[David_Tepper]

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/the-treeless-trend

[Josh Stevens]

However is there not a bit of a revolt against nature?  Do we differentiate between removing trees that should never have been there and so returning the land to its natural state, and removing trees that were always there simply to make room for golf

Its one thing to have no trees on a links, as being treeless is the natural state of that land.  But I imagine most of the NE USA would actually have been very thick forest originally.

Surely if trees belong there, then they are low maintenance, and so does replacing trees with grass not perhaps in some instances require more water, more cutting etc etc?

[Duncan Cheslett]

However is there not a bit of a revolt against nature?  Do we differentiate between removing trees that should never have been there and so returning the land to its natural state, and removing trees that were always there simply to make room for golf

But what is the land's "natural state"?


Here in the UK when most inland courses were built around 100 years ago, they were on almost treeless landscapes. This is true of heathland and "parkland" courses, the latter of which were mostly on farmland rather than true parks. This treeless state generally pertained until after WW2, after which most courses started to become wooded for one reason or another.


We now talk about returning these courses to how they were 100 years ago, when they were first laid out. But heathland and farmland is a man-made landscape. The natural state of the land now occupied by most inland golf courses in this part of the world is forest. That is why it takes so much time and money keeping trees under control.


It was losing that control, previously exercised largely by sheep for hundreds of years, which led to courses becoming wooded in the first place, followed by the misguided planting of even more trees to separate fairways and to "frame" greens.

[Josh Stevens]

I suppose natural in the sense of that vegetation (trees or otherwise) that are native to that site, adapted to the condition, and so can grow with minimal intervention and inputs of water, chemicals and man power.

We do perhaps have to recognise that in an increasing urban environment, a golf course should be able to provide some sort of added benefits along the lines of habitat preservation.

So I am all for clearing trees away from the lines of play and to open it up for light and airflow, but total deforestation because its become a bit trendy might not be the way to go.

The "Oakmont effect", if taken to the extreme, might be as environmentally damaging as the "Augusta effect", just a bit different

[Sean_A]

Josh


We must remember that the environment for a course is golf and socializing. The wildlife benefits are secondary.  That said, I do think there is some responsibility to showcase local flora, specimen trees etc. Even if some of those trees are not part of the original intent measures should be taken to preserve them where it makes sense and at a cost that makes sense.  I am not saying we have to go the Cypress route and physically support trees that would otherwise fall down, but there is a happy medium. 


Ciao

[Josh Stevens]

Um, I think you need to be a bit careful who you say that to.  Clearly you are not on the committee of your club

Golf courses do not have carte blanche to consume resources solely for the purpose of socialising and hitting a ball with a stick - to suggest wildlife are secondary is the quickest way to be shut down.

[Sean_A]

Josh


So golf and socializing are not the primary reason for the existence of golf clubs?  Thats news to me.  Being a secondary benefit doesn't imply that clubs have carte blanche to do anything.  Truth is, I have long been a crusader that clubs have to wise up and become more environmentally and socially friendly.  The time may come when that good will will need to be cashed in for whatever reason. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

As I mentioned on another thread, removing trees over a certain size costs money as the regular greens crew can't necessarily do the work themselves (licences, insurance, h&s etc) so outside specialist contractors are required.

Outside specialist contractors are costly however, and with clubs watching the cash closely there's a financial limitation on hiring them unless really, really necessary. The outcome at a course with lots of trees, irrespective of whether they were deliberately planted in decades gone by are or the result of lack of cutback-when-small maintenance, is that not many trees will likely come down each year. Plus there's the usual tree-hugger resistance movement to overcome. And trees and scrub grow bigger and wider and taller every year. Todays sappling will be pretty big in afew years.

This doesn't mean though that future growth shouldn't be limited by the regular greens crews cutting back small trees and scrub before they get too big for them to handle. This should be, and I would like to believe it is, standard practice at clubs where finances permit an appropriate greens crew size.

Once-upon-time many inland courses in certain parts of the world were cut (eaten) by sheep and cattle and horses and goats etc and. All this meant less trees on courses as the shoots of any new growth trees and scrub would be nibbled away before it could grow. In addition, trees and scrub were cleared for firewood and fencing and building and furniture etc.

Society has moved on however, but that doesn't mean that in certain, although not all, parts of the world inland courses still can't have their maintenance aided by livestock. Nature working with nature?

Atb

[Sean_A]

ATB


Just as I think clubs should have had drainage improvement reserves being built up over 50...so too with trees.  I have said it before, but golf has been too cheap in the UK at the expense of the long term health of courses.  Its great if club identify drainage and tree problems now, but as you say, even if there is a will, obtaining the funds to do the work properly will take a lot longer than a few years.  This is where big clubs have a huge advantage and why smaller clubs need to plan finances 10-20 years down the road.  Short sighted committees had the opportunity to sock away cash during the go go days when people were clamouring to get into clubs.  In fact, at that time....I bet many were actually doing long term harm with over-watering and tree planting...heavy sigh. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

ATB
Just as I think clubs should have had drainage improvement reserves being built up over 50...so too with trees.  I have said it before, but golf has been too cheap in the UK at the expense of the long term health of courses.  Its great if club identify drainage and tree problems now, but as you say, even if there is a will, obtaining the funds to do the work properly will take a lot longer than a few years.  This is where big clubs have a huge advantage and why smaller clubs need to plan finances 10-20 years down the road.  Short sighted committees had the opportunity to sock away cash during the go go days when people were clamouring to get into clubs.  In fact, at that time....I bet many were actually doing long term harm with over-watering and tree planting...heavy sigh. 
Ciao

Pretty difficult to disagree from a UK perspective. In fact, please re-arrange the following words - nail, the, on, hit, head, the
Atb

[jeffwarne]

planted trees were an overdone fad in the 50's and 60's
the same as today's clear cutting fad is.
a treeless course on a property surrounded by trees is (often) unnatural, unimaginative, and unattractive, and has its own management/maintenance issues.
Though we cut many trees, we are blessed with spectacular native diversity of blueberry, Bayberry,mountain laurel,bluestem and pitch pine, all of which flourished when fires were naturally controlling vegetation years ago

moderation

[Terry Lavin]

Warne is spot on: it's the cultural pendulum shift. In Chicago, for example, committees planted rows of trees alongside fairways and framed greens accordingly. This went on for decades. Then various diseases hit (Dutch Elm most notably) and they doubled down for a couple more decades. At the clubs where I've been a member, we cut down over 6,000 trees, with many more candidates for clearing awaiting the chainsaws.

At Beverly, our next attempt will be to remove as many trees near greens and tees as possible while removing mutt trees that inhibit the health and visibility of specimen trees.  We want to remain a parkland course, but one with a thoughtful and well articulated tree management program.

The committees of old wanted to "beautify" the property in an arboreal way. Current committee thought is to debulk the forest to expose the bones of the golf course while allowing the natural elements to assert their influence.

People can argue the merits and demerits of either approach, but there is more expert research and historical support for the wood choppers as compared to the shade seekers.

[BCowan]

The biggest problem is people miss define ''Parklands''.  Here is a good definition i found.

''open land consisting of fields and scattered groups of trees''

Nowhere should it be highway golf with trees planted every 10 yards from each other down the rough line.  Bunkers can frame holes and other land features.  Tree should be random in nature or in small groups, also strategic ones every so often are nice. 

The current fad of growing existing rough out on heavier soils with no sand capping or grass type change for proper management is going to give properly done fescue a bad reputation.  The Aussie maint meld viewing from afar seems to be the most common sense approach. 

[Randy Thompson]

Great article! I am currently pursuing a contract on a long term Master Plan at a club that for me co-insides with the article. Thirty years ago or more members donated between two and five tree and placed and planted them without any professional guidance. Here are the results,


There are two more tees behind me where this picture was taken!



I like holes when you first walk onto the tee, the tee talks to you about the holes. This one is telling me to go find a more playable hole. I am pretty sure the bunkers were added, "in House". The narrow landing įrea wasn“t enough, lets further pinch the landing įrea! There is large and deep drainage canyon in front of the tee, with some really cool land features completely invisible to the eyes and blocked, as a result of out of place tree vegetation. Look at the hillside to the left that should be visible and make the hole more playable for high and middle handicappers. Both bunkers could be eliminated but imo at least one has to go. I could go on and on but hopefully you get the picture!

[Sean Leary]

Was the tree removal at NGLA the blueprint that Oakmont used? Obviously Oakmont gets the public attention as an US Open venue, but I thought it was NGLA that started the trend....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()