compared to generally narrow ones might be possible to prove those courses aren't easier? If not, certainly there are many examples of wider parkland courses that are as difficult as other courses.

[JNagle]

There is one reason that is often overlooked - safety.  We have seen it on many courses.  Tree lined fairway or "protected" tees appear to be safe when in fact they are not.  Golfers will often maintain the philosophy that if they cannot see another person then no one is there.  Trees will often block a direct view into another portion of the course when the best solution is to have an unobstructed view.  It is actually safer.  We have a project with two parallel holes, the first an uphill par 3 and the second a downhill par 4.  The tee for the par 4 is directly right of the green for the par 3 and the par 3 tee is in the location of a terrible slice off of the 4 par.  Both tees were flanked by evergreens meant to provide safety.  Problem was no one would yell "four" if a ball was heading for the adjoining tees. People were getting hit regularly.  Trees came out, much safer now.


Maintenance -


Many poor varieties of trees are selected for course plantings - Silver Maple, Honeylocust, Pines, Spruces, Willows, Norway Maples, Cottonwoods........  Many of the trees on courses have surface roots which impact mowing and playability; dense canopies which creates greater shade;  varieties may have been selected due to a fast growth rate which equals weak wooded; leave drop - time of year and volume; exfoliating bark; nuts or fruits dropping on greens or in bunkers........the list goes on and on.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Sometimes it's not about "tree removal" per se.
It's about "trophy/specimen tree preservation".


In the Midwest of the US, as an example, many courses have wonderful oak and elm trees that are 50-80 years old.
Then along come "sucker" or "under-story" trees that blow in on the wind, come from birds or are planted by some insane committee.


Cottonwoods, willows (ugh!), spruce, maples, etc.
Trees like these grow in between the "specimen trees" and, as described above, rob them of sun and nutrients. But, they offer little to no strategic value and, without them, the tree canopy is still intact - just healthier!

[Matthew Mollica]

Very good point Ian. Those significant specimens are adversely impacted by overplanting on occasions. And also hidden from view within a more dense canopy. The important trees should be granted the chance to be viewed and appreciated. There are several courses I've played where this is true - wonderful individual trees obscured within a dense leafy canopy, and their health negatively impacted.

[Terry Lavin]

Member education on this topic is essential IMHO. It's great if you have a few knowledgeable members to spread the word, but even better is to bring in an architect for a program.  We had Ron Prichard do this as part of our restoration process. I've also recommended Brad Klein to some clubs, to great effect, I might add. With photo shop slides and other demonstrative exhibits, your membership can buy into this important work.

[PCCraig]

Some great insight so far on this thread!


Hosting an educated architect or critic visit your club can be a massive benefit towards "selling" a membership. Brad Klein, Darius Oliver, or Jeff Mingay can explain and educate on the topic far better than an average guy like me can. When we hosted Jeff Mingay and Darius Oliver back in July, we had taken out a decent amount of trees over the past five years...but they both made comments suggesting that more needed to come down. Members began to ask questions such as "well wouldn't that make the course too easy then?" After hearing Jeff and Darius discuss the topic and give quality examples I heard comments such as "I totally get it now."

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you are already underway or in planning, here are a few other tips from architects who shall remain nameless....

1 - on the plan, miscount in your favor. If you are planning to remove 267 trees, have the plan total 167. If caught, you can always claim simple math error, like a waitress not adding the bill correctly.

2 - If in construction, once and only once you can have a dozer guy knock one down by accident. It helps if its a contractor, and he was planning to remove that guy from the project for any reason (incompetence, work done, another project needs him) and you can at least say you removed the guy responsible from the job.

Not commenting on the ethics of any such thing, just telling you stories from the field I have heard.

[Garland Bayley]

There is one reason that is often overlooked - safety.  We have seen it on many courses.  Tree lined fairway or "protected" tees appear to be safe when in fact they are not.  Golfers will often maintain the philosophy that if they cannot see another person then no one is there.  Trees will often block a direct view into another portion of the course when the best solution is to have an unobstructed view.  It is actually safer.  We have a project with two parallel holes, the first an uphill par 3 and the second a downhill par 4.  The tee for the par 4 is directly right of the green for the par 3 and the par 3 tee is in the location of a terrible slice off of the 4 par.  Both tees were flanked by evergreens meant to provide safety.  Problem was no one would yell "four" if a ball was heading for the adjoining tees. People were getting hit regularly.  Trees came out, much safer now.

...

I really don't get how there is an improvement here. The same number of balls are flying in the direction of the par 3 tee. I can't imagine that someone yelling fore allows people to turn and see the flight of an incoming ball and dodging it. Being a directionally challenged golfer I yell a lot of "fore"s and probably half the people ignore the warning. Trust me, people can hear my "fore" warnings. Pete Pittock maintains they can hear me just talking, and that I don't seem to have in "indoor" voice.


If you tell me that the trees are hit by the balls and then drop to the tee, more often than balls that would simply fly over the tee in the air, I can understand that. However, I think it is much safer to be hit by a ball that has been inhibited by a tree than by a ball that has come in unhindered.

[mike_malone]

Remove trees that eliminate the original design intent. Most well designed courses present challenges at the green for recovery shots from angles away from the fairway. Trees that are planted later parallel to the fairway usually eliminate these design elements.

[BHoover]

I think if you can convince the membership that tree removal will improve the course ranking, you have a better chance of getting it approved (regardless of whether it's true).

[Bill Crane]

Remove trees that eliminate the original design intent. Most well designed courses present challenges at the green for recovery shots from angles away from the fairway. Trees that are planted later parallel to the fairway usually eliminate these design elements.

I completely agree with Mayday.  At Springdale I have watched for years as trees were planted haphazardly, often grew over bunkers, and then we removed the bunker rather than the tree - completely corrupting the design intent.  Doglegs get changed, approaches narrow etc, and skyline/infinity greens get corrupted by having trees as backdrops that also change wind patterns.

You may want to post some outside material that point out all these issues.  I have circulated Dunlop White's articles - "Anatomy of a Restoration", and "Below the Trees",
http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/an-anatomy-of-a-restoration/
http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/below-the-trees-by-dunlop-white-iii/

Below the trees deals directly with the corrupted design intent issue.

Anatomy of Trees list Tom Doak's nine key guidelines to trees and at one meeting I pointed out examples controverting all nine on our course.

For a while we encouraged members to plant trees as memorials to departed spouses or friends and they sometimes got to choose where trees were located.  We let a Dentist who was a good golfer plant trees for years, and often he got more bang for his buck with evergreens. Did he know anything about golf course architecture ?  No.   

We've made much progress, but have a way to go.  A 26 handicapper started telling other members there was a movement to change the course to a "links" since some trees were coming down.  She was mistaken since we are about 48 miles from the ocean, no sand in the soil and not much wind except late fall.  Some really wonderful vistas have also been opened up.

You can take out a ton of trees and still have beautiful and strategic trees on the course
 
Good luck!
 
Wm Flynnfan
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Bill Crane]

There is another safety issue - roots!
 
We have a flashpoint issue over two stands of flowering trees that are beautiful but have really awful roots. One set is readily in play and our  pro tells us four people hurt themselves before June this year trying to hit shots out of the roots.
 
While beautiful, they only blossom for about ten days a year.
 
Wm Flynnfan

[Anthony Gholz]

jerry:


A synopsis of what I've tried to use for people with short attention spans:


    Tree Management
[size=78%]Our golf course is filled with trees that have grown up, and out, over the last 100 years of the club’s ownership.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]Many additional trees have been planted by committees and individuals along fairway corridors, as memorials, and for “beautification”.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]In addition, many volunteer trees and bushes are growing in the rough, along the creeks, and in other out-of-play areas.[/size][/size][size=78%] [/size]
[/size][size=78%]There have been numerous articles written by all the major golf organizations and many of the popular golf magazines regarding the detrimental aspects of trees on golf courses: all confirming the incompatibility of trees and the growth of firm and dry turfgrass.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]I’ll summarize here a hundred years of research: trees block light and air, compete for water and nutrients, clog playing corridors, eliminate original design strategy, block scenic views, create damp areas, and promote disease.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]In addition, evergreens in particular encourage winterkill by not allowing the shaded turf to thaw in spring at the same rate as the surrounding area.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]They also maintain damp areas much longer, further promoting disease and slowing the growth of turfgrass.[/size][/size][size=78%] [/size]
[/size][size=78%]If trees must be on the course they should be grouped in an asymmetrical fashion to look as natural as possible and on the periphery of the playing areas.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]Existing trees which at high season do not allow a minimum of six (6) hours of sunlight on playing areas, especially east morning and south light, or have canopies which are above tees, greens, and designed fairway widths should be eliminated.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]Along fairway corridors in the rough, trees should be at least twenty-five (25) yards apart and their canopies raised to a minimum of ten (10) feet off the ground.[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size][/size][size=78%]For southeast Michigan, it is recommended that trees be a minimum of twice their height away from any tee, green, fairway, or bunker.[/size][/size][size=78%] [/size]
[/size][size=78%]Summary: [/size][/size][size=78%]In competing with grass for water, nutrients, and sun, the trees win.[/size]
 Tony
 

[Jerry Kluger]

The knowledge of this group is certainly impressive and it should be of great assistance to anyone who is trying to accomplish this at their club.  I had a really tough time at my last club where they decided to plant trees to prevent longer hitters from cutting doglegs, etc. I took the position that deep rough serves the same purpose without all of the downsides of additional trees but I lost the argument.

[Ian Mackenzie]

When we embarked on some extensive tree and course work in 2012, and were preparing for discussions with members and board, I found Dunlop White's web site to be invaluable and a fantastic resource for info on trees, tree remediation and club politics.


http://www.dunlopwhite.com/www.dunlopwhite.com/Restoration_and_Tree_Management.html

[Joe Sponcia]

Jerry,


I am writing an article for Golf Club Atlas right now specifically on Trees (an In My Opinion piece). 


Some random thoughts:


- If the course is not pedigreed (Ross, Raynor, etc.), good luck.  Few care about how it was originally designed, fewer rally around non-golden age architects. 
- If it was designed after 1960, I can only guess several members are still there that planted some of the trees, were on the green committee, etc.  Mentioning cutting trees will be like burning their house.
- As others have suggested, get an expert to do a 'presentation' on trends in golf/golf architecture.  Don't talk about architecture though, because no one cares about that either.  If you say "architecture", they will think you are talking over them and will resist.
- I can send you a powerpoint I put together on the top 50 or 100 that have done massive tree removal.  I think it is somewhat powerful to the eye, but I did it, so take it with a grain of salt
- Don't talk about width, playability, or any of the things we like/prefer on this site that makes golf faster, more fair, more fun, etc.  Members at clubs only care about being the hardest in town.  If you say you will cut trees they will automatically (like a doll with a string on their backs) say, "you'll make the course too easy".  Nothing will convince them that it isn't.  NOTHING.  If the course looks easy, but they score the same, they will be upset.  Trees obscure/excuse crappy play/skill.  Go after turf...next point.
- Healthy turf, green turf, resilient turf.  That is what people listen to.  Pick out the worst, bare spots and then walk 20 feet away where there is no shade.  "Gentlemen, this is how we can make this area look like that one, but this tree hanging over the fairway will have to go".
- Step 2, trees cost a bunch of money.  Clubs should trim, but few do on a regular basis.  Leaves have to be picked up - huge labor.  Most clubs have special mowers to mow over roots, repaving (which many clubs could care less about) is another huge money leak.  Winter kill.  Labor to string mow vs. ride.  These are huge costs!


I have a small bibliography of quotes and references I can send you.  If you go forward with this, know that you will be the club pariah and probably play alone for some time. 


I am not saying it can't be done...but you are in for a 5-7 year battle, that you will probably eventually win or have to move onto another club.  Be prepared that when you do win this, you will get none of the credit too    It would be easier to get hot dogs or the club sandwich removed from the menu, but my guess is, you will do your research and you will probably be the most educated on it.  You will have to be to withstand what is coming. 


I almost wrote a (to me) funny post the other night on the stages of tree removal that an individual goes through.  One of the first two is, "they will shoot the messenger, not the message".  Wear a bullet-proof sweater vest.


Good luck!

[Pete_Pittock]

There is always the value of tree to offset the cost of removal.

[Brad Klein]

Don't start with tree removal, you'll alienate everyone. Start with rules and principles of proper tree management on a golf course and then rules of assessment. The need for any removals becomes a subset of that.

[Jason Way]

Don't start with tree removal, you'll alienate everyone. Start with rules and principles of proper tree management on a golf course and then rules of assessment. The need for any removals becomes a subset of that.

+1


This is the way that we are approaching it on the course I am working on currently.  The end in mind is not just to cut down trees.  The end in mind is to have healthy specimen trees and to restore native hardwood savannah.  The course conditioning, playability and architecture benefits come from making progress toward that end.  It just so happens that we have to remove a tremendous number of non-native and invasive trees, which is much easier for people to digest when put into the broader context.


Our Green Committee has also created an approved tree list so that people understand a) why we are keeping the trees we keep, and b) why we are planting the trees we are planting.

[Dave McCollum]

Rather a sore spot for me.  As one who learned golf in middle age, nurtured by all of the usual clichés, and as one who “managed” a course before I had much interest in playing, I had a pro (actual manager) who loved trees, actively planted them, forbid any trimming and removal, and even left the dead ones standing.  As I gradually imbibed the game, I came to the realization that trees were an integral part of the design and strategy of our golf course.  Problem was that the specimen trees worked into the design were all planted at the same time, similar species, and, of course, had a similar shelf life.  So, now that they are dying off at the end of their expected life spans, the golf course changes with each wind storm. 

I don’t hate trees, but slowly have come to the conclusion that, if you want your golf course to endure as a lasting legacy, be very careful about making trees such an import feature of the design and strategy.  Once gone, they take a generation to assume their former role in dictating play (without an Augusta budget).  Wise words here about trees complicating maintenance.  Also wise words about the psychology of implementing tree management programs with your members.  Recently, I gave my permission to plant a memorial tree with very specific instructions about where and why.  Basically, shade for an out-of-play area near a par 3 tee where play backs up on hot summer days.  The moment it went in, I deeply regretted the decision, even though they planted it per my instructions.

Trees in golf clearly serve a useful purpose both aesthetically and practical—shade comfort for golfers, a natural part of the landscape, cost of removal, and so on—but the disadvantages are usually so undervalued as to defy logic.  What seems beneficial to one generation becomes a pain-in-the-ass to the next.  And trees last longer than us, for better and worse.

[Gary Sato]

Jerry,


I am writing an article for Golf Club Atlas right now specifically on Trees (an In My Opinion piece). 

Dunlop White also has a few articles.


Pictures are the most powerful weapon I have seen.  Before and after photos get peoples attention.

[Jerry Kluger]

Joe: I had no idea about your article and this is purely an exercise in education for me as I am not at a club where this is currently an issue.


Can anyone give us an idea of whether any of these issues pertain to Pine Valley?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Also very helpful in the process:


1. Hire a respected arborist to do a tree inventory of your grounds and make recommendations. (Get rid of ash trees, "limb up" the oaks, open up areas for light, etc.)


2. Bring in your USGA regional guy and have him do an expanded section on tree management in his report.


It all helps and having 3rd party sources can assist in neutering the tree-huggers at every club.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()