News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Edward Glidewell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2021, 01:50:04 PM »
And you already said that tree removal projects left the courses better than was previously the case. Are you expecting to be 100% satisfied with every job? I honestly don't include good tree removal decision making with an additional decision to add unplayable rough. The two ideas are independent and one doesn't naturally follow the other.

Ciao


I agree that they don't necessarily follow each other, but I wonder how much of it is due to maintenance budgets/time. Areas with trees don't really require any maintenance, at least not on a regular basis -- once they're gone, you're going to have to mow that area regularly if you don't want it to become unplayable (depending on the region/climate, of course).


Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2021, 03:55:11 PM »
We have a major tree removal project underway. I agree with 90% of the plan. What scares me is if we make a mistake, I'll be long gone before we can get a new tree to grow large enough to make a difference.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2021, 05:24:34 AM »
And you already said that tree removal projects left the courses better than was previously the case. Are you expecting to be 100% satisfied with every job? I honestly don't include good tree removal decision making with an additional decision to add unplayable rough. The two ideas are independent and one doesn't naturally follow the other.

Ciao


I agree that they don't necessarily follow each other, but I wonder how much of it is due to maintenance budgets/time. Areas with trees don't really require any maintenance, at least not on a regular basis -- once they're gone, you're going to have to mow that area regularly if you don't want it to become unplayable (depending on the region/climate, of course).

Oh man, couldn't disagree more. Trees need serious maintenance and that should include leaf removal. Ignoring trees for so long is the reason courses get so clogged up. I suspect its easy to ignore trees until there is an issue rather than budget for trees to properly enhance the course by being kept in check.

Some places had storms take down tons of trees. Knole Park in Seven Oaks is one such place. It's painful to see what has grown unchecked since the 87 hurricane. The club would be wise to jump on the problem now before maintenance becomes a serious headache.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2021, 05:34:09 AM »
An important aspect of tree removal is not to let similar things grow again! Prevent through good maintenance practices the saplings, brush, scrub etc that like to self-seed and re-generate from returning.
Atb

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2021, 11:16:00 AM »
From a UK perspective it is very important that UK courses HAVE TREES.


Most golf courses are Carbon NEGATIVE as a business because of having them.


That is not to say the playing corridors should be so constricted that golf is not playable, but there needs to be some very very serious thoughts given by greens committees and architects when the make their case for chop down.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2021, 11:46:55 AM »
From a UK perspective it is very important that UK courses HAVE TREES.


Most golf courses are Carbon NEGATIVE as a business because of having them.


That is not to say the playing corridors should be so constricted that golf is not playable, but there needs to be some very very serious thoughts given by greens committees and architects when the make their case for chop down.


All plants sequester carbon. Do we know the difference in sequestration capacity between an acre of trees and an acre of grass? (serious question).
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2021, 12:08:34 PM »
Adam,

Here was one study a couple of years ago, and it seems to depend.

In a stable environment without fires, trees are better.  But, in an area with regular burns, grass is better due to grass storing most of it underground.

https://www.earth.com/news/trees-grass-carbon-sink/

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2021, 12:10:57 PM »
As to a few questions above,  about wishing for a few mature trees here and there,  a company  'More Than Trees'   can plant or move very large and mature trees of almost any species.   They have worked at  Sage Valley, Congaree, Augusta National, et al.  Of course a lot of such plantings are for McMansions in Atlanta suburbs.  Planting almost mature trees along the driveway, house, hillsides, etc.  is usually in landscaping plans for such. 


From UC Davis...........
"Unlike forests, grasslands sequester most of their carbon underground, while forests store it mostly in woody biomass and leaves. When wildfires cause trees to go up in flames, the burned carbon they formerly stored is released back to the atmosphere. When fire burns grasslands, however, the carbon fixed underground tends to stay in the roots and soil, making them more adaptive to climate change.
“In a stable climate, trees store more carbon than grasslands,” said co-author Houlton, director of the John Muir Institute of the Environment at UC Davis. “But in a vulnerable, warming, drought-likely future, we could lose some of the most productive carbon sinks on the planet. California is on the frontlines of the extreme weather changes that are beginning to occur all over the world. We really need to start thinking about the vulnerability of ecosystem carbon, and use this information to de-risk our carbon investment and conservation strategies in the 21st century.”

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #58 on: November 05, 2021, 12:18:14 PM »
Serious question. In a stable climate does a goat fart damage the environment more than a gasoline powered mower? I do believe that I recently read that it is the belch that causes the most trouble. Tomayto, tomahto

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2021, 12:21:50 PM »
Serious question. In a stable climate does a goat fart damage the environment more than a gasoline powered mower? I do believe that I recently read that it is the belch that causes the most trouble. Tomayto, tomahto


I doubt that research has been done. Go ahead John, collect goat farts and figure out how much methane is in them. You might get your name on a scientific paper.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2021, 01:13:27 PM »
If we can agree that from this chart that 8 goats equals one cow the paper writes itself. You may not be aware of the attacks on our cattle industry.


https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_002433.pdf

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2021, 01:42:39 PM »
This doesn't pertain exactly to the topic, but I'm wondering if anyone knows that the solution will be at SF golf club.  My understanding is that the trees there all have a similar lifespan and that they were all planted around the same time... and that the maturation date is coming up in the coming decades. 


That seems like a very unique challenge to deal with since the trees are so enormous and iconic.   

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2021, 02:16:38 PM »
Just an observation...in recent months I've come across any number of club history books which photographically chronicle the evolution of their courses, often with aerial photos.   Most of these clubs are of older vintage in the northeast, but the trending is pretty ubiquitous.

I don't think it would be more than a slight exaggeration to say that most of these courses show a progression from being built on open farmland that relied on ground obstacles (i.e. bunkers, creeks, slopes, etc.) to courses literally choked in forests of tree plantings, generally starting after WWII and continuing unabated for six decades until recent efforts have been made at a number of prominent courses to relocate their original golf courses under all of the flora and fauna, flotsam and jetsam and assorted, associated debris.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2021, 03:28:04 PM »
Have a look at Ian Andrews Instagram account. Many before-and-after photos of tree removal/management projects have been posted. Enlightening they are (in more than one way).
Atb

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #64 on: November 05, 2021, 03:32:05 PM »
Just an observation...in recent months I've come across any number of club history books which photographically chronicle the evolution of their courses, often with aerial photos.   Most of these clubs are of older vintage in the northeast, but the trending is pretty ubiquitous.

I don't think it would be more than a slight exaggeration to say that most of these courses show a progression from being built on open farmland that relied on ground obstacles (i.e. bunkers, creeks, slopes, etc.) to courses literally choked in forests of tree plantings, generally starting after WWII and continuing unabated for six decades until recent efforts have been made at a number of prominent courses to relocate their original golf courses under all of the flora and fauna, flotsam and jetsam and assorted, associated debris.
Mike I agree and in general almost the entire population has been conditioned that trees are good, keep them and add to them at any cost, that it makes it difficult to cut through that ethos for golf courses. This summer I drove through the neighborhood I grew up in and definitely the overarching thing I noticed were how big the trees were in everyone's yards. They were planted in the early 70's and after 50 plus years they are very big. This is great and adds character to the community and good benefits for our environment. However, with trees comes maintenance and in many cases expensive maintenance.

However, those same trees are counterproductive in many cases for our golf courses as it chokes our turf grass of sun and air flow. But to separate a golf course from the rest of the world's view can be a tough sell. For golf courses yes they are living organic things that evolve over time. However, you have to keep the main thing the main thing, which is what is best for the course? Do you allow an Oakmont choking fairways situation to totally change the play ability of your course? The main thing for a golf course is to keep their course design (however that is decided) in regards to trees, then factor in the existing trees effects on the turf. I think they come out in both situations and justified. They affect strategy, that was never intended as well as they have a negative effect on turf.


This just is nails in the chalkboard to so many and polarizing topic. Keep the trees that don't affect the strategy or turf and even plant more if you want around the perimeter as most courses like to have a tree barrier or fence for privacy in cities.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2021, 08:15:00 PM »
A golf club could achieve far more by donating money to peat regeneration project compared to worrying about trapping carbon on its property with trees.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/for-the-love-of-peat/

Fascinating podcast on bogs/peatlands and carbon. Things were fucked up horribly in Scotland.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/mini-stories-volume-10/transcript/

And since we are in Scotland, a wild podcast about sheep.

Ciao
« Last Edit: November 07, 2021, 04:22:12 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2021, 11:26:04 PM »
From a UK perspective it is very important that UK courses HAVE TREES.


Most golf courses are Carbon NEGATIVE as a business because of having them.


That is not to say the playing corridors should be so constricted that golf is not playable, but there needs to be some very very serious thoughts given by greens committees and architects when the make their case for chop down.


All plants sequester carbon. Do we know the difference in sequestration capacity between an acre of trees and an acre of grass? (serious question).


The only plant ecosystem that sequesters carbon better than grass is perennial forest. Ie:the Amazon rainforest.
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

James Reader

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2021, 06:38:00 AM »
From a UK perspective it is very important that UK courses HAVE TREES.


Most golf courses are Carbon NEGATIVE as a business because of having them.


That is not to say the playing corridors should be so constricted that golf is not playable, but there needs to be some very very serious thoughts given by greens committees and architects when the make their case for chop down.


All plants sequester carbon. Do we know the difference in sequestration capacity between an acre of trees and an acre of grass? (serious question).


The only plant ecosystem that sequesters carbon better than grass is perennial forest. Ie:the Amazon rainforest.




There is a big difference in that respect between natural grasslands and a managed environment such as a golf course - and the way in which it is managed will also have a significant impact (fuel, water, fertiliser inputs etc.).  What is unarguable though is that, of all the reasons to remove trees, improved carbon sequestration cannot be on of them.  The existing trees have already sequestered carbon that will inevitably be released if they are cut down.


John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2021, 11:53:17 AM »
From a UK perspective it is very important that UK courses HAVE TREES.


Most golf courses are Carbon NEGATIVE as a business because of having them.


That is not to say the playing corridors should be so constricted that golf is not playable, but there needs to be some very very serious thoughts given by greens committees and architects when the make their case for chop down.


All plants sequester carbon. Do we know the difference in sequestration capacity between an acre of trees and an acre of grass? (serious question).


The only plant ecosystem that sequesters carbon better than grass is perennial forest. Ie:the Amazon rainforest.




There is a big difference in that respect between natural grasslands and a managed environment such as a golf course - and the way in which it is managed will also have a significant impact (fuel, water, fertiliser inputs etc.).  What is unarguable though is that, of all the reasons to remove trees, improved carbon sequestration cannot be on of them.  The existing trees have already sequestered carbon that will inevitably be released if they are cut down.
This is not true.  The rate at which fertilized grass sequesters carbon is higher than a grass land.  Added N = faster growth rate. Faster growth rate = faster C accumulations. And then you add in the C addition of returning the grass clippings.  The offset is the fuel burning to mow and you still come out net positive for managed turfgrasses.
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #69 on: November 06, 2021, 02:53:25 PM »
Can a case be made here for paving over the forest with asphalt? The additional runoff can be stored and used to water future golf courses.


The above is a response to those suggesting cutting down a forest is good for the environment.

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #70 on: November 06, 2021, 04:04:02 PM »
   Pave paradise; put up a parking lot?!

Edward Glidewell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2021, 04:22:17 PM »
And you already said that tree removal projects left the courses better than was previously the case. Are you expecting to be 100% satisfied with every job? I honestly don't include good tree removal decision making with an additional decision to add unplayable rough. The two ideas are independent and one doesn't naturally follow the other.

Ciao


I agree that they don't necessarily follow each other, but I wonder how much of it is due to maintenance budgets/time. Areas with trees don't really require any maintenance, at least not on a regular basis -- once they're gone, you're going to have to mow that area regularly if you don't want it to become unplayable (depending on the region/climate, of course).

Oh man, couldn't disagree more. Trees need serious maintenance and that should include leaf removal. Ignoring trees for so long is the reason courses get so clogged up. I suspect its easy to ignore trees until there is an issue rather than budget for trees to properly enhance the course by being kept in check.

Some places had storms take down tons of trees. Knole Park in Seven Oaks is one such place. It's painful to see what has grown unchecked since the 87 hurricane. The club would be wise to jump on the problem now before maintenance becomes a serious headache.

Ciao


I don't think there's any way that trees require the same type of maintenance as grass, nor that they cost nearly as much to maintain. If they did, we likely wouldn't have ever seen trees proliferate the way they did on golf courses, if only because of budget issues. Now if you're talking about trees that are killing grass on fairways/greens, then that's a completely different story -- but I assumed we were talking about trees that are set back a bit from the playing corridors.


I'd love to hear some of our superintendents chime in on trees vs. grass in overall maintenance, though. It's hard for me to believe that even just having to mow additional turf acreage every few days wouldn't cost far more than having trees there, and if you don't mow, then you get the kind of lost ball gunch no one likes.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2021, 06:09:10 PM »
And you already said that tree removal projects left the courses better than was previously the case. Are you expecting to be 100% satisfied with every job? I honestly don't include good tree removal decision making with an additional decision to add unplayable rough. The two ideas are independent and one doesn't naturally follow the other.

Ciao


I agree that they don't necessarily follow each other, but I wonder how much of it is due to maintenance budgets/time. Areas with trees don't really require any maintenance, at least not on a regular basis -- once they're gone, you're going to have to mow that area regularly if you don't want it to become unplayable (depending on the region/climate, of course).

Oh man, couldn't disagree more. Trees need serious maintenance and that should include leaf removal. Ignoring trees for so long is the reason courses get so clogged up. I suspect its easy to ignore trees until there is an issue rather than budget for trees to properly enhance the course by being kept in check.

Some places had storms take down tons of trees. Knole Park in Seven Oaks is one such place. It's painful to see what has grown unchecked since the 87 hurricane. The club would be wise to jump on the problem now before maintenance becomes a serious headache.

Ciao


I don't think there's any way that trees require the same type of maintenance as grass, nor that they cost nearly as much to maintain. If they did, we likely wouldn't have ever seen trees proliferate the way they did on golf courses, if only because of budget issues. Now if you're talking about trees that are killing grass on fairways/greens, then that's a completely different story -- but I assumed we were talking about trees that are set back a bit from the playing corridors.


I'd love to hear some of our superintendents chime in on trees vs. grass in overall maintenance, though. It's hard for me to believe that even just having to mow additional turf acreage every few days wouldn't cost far more than having trees there, and if you don't mow, then you get the kind of lost ball gunch no one likes.


I am definitely talking about trees that are set well back, to create say a 75 yard corridor for fairways. I also never said its cheaper to have grass than trees, just that trees cost a lot more to properly manage than people think. Which is why tons of self seed trees exist. A golf course is for playing golf and it costs money to properly manage fairway corridors. It doesn't really make sense to argue about trees being cheaper if the game is spoiled by them. IMO almost all courses are not wide enough. I would rather we maintained proper width with higher heights than improper widths with lower heights. But I am not a guy who values 10+ stimp and four heights of grass within a 20 yard distance. IMO the priorities of modern maintenance have gone a bit wild.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Edward Glidewell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #73 on: November 07, 2021, 06:35:19 PM »
And you already said that tree removal projects left the courses better than was previously the case. Are you expecting to be 100% satisfied with every job? I honestly don't include good tree removal decision making with an additional decision to add unplayable rough. The two ideas are independent and one doesn't naturally follow the other.

Ciao


I agree that they don't necessarily follow each other, but I wonder how much of it is due to maintenance budgets/time. Areas with trees don't really require any maintenance, at least not on a regular basis -- once they're gone, you're going to have to mow that area regularly if you don't want it to become unplayable (depending on the region/climate, of course).

Oh man, couldn't disagree more. Trees need serious maintenance and that should include leaf removal. Ignoring trees for so long is the reason courses get so clogged up. I suspect its easy to ignore trees until there is an issue rather than budget for trees to properly enhance the course by being kept in check.

Some places had storms take down tons of trees. Knole Park in Seven Oaks is one such place. It's painful to see what has grown unchecked since the 87 hurricane. The club would be wise to jump on the problem now before maintenance becomes a serious headache.

Ciao


I don't think there's any way that trees require the same type of maintenance as grass, nor that they cost nearly as much to maintain. If they did, we likely wouldn't have ever seen trees proliferate the way they did on golf courses, if only because of budget issues. Now if you're talking about trees that are killing grass on fairways/greens, then that's a completely different story -- but I assumed we were talking about trees that are set back a bit from the playing corridors.


I'd love to hear some of our superintendents chime in on trees vs. grass in overall maintenance, though. It's hard for me to believe that even just having to mow additional turf acreage every few days wouldn't cost far more than having trees there, and if you don't mow, then you get the kind of lost ball gunch no one likes.


I am definitely talking about trees that are set well back, to create say a 75 yard corridor for fairways. I also never said its cheaper to have grass than trees, just that trees cost a lot more to properly manage than people think. Which is why tons of self seed trees exist. A golf course is for playing golf and it costs money to properly manage fairway corridors. It doesn't really make sense to argue about trees being cheaper if the game is spoiled by them. IMO almost all courses are not wide enough. I would rather we maintained proper width with higher heights than improper widths with lower heights. But I am not a guy who values 10+ stimp and four heights of grass within a 20 yard distance. IMO the priorities of modern maintenance have gone a bit wild.


Ciao


I completely agree about width and most of the rest of what you're saying.


My original point was simply that adding unplayable rough probably is a byproduct of tree removal in some cases. You were saying they are completely independent and I don't think that's true, only because removing the trees creates an area that will become lost ball gunk unless it becomes part of regular maintenance for with spraying/mowing/whatever. I'm sure there are courses that didn't intentionally plan to have deep rough etc. in those areas but don't have the budget (or the will) to keep them playable.


I'm not arguing that I think the trees should stay. I just think there are likely courses that would look at those areas and think, "Well, the course is a lot wider now and people shouldn't hit it where the trees used to be, so we don't need to spend money keeping those areas playable. That's an expense we don't need."
« Last Edit: November 07, 2021, 06:38:44 PM by Edward Glidewell »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2021, 12:37:17 PM »
   Pave paradise; put up a parking lot?!
As Alan Partridge said, "Joni complains they 'Paved paradise to put up a parking lot', a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.”"
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back