[Jud_T]

I remember ignorantly asking a GCA about the tree removal he was doing as part of a Ross course he was helping restore in the midwest a few years back.  He then whipped out the aerials from back in the day showing the course as virtually treeless.  The problem at the vast majority of courses, at least here in the fertile heartland, is such that the bar still tilts way too far on the scale toward way too many trees. 

[Rick Lane]

Good tip for anyone working on a golf committee or looking at tree removal that I got from a USGA agronomist one day.   We were looking at a pair of 80 year old trees that (IMHO) , were not in a good spot, in front of both greenside bunkers on a par 3, blocking them, and limiting tee to green options. The question he taught me to ask:  "If they were not there, would you plant them there now?"    Boom, lightbulb.   So I took a picture and had the trees photoshopped out, and took them to our golf committee and told them it was a different hole on the course, and that we should plant two trees in front of the greenside bunkers.    "NO!"  they exclaimed. "That would be stupid!"   Then I whipped out the real picture, and we were on our way to get those trees removed.

[Andrew Carr]

Trees on golf courses seem to be a lightning rod for even this thoughtful and passionate crowd.  Battle lines have been drawn before the first question is asked.  Trying to take some of the overshadowing passion out of it for the selfish sake of my learning: are there any hard and fast rules regarding tree locations relative to greens and tees?

[mike_malone]

  Trees that were on the property when the course was designed is different than trees added later. My observation is that good strategic designers know how  to use existing trees well.


Number 15 at Rolling Green is an elevated tee with a line of trees that runs more than 100 yards down the left side and separating it from 18 on the other side of the trees.
You could not build these two holes without using the existing trees.

[Joe Hancock]

  Trees that were on the property when the course was designed is different than trees added later. My observation is that good strategic designers know how  to use existing trees well.

Mayday,


Architect trees= Good
Comittee/ Owner trees= Bad


Is that about right?

[mike_malone]

  Trees that were on the property when the course was designed is different than trees added later. My observation is that good strategic designers know how  to use existing trees well.

Mayday,


Architect trees= Good
Comittee/ Owner trees= Bad


Is that about right?

Joe,
 If it's a good architect. I think committees have little chance because they usually plant trees to punish.

[Joe Hancock]

Mayday,


Agreed. I would add that my observations are that most trees on golf courses have been planted to screen something or for perceived safety, not so much for punishment or strategic purposes. I doubt that trees have a significant impact on safety, but I’ll take visibility vs. trees for safety every time.


Comittees/ owners had/ have no idea what costs trees become in the future, whether it be pruning/ maintenance or removal.

[Bill Brightly]

Ward, can you send a link to the article?

[mike_malone]

Mayday,


Agreed. I would add that my observations are that most trees on golf courses have been planted to screen something or for perceived safety, not so much for punishment or strategic purposes. I doubt that trees have a significant impact on safety, but I’ll take visibility vs. trees for safety every time.


Comittees/ owners had/ have no idea what costs trees become in the future, whether it be pruning/ maintenance or removal.

Joe
You are right. It ends up being parallel to the line of play.

[Rick Lane]

Here is the article in question:
http://www.reesjonesinc.com/golden-horseshoe-gold/appreciating-the-forest-for-the-trees.php

I think the difference is that apparently, Golden Horseshoe was built in the trees and routed amongst them, whereas some older courses had trees added after the fact, so a bit of apples and oranges?

[Mike Hendren]

  He then whipped out the aerials from back in the day showing the course as virtually treeless. 

Historically, there were few barriers to entry - zoning, permitting, snail darters, etc. for building a golf course and more abundant land options.  In the absence of modern equipment who in their right mind would have selected a treed site over a barren one to construct a golf course.  Isn't it therefore more likely that courses were built on wide open sites?  Wouldn't that make it easy on the archie?

[mike_malone]

 I have started a topic on here years ago suggesting that " give me creeks and I'll give you a good golf course". Trees tend to spring up along creeks. Flynn welcomed trees on the property and knew how to use them. He wrote that  trees should be out of play, separate holes, provide a backdrop and shade on a hot day.


These rules work great for ADDED trees.

[Sean_A]

I have started a topic on here years ago suggesting that " give me creeks and I'll give you a good golf course". Trees tend to spring up along creeks. Flynn welcomed trees on the property and knew how to use them. He wrote that  trees should be out of play, separate holes, provide a backdrop (if a better interior view doesn't exist or that backdrop doesn't impede on the value of a hole) and shade on a hot day.

These rules work great for ADDED trees.


There, now I buy Flynn's concept.


Ciao

[mike_malone]

I have started a topic on here years ago suggesting that " give me creeks and I'll give you a good golf course". Trees tend to spring up along creeks. Flynn welcomed trees on the property and knew how to use them. He wrote that  trees should be out of play, separate holes, provide a backdrop (if a better interior view doesn't exist or that backdrop doesn't impede on the value of a hole) and shade on a hot day.

These rules work great for ADDED trees.


There, now I buy Flynn's concept.


Ciao

Flynn was briefer.

[Sean_A]

I have started a topic on here years ago suggesting that " give me creeks and I'll give you a good golf course". Trees tend to spring up along creeks. Flynn welcomed trees on the property and knew how to use them. He wrote that  trees should be out of play, separate holes, provide a backdrop (if a better interior view doesn't exist or that backdrop doesn't impede on the value of a hole) and shade on a hot day.

These rules work great for ADDED trees.


There, now I buy Flynn's concept.


Ciao

Flynn was briefer.

Briefer (?), but less precise and we see what that leads to. I really object to planting trees merely to separate holes because it is nearly impossible to seprate holes with trees and keep them out of play unless corridors are stupidly wide. Like Joe, I would rather see the trouble areas and be able to take action rather than blindly trusting trees (I can only presume safety is the reason Flynn liked tree separation between holes).  Keeping trees out of play is the far more important principle for the sake of golf and trees.

Ciao

[Robin_Hiseman]

Three pages in and not one post recognising the ecological benefit of trees.

Here's four to be going on with:

1. Trees sequester carbon, reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
2. Trees produce oxygen, which you might have noticed we find quite useful. A large deciduous tree produces enough oxygen daily to sustain four people.
3. Trees remove ozone from the atmosphere in urban areas.
4. A mature tree is a living and breathing ecosystem, providing food and shelter for a myriad of birds, insects and mammals.

I am not averse to removing trees on a clinical basis, but we all know of architects who wilfully hack down magnificent trees with a near religious fervour. I really object to that as a philosophy.

I always get far more pleasure from planting a tree than cutting one down.

[Adam Lawrence]

Robin


All plants sequester carbon, produce oxygen and remove ozone. Some trees are less good ecosystems than others, and some plants that might replace trees, e.g. heather, are significantly preferable in those terms to the trees they might replace.


Do you know the numbers for carbon sequestered and oxygen produced by a hectare of woodland, a hectare of grassland and a hectare of heath? I don't, and I'd be interested to. But it's important to realise that trees aren't the only plants that do what you say.

[Thomas Dai]

Somewhere there is probably a balance point between using leaf blowers and pick-up equipment to collect leaves and the eco-detriment this produces in relation to the enviro benefits that the trees have. ie no trees*, no leaves, no leaf blowers and no pick-up equip needed.

As to safety, I'm not entirely convinced by this. Off-course and course boundary issues I can appreciate, on-course not so sure. I'd rather see the incoming 1.68" missile and be aware of others playing. And hedges may provide a visual screen but the chatter of unseeing players on one side can still be heard on the other side when you're hitting a shot.

atb

* An aspect that needs consideration is deciduous trees vrs evergreens. Thoughts?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played a number of courses that had judicious tree removal, including Peachtree, Manufacturers, and Philly Cricket. They looked different but played essentially the same. The biggest gain was turf growth.

[Adrian_Stiff]

One of the reasons golf courses are granted permission in the first place is because of the ecological benefits we demonstrate at the planning stage.


The planting of say 5,000 new trees is seen as a massive plus when obtaining a UK permit for the reasons Robin eluded.


That aside the 1970 till now committee led "lets fill every space" has led to many UK golf courses looking very samey and cluttered as we often see in Sean Arble's tours.


Like all things there is a balance. The 5,000 new trees should be mainly cluster planting at 3.0m centres to form dense thickets and provide animal habitats. The remaining trees should be strongly debated as to their value for the benefit of the playing surfaces, the routing, safety and directing. This work should really be done in conjunction with an architect.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Adam

I am aware of the fact that all plants sequester carbon and have not researched the relative merits. I'm sure it would be interesting to know and may now take a look.  Precious few golf sites have the option of replacing trees with heather, though where I live I can see the damage done to heaths by the invasive colonising birch and pine. Of course, the greater good should be catered for and for heathland health and ecological diversity, it is good to see the light and air restored to the ground covers by removal of the swathes of weed trees. I've no problem with that.

I have been involved with the felling of hundreds, if not thousands of trees at the Uttoxeter project and have delighted in the playing corridors that have opened up as a result. The vast majority were whippy, overcrowded plantation stock and I wasn't sorry to remove them, but it is also true that a good number of these were removed with a heavy heart, as they were terrific stately trees. I understand the issue.

By way of mitigation, we have planted tens of thousands of indigenous trees in new woodlands that far outnumber the quantity of trees removed and shall supplement this with selective plantings of specimen trees. These woodlands have been positioned to not interfere with the long term playing corridors or the agronomic environment.  As I stated before, I enjoy planting a tree far more than cutting them down (with the exception of all Leylandii...which should burn in hell!)

The point I made is that few on this thread acknowledge the ecological merits of a good tree. Replacing a good tree with maintained grass is not a nett ecological gain, as the grass is a highly disturbed environment.

I get the arguments about turf growth and playability and have been involved in improving exactly that. Just don't go crazy with the chainsaw for the sake of vanity, or fashion.  We rally against the logging of the rainforests, but line up to raze century old trees on a golf course, just because they weren't there in an old photo. There is an undeniable hint of hypocrisy about that.

[Niall C]

Robin


I agree generally with what you say. I still think that judicious use of the chainsaw is required at most older courses here in Scotland. Perhaps if some rich golf playing philanthropist were to offer to plant a tree elsewhere for every tree taken down on a golf course then it might not be such a divisive issue.


Adrian


From my experience there is just as much tree planting going on on existing courses as is done on new courses. In fact I suspect in the last 40 or 50 years there will have been a lot more tree planting on older courses precisely because clubs probably weren't professionally advised and undertook tree planting willy nilly as and when any money/grants became available. At least on a new course you have professional input and a proper planting plan.


Joe


Like most I don't think trees act as a particularly good barrier and you are better off with visibility however I think the benefit of the trees isn't so much as to act as a screen but to make golfers focus a bit more in keeping the ball on the straight and narrow. I appreciate that not many of us can do that with any regularity but I wonder if there wasn't a line of trees whether we would hit more wayward shots ? Just a thought.


Niall 

[Adam Lawrence]

Rob -- I agree with every word of your last post.


I went to Fontainebleau in France on my way to our summer holiday a couple of years ago and walked the course before having lunch with the club secretary and president. They asked me what I thought and I said that the first thing they need to do is fix their tree problem -- the course is built in the old royal forest that was attached to the palace of Fontainebleau.


But for them it isn't so simple. Some of the trees that are interfering with the golf course are centuries old oaks. Many of the oldest trees in the forest have plaques on them saying how old they are, and what was happening at the time they were born. There was one tree that was far too close to the line of play on a particular whose plaque said it dated from around 1590, during the reign of Henri IV (the Good King Henri who wanted every Frenchman to have a chicken in the pot on a Sunday). I said to them -- I support tree removal but even I don't think you should cut that one down!

[mike_malone]

I have started a topic on here years ago suggesting that " give me creeks and I'll give you a good golf course". Trees tend to spring up along creeks. Flynn welcomed trees on the property and knew how to use them. He wrote that  trees should be out of play, separate holes, provide a backdrop (if a better interior view doesn't exist or that backdrop doesn't impede on the value of a hole) and shade on a hot day.

These rules work great for ADDED trees.


There, now I buy Flynn's concept.


Ciao

Flynn was briefer.

Briefer (?), but less precise and we see what that leads to. I really object to planting trees merely to separate holes because it is nearly impossible to seprate holes with trees and keep them out of play unless corridors are stupidly wide. Like Joe, I would rather see the trouble areas and be able to take action rather than blindly trusting trees (I can only presume safety is the reason Flynn liked tree separation between holes).  Keeping trees out of play is the far more important principle for the sake of golf and trees.

Ciao

Sean


Flynn wanted both the separation and the out of play. There are a few places at Rolling Green that added trees by the 30's which reflect this well.
He seemed to use a formula of 30 yards past the longest drive and 40 yards from the middle of the fairway.
I say this as a person with a reputation for cutting down trees. I wanted the trees down that were planted in the 70's which filled in the open spaces and ruined the design.

[Sean_A]

Amongst the rhetoric and pleas, I wonder if we aren't talking over ourselves.  So far as I know, nobody is advocating cutting down 500 year oaks.  That is little different to slaughtering a whale for sport.  I would argue that most of the time, tree removal is actually beneficial to the best trees in the area.  The arguments about the environment that Doc suggests are so minimal that their significance pales in comparison to our duty to keep the best specimens on a course healthy while also keeping the course healthy.  Bottom line, the question should be why does that tree exist in that spot rather than trying to preserve trees just because.  Golf courses are not arboretums, but yes, there are trees which should not only be protected, but also managed for its sake regardless of it effects a golf course...redesign the course if need be or put up with it.  That said, for every tree such as this, there are hundreds which harm best specimens and courses.  Its best to keep these discussions in balance and the reality is the unnecessary and harmful trees will always far outnumber the excellent trees.  It is an extremely small percentage of courses that have taken anything close to signficant action regarding trees.   

Mayday


To me specimen trees used between holes is not for separation, but for aesthetic enhancement.  Which is why I much prefer trees in 1s, 2s, or 3s.  I want to see these excellent trees in all their glory rather than buried in garbage.  Plus, I don't think 40 yards from the centre of fairways is enough distance for specimen trees unless there are quite sparingly used or if you are talking 40 yards from the edge of branches rather than the trunk.   

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()