The "back up" tree!

[Mark_Fine]

How many of you have seen this practice screw up golf courses?  It starts by someone thinking they have "critical" or "strategic" trees on their golf course.  They get concerned about what will happen if the tree/s dies so they start planting "back up" trees.  They then get concerned that the back up tree/s might also die so they plant more back up trees of different varieties.  Next thing you know you have a grove of trees backing up the original one that was there.  

[hp@hc]

Mark - I'm going to call this the NE mentality - please look at my response to the current thread on Florida golf!

[Forrest Richardson]

Trees are just grass, but taller. They don't need much mowing, and eventually get replaced. We create golf holes with turf as strategy, so why not trees? They are just as viable.

I have not seen too much difficulty with "back-up" trees, but I suppose it could be a problem. But, like turf, it is just a matter if thinning and startign over.

Gorse, by the way,is just a small tree.

[Dunlop_White]

Forrest wrote:

Trees are just grass, but taller.

Forrest, I guess it depends upon your perspect. Dr. Frank Rossi, Department of Horticulture at Cornell University, says that "trees are just weeds, but harder". Like weeds, trees and grass don't get along either.  

Classical architects rarely if ever made trees a focal point of play. They were influenced by links golf enough to know that strategic ground game contours should prevail.

[Dunlop_White]

Mark,

I see it most everywhere!

Remember all that you heard about the Dutch Elm Disease. Well, it was then that the "back-up" tree arrived. Truly, the American elm was a beautiful hardwood with unobtrusive root zones and high canopies.....When located in the proper places, it was a nice golf course tree if there ever was one...... As it perished, awareness of attrition escalated and the practice of planting "replacement trees"  became the rage. However, with sensitivities high, as a safety measure, a countless number of "back-up trees" were also planted in close proximity to healthy ones "in case" they too perished.

The problem has always been that these substitutes were cheap golf course varieties. Debris-ridden conifers and evergreens, such as white pines, hemlocks, cedars and spruces, were typical poor choices.  These varieties not only possess shallow root zones which are a maintenance burden, but they also manifest low extending limbs which restrict the swing, obstruct recovery play, and cause unhealthy summer turf and winterkill.

[Doug Siebert]

C'mon, you can't expect a guy named FORREST to not be in favor of trees!  

[Dunlop_White]

If your course has a hole with a critical, irreplaceable tree, don't plant back-up trees.There are other solutions! Instead simply treat the critical tree with tender loving care. Hire an arborist to install a lightning protection system, suspend branches if necessary, prune, and dead-limb (etc.). If it dies of old age or grows to become agronomically adverse and/or strategically improper, Capital Tree Relocators of Austin Texas can transplant a replacement tree, even large oaks.

For example, a crew of six can move a tree with a 20-inch trunk and 16-foot root ball from one part of the course to another. There's an equation you use to get the right size root ball. The cost to move a large tree is about $8,000. This is a deal, given that large, old oaks sell for about $50,000.

Its best if a tree does not make a hole, but if one does, there are alternatives to protect it and or replace it instead of backing it up with impinging small ones which clutter-up the understory.

[TEPaul]

The "Back up" tree!? That's an interesting subject!

At first I was going to say I haven't seen that much of that mentality but on second thought I might feel that because of something that happened at my course during our recent "restoration" or "master plan" or whatever we call it.

The subject of tree removal obviously came up with some resistance and adverserialness (as with almost every course like mine) as we'd had decades of continuous tree planting with little overall management or long term consideration, certainly not in the context of how the tree planting may have been affecting agronomy and altering strategies on the golf course.

We put in place a basic four step analysis of each and every tree considered on the master plan for removal and that very quickly appeared to diffuse the initial resistance and adverserialness to tree removal. Basically with not too many exceptions we were able to remove the trees that were slated for removal on the original master plan presented to the membership.

Then to our mild amazement the subject of "If we agree to let you take them down will you agree to replace them?" came up.

In retrospect I'd say because our four step tree analysis was basically so commonsensical and effective the general policy was adopted that we would not do that (replace a tree for one removed). The real reason that was acceptable to our membership, I think, was we really could convince almost any member of the fact that the problem with many of our trees wasn't that we didn't actually like them but unfortunately they'd been planted with little thought for the agronomy of the course and its basic strategies and that if they had been planted with that in mind decades ago we wouldn't have to be going through all this. Plus the very old member who had planted all those trees bought into our logic and offered to present that case to the membership.

So I guess we both killed two birds with one stone and also skated by the subject of "back up" trees without fully appreciating how well and how effectively we'd done that!

[TEPaul]

On the other hand, I do personally believe that some holes and their strategies revolve around a tree or trees beautifully. However, since trees are the single golf architectural feature that're both slow growing on the one hand and they die and are gone on the other hand managing their effects on strategies, agronomy and such is just very difficult to do over the long haul. The additional problem is not too many people think of golf architecture over the long haul--they think about it today and now!

[ForkaB]

Tom

Have you kept all those humongous Sycamores that Donald Ross used to frame many (all?) of his tees at GMGC?  Talk about visionary "design intent!"  I can just see DJR sittin' up in his grave and smirking:  "Try and build new tees that obsolete those babies, you Phillistines!"

PS--were you successful in selling your large Monterrey Pine to Pebble Beach for their sensitive 18th hole restoration?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Very fine points on your part regarding those original tee box sycamore trees. As the site of GMGC was a farm with few trees before becoming a golf course I've no real idea why those tee box sycamore trees were planted but I assume that Donald Ross must have either recommended them or known about them--as they were planted originally. I suspect they may've been for some type of general tee demarkation or for shade if a golfer decided to sit for a while---which might just fit in with the reason the club was founded in the first place--real minimal play!!

Being at least ninety years ago now certainly not all of them remain (as many died and none were purposely removed except one this year strictly for agronomic reasons). Some back tees have them on both sides of the tee boxes, some only one and some none any more. But you're right, having them there or even one of them does make it difficult to go back behind them with additional tee length--not that we aren't trying though!  

But only one that I can think of is truly in the way of going straight back. I'd like to go straight back on that particular hole---actually by simply using a tee box from another hole behind it but I'm quite certain that probably won't be possible because the membership will really resist considering taking out an original tee box sycamore!

The only other alternative I can see would be to create a situation of sort of "goal post" tee shot golf--certainly not a good thing! Tree triming is another intermediate alternative but have you ever seen a sycamore tree that has a "mohawk haircut". I'm sure you haven't but I'll guarantee you it ain't pretty!  The last alternative which I might recommend is to emulate what some Indian tribes used to use--that would be "total pate scalping". Of course if we do that to any of our original tee box sycamores we'll do it by taking a large chain saw to it about a foot from the ground and then bringing in a stump grinder, a front end loader and some turf!  

[Bye]

It is a rediculous concept! It never looks good, especially when trees are planted in a line.

Has anybody walked down the Mall in DC lately? They've done it there extensively, the back up trees look like they're about to die as the old trees are stealing all their nutrients.

[Lou_Duran]

TEP-

What are the four steps in your tree removal analysis?

[Dunlop_White]

Back-up trees can also look like little unwanted "tag-alongs" if singled out in the open, or too much "stuffing for the understory" if within a grove.

Again, it is best if a tree does not make a hole, but if one does, there are alternatives to protect it, preserve it, and/or replace it with a like/kind specimen instead of backing it up with impinging smaller ones.

[Lou_Duran]

redanman-

You may wish to include a fifth step- do it incrementally and at night!

[TEPaul]

"-no questions, please"

redanman:

Why no questions? Do you feel incapable of fielding convincing answers for those who might ask or do you think  if it were your call on a particular golf course or club you're someone who doesn't need to be asked questions of for some reason?

In any case--when you mention your first step of "cut em down" perhaps it would be wise to specify if you mean all of them, some of them, or perhaps, and better yet, which ones.

Also, your golf course is a William Flynn design and a very fine one, so I should ask you again are you completely familiar with Flynn's thoughts on trees and particular golf courses as well as his known use of them occasionally for strategic reasons? And if you are familiar with his thoughts on those things perhaps you might mention some distinctions in that regard rather than just to say "cut em down".

[mike_malone]

 I  think back up trees are necessary in some instances.At my course the #16 tee is protected from the#17 tee by trees that were on the property when the course was built.There is some strategic use to these trees,but they are critical for safety.I WANT PLANT SOME BACK UP TREES here of the hardwood type that replace the old trees in 50-100 years.
     The early membership had this long term view--they planted hardwoods in the 30's.

[mike_malone]

 Bill
    Of course Flynn had a different challenge at Rolling Green.He needed to cut parts of at least 5 holes out of trees .

[RDecker]

Having just spent the entire morning cleaning up debris blown around my course be last weeks fierce wind storm here in Mass. I think I have an ideal 4 step program.

      1. Sharpen the chain
      2. Check the oil
      3. Check the gas
      4. Get out of my way

[Joel_Stewart]

Next thing you know you have a grove of trees backing up the original one that was there.  

Mark:
4th hole of Richmond CC in Richmond, California.  They have a straight row of trees along the boarder of the property line.  Lets say 20 or 30 tall trees.  Then about 20 yards in from the property line and trees, they have another row of trees defining the fairway.  I wish I had a picture, perhaps Neal has one.

[Bill_McBride]

Joel, a second row of trees defining the fairway?  

Perhaps that could be "the first cut!" of the rough.  

[Dunlop_White]

A couple of cute back-up trees are below:

[tonyt]

RDecker,

Amen.

Dunlop,

Oh my God!

[TEPaul]

"Oh, BTW TEP, you take yourself too seriously."

redanman;

Perhaps, and if so I'll do my best to get over that. But at least I learned some time ago not to take you seriously.  

[Neal_Meagher]

Joel,

The secondary line of trees you refer to at Richmond C.C. (c. 1928) is indeed weird and probably uncalled for.  However, by looking at the old irrigation patterns and tree lines from an aerial from the 40's it seems obvious that this "internal" row of trees was installed to define the green grass area.

This concept is not new and was employed at a lot of courses in the days of yore due to less than adequate irrigation coverage.  I am continuing to work with them on rationalizing their tree plantings, which is occurring slowly but surely.

Additionally, the whole purpose for not only the tree plantings, which now include pines and eucalyptus trees about 80-90 feet tall, but the routing itself is due to gunpowder.  That is because of the courses' location between an old powder plant and a large petroleum tank farm, now both gone.  The thinking was that if there was an explosion at the powder plant, the dense tree plantings would mute the percussive effects before reaching the tank farm.  Fortunately, that never happened.

Unfortunately, that created a routing that goes back and forth over a prominent ridge in order to get the desired buffering effect instead of working with the ridge which would have resulted in a sexier routing.