[James Reader]

I’m very conscious that this may not be a popular view on here, but am I the only one that is getting more and more uncomfortable with the amount and nature of tree and scrub clearance that is being done on golf courses? 


First, let me explain where I’m coming from. 


I grew up playing a heathland course which had started to lose its character as a result of natural and, in some cases, deliberate tree growth.   On courses such as that, I’m all for efforts to remove trees to get back to something like what was there before golf came along.  It makes for a better course and is also good for a type of ecosystem that is rare in the UK, and that would probably be even more threatened if it hadn’t proved itself to be such great land for golf.


I’ve also no problem with selective tree removal - whether to improve the playability of a particular hole; get more light to the playing surface; or thin out trees that were planted far too close together at some point.  I’m absolutely all for getting rid of alien species such as rhododendrons and leylandii that a previous greens committee thought would make the course look nicer.


What concerns me are the examples I’m increasingly seeing on social media of courses removing areas of trees and scrub to make the course “tidier”. 


Two recent examples that have finally triggered me to write this, but there have been lots of others. 


Little Aston posted this week about how their winter tree work had left areas looking “neat and tidy” (for all i know, the work itself might well fall into one of the categories above, but it’s the idea that tidiness is a good thing that concerns me - it very rarely is for wildlife, and I’m personally not convinced it is for golf either!).  And Selby GC (which I don’t know) has tweeted proudly “before and after” pictures of what appears to be hawthorn scrub areas and a hedge that have been cleared out to leave bare ground under a few remaining trees.



With the world facing the linked challenges of a climate change emergency and a biodiversity crisis, I worry that golf is going to find itself increasingly on the wrong side of the environmental argument if it isn’t careful, and I don’t think that will be a good place for it to be.


Writing this, I find it interesting that I’ve assumed this won’t be a popular view on here, with the often enthusiastic support for getting rid of trees.  Perhaps I’m right.  But with this week’s news that two thirds of people across the world believe there is a climate change emergency, perhaps the Venn diagram of golf course architecture and environmental/rewilding enthusiasts has more overlap than I might think.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think - in really simple terms - there are a lot of examples of very poor planting of non-indigenous, cheap species in linear fashion along many post-WW2 golf courses in GB&I.


They should never have been put there in the first place.


But in general, I agree with a lot of your points, always remembering that trees grow and therefore have to be cut back for playability on occasion.

[Sean_A]

I might be wrong, but I think there are cases of tree removal which encourage biodiversity.

My angle has always been three-fold.

1. Grass needs light and air to grow.

2. Golf needs space for the game to be properly played.  I guess this is a form of tidying up.

3. Aesthetically enhance courses by showcasing the lovely tree species...this is done by removing crap species which block views of lovely trees.  This also offers more recovery golf options which in my opinion is one of the fundamentals of golf design and play. I guess this is a form of tidying up?

That said, I have seen a few trees removed which left me angry. Sometimes, golf needs to make way for certain trees.

BTW...Little Aston needs tree work!  The design obviously suffers for the presence of some trees. They have been selectively removing trees for years.  Beau Desert has taken up the mantle....I need to get back to see the what it looks like.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

There is a course local to me that has a wide variety of ornamental and fruit trees to the extent that they have been catalogued. The problem is that the plantings took place subsequent to opening day and many now encroach the playing corridors. Any conversation about selective tree clearing has been met with horror as it’s a municipal facility.

[Niall C]

James


I'm at a disadvantage as I don't really do social media. GCA is about as close as it gets for me so can't comment on the cases you cite. That said, I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying however I think a lot of clubs, greens committees and greenkeepers are alive to the issue although maybe there is a ways to go yet, particularly in communicating what they are doing (as I said, don't really do social media so could be well off with those comments).


In terms of what they are doing at Little Aston, what were they planning for the bit they cleared out going forward ? Were they planning to plant shrubs, grasses or just let it rejuvenate or just keep it short grass ? If it was short grass then presumably it was because the area is in play which I think fair enough and perhaps there might be other areas of the course not in play which could be managed with biodiversity in mind ?


Certainly it's an issue that clubs will and should have to address going forward.


Niall

[Niall C]

Just read Ally's comments re planting post WWII (probably mainly 70's and 80'ds I'd have thought) and agree wholeheartedly.


Niall

[Bill Gayne]

I think it really depends on the location and how long it would take the land to return to it's natural state if necessary. I live in central Virginia and the farm to forest cycle is approximately 25 years and it returns to a natural look much quicker. I have no problem with tree removal for golf courses in my local area. I have a different opinion on the clearing of say redwood and sequoia trees.

[Thomas Dai]

What is natural?
A great deal of the tree planting that has taken place on golf courses has been the planting of non-indigenous species, species that weren’t around before golf courses. An environmental expect reviewed the parkland course I play most frequently and highlighted that only about 15% of the trees, scrub, etc on the course is actually indigenous to the location. Indeed the environmentalist was actually in favour of the course removing the non-indigenous species.
In addition, go back to before golf and the heathlands for example were pretty open spaces with plenty of heather, few tress and grazed by animals. And parkland courses were usually farmers fields divided by hedges often centuries old.
It’s also worth considering the unseen aspects of tree and scrub etc ..... things like root growth and blocked drains, drains that not only effect golf courses but effect the water flow across other land too.
Whilst I appreciate the points James is making I reckon there’s still a long way to go before we go too far in terms of tree and scrub and brush etc removal.
Atb


PS - I noticed the social media photos and comments about Little Aston and immediately clicked the ‘like’ button. It needed a good hair cut. Nice to see it getting one. Beau Desert too.

[jeffwarne]

a very thoughtful question James, and another theme that can get overdone in the endless game of keeping up with the Jones's.


Certainly a process that has to be done slowly and carefully, and of course trees and understory have to be managed.


When we cut back and our removed many in our thick monostand of 20-50 foot scrub oaks surrounding our play areas, we found out that the sunlight and increased air flow increased biodiversity dramatically, which allowed the native bayberry, blueberry, mountain laurel,pitch pines, blue stem and multiple other species to flourish, including a return of an abundance of wildlife(deer, rabbits, foxes, a coyote,ospreys etc.) that had taken to foraging elsewhere due to the lack of natural food sources.


While it looked a bit tidier in the intitial process, ultimately the areas became no more playable, but the views on and off course increased exponentially and the playing turf received the needed airflow and sunlight.We are restricted in our "cleared" acreage so anytime we make an area more "playable" and impose turf we have to return another area to native vegetation-so it's a careful and never ending process.


The local environmentalists(in a tough neighborhood) and Audubon people were quite pleased with the return of biodiversity and wildlife habitat to the site.

[Niall C]

Jeff


A great post and a great example. Sounds like a win-win situation that was worked out with rather than in spite of the environmentalists. Maybe not exactly what you'd have done without that input but still a good result for the course.


Niall

[Mike Sweeney]

I work with Biodynamic Farmers, which is a stricter version of Organic Farming. I really don't know the specifics of how they do it, but they are big on establishing and growing Buffer Zones:


https://www.demeter-usa.org/downloads/Demeter-Farm-Standard.pdf


Buffer zones must be created and maintained between certified fields and chemically treated acres.... Each situation will be approached on a case by case basis.


Biodynamic farms can't compete financially with chemical farms, so this would add cost to any new golf project.

Finding Buffer Zones on a small established golf property is going to be a problem, and our governing bodies of golf are not helping this conversation with the ever expansion of technology/distance.

Just as a reference point, if there are 15,000 golf courses in America on roughly 150 acres each = 2,250,000 golf acres. Bill Gates is the largest farm land owner in the USA and only has 242,000 acres of land - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-gates-is-now-the-largest-farmland-owner-in-america-11610818582

Thus, the golf industry is larger than we think in this conversation.

[Mike_Young]

I don't do that much historical research on trees but I am under the assumption that when the world speaks of tree loss we need to pick a date, just as is discussed here, when taking something back to the vision of the ODG.  So, I we still may have more trees today than were here in , say, 1950.  And here is why:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auA2tnubI64&feature=youtu.be.   I am sure this happened in places other than Georgia.    JMO

[John Emerson]

Native grass areas create a far more diverse population of organism than a bunch of weed trees ever will.  It’s not even close.  Not to mention that C absorption from perennial grasses is superior as well.  Loss of organic matter is playing a huge part on climate change.  Grasses can fix that a much faster rate than trees ever will.  Grasses > trees.  There is no argument in this.


The problem is the inputs.  The shorter the grass gets mowed and the more intensely it’s managed leads to more inputs.  Fertilizers, pesticides, mowing etc...it’s not them (trees, grasses etc...) it’s us and our ridiculous expectations of the game.  We are the problem

[Thomas Dai]

An area not far from me was grazed by animals for centuries and was very open in aspect. In 1980, that’s only 40 yrs ago, the grazing animals were removed and the area is now completely covered in trees and scrub and brush and mushy wet spots. It would take an enormous, time consuming and expensive effort return the area to what it had preciously been for centuries.
Vegetation such this grows circa 2%-8% per year, some places a lot more, and that’s compound year-on-year growth, so if unchecked, if ignored or neglected, it grows pretty rapidly.
Be careful what you wish for and be careful what you ignore or neglect ... and neglect in relation to penny-pinching committees looking to cutback on course maintenance budgets, is often pretty key. Members though will happily dip into their own pocket to buy a small, cheap non-indigenous sapling to plant in an inappropriate location to commemorate some aged relative or friend or even pet that’s died. And one day such sapling will be huge and more than likely be a problem.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

An area not far from me was grazed by animals for centuries and was very open in aspect. In 1980, that’s only 40 yrs ago, the grazing animals were removed and the area is now completely covered in trees and scrub and brush and mushy wet spots.

This is an important part of the discussion.  Much of what people think of as "natural" landscapes only look that way because of other human activity -- farming, grazing, etc.  The heathlands would not have been free of trees if there weren't [domestic] animals on them to eat the saplings.


It does bother me that people's thinking on these issues is so black and white and that the solution is either "heavy trees off the fairway" or "no trees at all".  Or why people think only of trees, and not shrubs and native grasses and other ground cover plants.  There is a huge palette of materials available to us, and most golf courses never get past the handful of things that a seed salesman or a nursery owner are pushing.


Likewise, the proponents of "biodiversity" on UK links seem to be recommending the same solution for every course.

[Sean_A]

An area not far from me was grazed by animals for centuries and was very open in aspect. In 1980, that’s only 40 yrs ago, the grazing animals were removed and the area is now completely covered in trees and scrub and brush and mushy wet spots. It would take an enormous, time consuming and expensive effort return the area to what it had preciously been for centuries.
Vegetation such this grows circa 2%-8% per year, some places a lot more, and that’s compound year-on-year growth, so if unchecked, if ignored or neglected, it grows pretty rapidly.
Be careful what you wish for and be careful what you ignore or neglect ... and neglect in relation to penny-pinching committees looking to cutback on course maintenance budgets, is often pretty key. Members though will happily dip into their own pocket to buy a small, cheap non-indigenous sapling to plant in an inappropriate location to commemorate some aged relative or friend or even pet that’s died. And one day such sapling will be huge and more than likely be a problem.
Atb

Not to mention the Malverns. It's unbelievable how many trees are on the hills these days. 20 years ago they were basically bald.

I noticed a load of what are probably self seeders at Knole Park, many of which would have come on since the hurricane hit. We are seeing first hand the effect of neglecting tree management over a period of 30 years.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

I have always enjoyed some of the quotes from Flynn about trees.  He never made the visit across the pond to see the great British Isles courses which might have biased his judgment but he did express his feelings about them:


“The old idea was to have golf courses as free from trees as possible.  This notion, no doubt, was imported from Scotland because when golf was first taken up in the U.S. we knew very little about the game and modeled our courses on those of the Scotch which were, for the most part, built along the seashore where there were no trees.”  Flynn went on to say, “It is impossible to conceive that the ‘Canny Scots’ would have denuded their courses of trees if there had been any there originally.  As a race they are entirely too thrifty for any such waste as that.”


Moreover, Flynn stated,


“Today the old ideas have been discarded and the prevailing belief is that trees, most emphatically, have a fixed place on a golf course.  This is true for many reasons:


First - Because there are few, if any sites available that are devoid of trees and it is a costly operation to cut them down and remove them.
Second - Trees add beauty to a course forming picturesque backgrounds and delightful vistas.
Third - Their shade is most refreshing on a hot summer day.
Fourth - They are of great practical value int segregating the various holes.”


The problem is that many golf courses (not all) have had tree plantings done by members and/or arborists vs golf architects.  Often the wrong kinds of trees are planted in the wrong places and that leads to problems.  I will leave it at that for now but trees do have a place on many golf courses if managed well. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

As well seeing he never visited.


“Scotch” indeed...

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
That is correct he never saw or visited.  And I just typed it as he wrote it 

[Tom_Doak]

The problem is that many golf courses (not all) have had tree plantings done by members and/or arborists vs golf architects.  Often the wrong kinds of trees are planted in the wrong places and that leads to problems.  I will leave it at that for now but trees do have a place on many golf courses if managed well.

Did Flynn actually leave plans to plant trees, or just try to utilize the trees that were already there?  All of his four points are about existing trees.


Personally, I have worked with trees on a lot of sites, but only made a planting plan to add trees on two or three of them, and always at the client's insistence.

[Adam Lawrence]

An area not far from me was grazed by animals for centuries and was very open in aspect. In 1980, that’s only 40 yrs ago, the grazing animals were removed and the area is now completely covered in trees and scrub and brush and mushy wet spots.

This is an important part of the discussion.  Much of what people think of as "natural" landscapes only look that way because of other human activity -- farming, grazing, etc.  The heathlands would not have been free of trees if there weren't [domestic] animals on them to eat the saplings.

The heathlands would not have been free of trees if primitive man had not felled the trees on that land to provide grazing for animals! Heathland is a totally created landscape. It is vital that this is remembered. It doesn't make the landscape any less valuable.

[mike_malone]

 I’m fairly clear that Flynn didn’t advocate planting new trees in play.

[Mike_Young]

An area not far from me was grazed by animals for centuries and was very open in aspect. In 1980, that’s only 40 yrs ago, the grazing animals were removed and the area is now completely covered in trees and scrub and brush and mushy wet spots.

This is an important part of the discussion.  Much of what people think of as "natural" landscapes only look that way because of other human activity -- farming, grazing, etc.  The heathlands would not have been free of trees if there weren't [domestic] animals on them to eat the saplings.

The heathlands would not have been free of trees if primitive man had not felled the trees on that land to provide grazing for animals! Heathland is a totally created landscape. It is vital that this is remembered. It doesn't make the landscape any less valuable.

Adam,This is one of my favorite hiking spots   https://www.hikewnc.info/trailheads/black-balsam/. and supposedly once it was cut free of trees the altitude and wind would not allow them to reestablish themselves.  Not sure of all the details but interesting change and has been there for years in sthat state...

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I think Colt was the best (and the first) at laying out specific tree planting plans.  Flynn did share some tree planting advice but was more of the opinion that a club’s landscape expert should work closely with him on any plantings and not independently.  This is sage advice.  Flynn, however, would at times note specific trees on his drawings (rarely as Mike said were they new ones) as most all were existing trees.  If he found a beautiful tree on his property he would often purposely work around it to save it and/or incorporate it into the hole but he didn't advocate purposely planting new ones that would be in any way "strategic". 

[Grant Saunders]

Our course is in the planning stages of seeking to rationalize the number of and types of [/size]species of trees on the property. We have a number of issues with trees becoming old and dangerous, and fast growing exotics that were planted.One key strategy we are using to tackle the issue is to not view it as a tree removal plan program or plan but rather as a revegetation policy. We are fortunate to have a member who specialises in botanical restorations and biodiversity who has been invaluable in helping us with the process. Our property has been mapped with each existing tree having been measured for circumference and canopy area. A formula is then applied to approximate the age and life stage of the tree to determine when it will likely cause issues so planning can be undertaken. Maps are generated detailing the area occupied by exotics, natives and other categories that enable us to quantify any potential changes.The proposed removal of large exotics (pines, gums etc) is scheduled to be offset by the planting of stands of natives in out of play areas with a view that these areas will ultimately be free of human intervention. In terms of biodiversity, areas that are left to develop into a more natural state and will be left to their own devices offer greater benefits than either singular tree plantings or even copses of trees. At the completion of this project, which is planned over 30 years, the property will in fact have a greater area of vegetative canopy than it currently does. Areas of unmown grasses, where appropriate, will also be employed to further increase the habitat for local fauna. [/font]

Our property is leased land so the club are taking the stance of being a responsible steward of the land and striving to improve the landscape and its ecological currency. We are in an urban environment bordered by housing and a river and carry a high profile in terms of visibility to the public.[/font]

As noted elsewhere in this thread, there seems to exist a very black and white view regarding golf and trees (along with a number of other theories!) and there really does need to be an acceptance that fast changing societal pressures will make it increasingly difficult to simply cut down trees. Im not suggesting there isnt a need for tree removal in many situations, but that thought needs to be given to balancing it with remediation also.  [/font]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()