[Sean_A]

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."

A course can only accomodate so much width.  At some point ya gotta decide what shouldn't be maintained as playable space. Generally speaking, 75 yards is reasonable. Ideally, for parkland golf I would like to see two heights of cut, greens and everything else. I would also like to see large specimen trees more dotted throughout the property, somewhat like the idea of random bunkering and how orginal parks were designed. Basically treating trees like any other feature, but in limited numbers just like it should dbe for bunkers, hollows, humps, ditches etc. If there was one no- green height it wouldn't be that bad to maintain and there would be space to play around greens. It would never happen in this age health and safety and people are too bought into hole separation and more definition.


Ciao

[Edward Glidewell]

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."

A course can only accomodate so much width.  At some point ya gotta decide what shouldn't be maintained as playable space. Generally speaking, 75 yards is reasonable. Ideally, for parkland golf I would like to see two heights of cut, greens and everything else. I would also like to see large specimen trees more dotted throughout the property, somewhat like the idea of random bunkering and how orginal parks were designed. Basically treating trees like any other feature, but in limited numbers just like it should dbe for bunkers, hollows, humps, ditches etc. If there was one no- green height it wouldn't be that bad to maintain and there would be space to play around greens. It would never happen in this age health and safety and people are too bought into hole separation and more definition.


Ciao

I do think there are certain courses where removing most or all the trees wouldn't work due to the overall setting (i.e. they would make the course look unnatural), but in general, I agree that most courses would be better with either no trees at all or some specimen trees and scattered copses.


The recent photos posted here of Oakland Hills South looked excellent to me -- mostly treeless, but with some beautiful specimen trees that added visual interest.

[V_Halyard]

Jason, we are in a unique position where Mother Nature provided us with some pretty severe instant tree removal. It is what we have so we can’t say it went too far.
It has however altered the original architect’s (Ross) intent where his routing passed through an environment of specimen trees.


We had a restoration we were pleased with and are presently forced into a full new master plan phase with Ron Prichard to add appropriate features and restore strategic discipline. It’s an opportunity and necessity that will take another year.

[Jason Topp]

Jason, we are in a unique position where Mother Nature provided us with some pretty severe instant tree removal. It is what we have so we can’t say it went too far.
It has however altered the original architect’s (Ross) intent where his routing passed through an environment of specimen trees.


We had a restoration we were pleased with and are presently forced into a full new master plan phase with Ron Prichard to add appropriate features and restore strategic discipline. It’s an opportunity and necessity that will take another year.

Vaughn - that is a good example.  Where do you think the quality of the course has been compromised?  You had taken a lot of trees out before the storm.

[James Reader]

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.

The rate of uptake of carbon is only part of the story.  When the grass is cut and decomposes, a significant amount is simply being returned to the atmosphere within a matter of months.  Turf grass doesn’t permanently store anywhere near as much carbon in its root systems as natural grasslands, which include many more deep-rooted species.  There’s also the not insignificant carbon footprint of the fertiliser production and transport to take into account (plus the issue of NO2 emissions - an even more damaging greenhouse gas than CO2).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()