Encouraging a Tree Removal Program

[Andrew Summerell]

I’m a member of a nice group one course in Sydney.  It’s never going to be a world beater, but is well respected among those who have played it. The problem is, it could be a better course with just a few easy changes.

The first step needs to be tree removal on some of the holes.e.g. The 2nd, a mid length dog leg par 4 could benefit greatly my removing the trees on the inside corner, (with the possible addition of some bunkering) allowing people to decide how much of the corner to cut off. It would also alleviate some of the problem of people overshooting the outside of the dogleg onto the next fairway, by allowing more options off the tee.

A few other holes have trees encroaching either side of green entrances, dictating a singular way of playing the hole. While another hole that uses a few large, singular trees in the line of play needs them removed & the fairway moved slightly to the right, adding strategy & options to a somewhat linear par 5.

I believe my club needs to set into place a tree removal plan that will improve the course, before it becomes to difficult a task. I have not approached the committee about this as yet, but plan to do so in the future. Having raised this on my club’s web site forum & received some negative response, my concern is that a few loud voices with little understanding are ruining the future of the course for all.

I am interested to hear from those who have undergone such a plan, or are a member of a club that has done so, or if you have some constructive ideas that might help.

How do I encourage the initiating, & explain the worth of such a program ?

[Joel_Stewart]

Don't call it tree removal, its tree management.

Calling Dunlop White.

[Bobr]

Our club just went through the same thing. We worked with a great architect (Eisler) and he made a case for removing all trees whose limbs encroached on the fairways, eliminated a dog-leg par three and getting on a regular tree triming program. Has mad a world of difference for grass growth in the rough. Also, brought back real golf shot values, not just tricking up the course. Do some research on the "Skokie Plan" which seems to be the blueprint for making the case you describe.

[Paul Richards]

Education is the key.

Tree management is a much better term, as well.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Andrew- There have been many threads on what you're asking. Skokie, Beverly , the Cal club, Oakmont, just to name a few.

As an example, Oakmont's program has taken over ten years and is still going.

At Beverly, They decided to test it one hole. I saw that hole and the difference is amazing.

The cal Club is perhaps the biggest dramatic change. Pictures may or may not still be available if you can find the threads.

The wind-up, that I have read about on here is, Education is the key.

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew

Having been accused of 'hating trees' which is far from the truth  we have presided over major tree removal programs at Victoria, Portsea,Peninsula,Rosanna,Spring Valley and a few others.
We are used to the politics, the passion - usually ill-informed- and the arguments.
Almost every course in Australia could do with some sensible tree removal because the history of tree planting programs here has been one of planting too many of the wrong trees in the wrong places.

Golf is Sydney is far from it's potential and as you say most courses could be improved with some simple tree work.

Give us a call !!!

[Shane Gurnett]

Andrew,

After probably 20 years of neglect on the issue, my club, Commonwealth in Melbourne has started a tree manageement program and the results thus far have been very promising. Its helps if you have turf problems, as we had, as it serves to silence those who see trees only for their "beauty", rather than understanding the damage that invasive, non native varieties do to the course conditions. In many ways the turf argument is the easiest one to win, then you need to capitalise on the momentum you build by tackling those trees that reduce the original design characteristics by enccroachign into the fairway.

There was an excellent Golfdigest.com article on the issue which spelt out all the postives of a successful tree removal program. Get a copy of it (there should be a link in here somewhere to it) and send it to your clubs Captain, together with specific examples at your course, including photo's if you can. Its worth a try.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'd be curious to hear what kind of reasons the opposition to a tree management program would serve up?

The beauty thing is one I never considered. Assuming that the default mis-conception is, that the course would be too easy, without the trees.

Are there other mis-guided excuses?

[Andrew Summerell]

I'd be curious to hear what kind of reasons the opposition to a tree management program would serve up?

The main reason I've found is that removing trees will make the course too easy.

When this excuse is given to me, I generally explain to the person some basics of strategic design & how it could improve our course.

The concern is often that the course rating will drop. Firstly, that shouldn't matter. It's the playability & enjoyment of playing the course that really matters. Secondly, the course rating will probably not drop, because most of us have an over inflated opinion of our own ability, too often taking the risk without being good enough to receive the reward.

[Mark Studer]

Andrew- one possible starting place is to make sure your turfgrass is  receiving the proper amount of sunlight, nutrients, water, and air movement to  encourage the proper growing conditions. What is the #1 cause of problems in terms of those 4 mentioned areas?.....TOO MANY ENCROACHING TREES!!!  I do not imagine that ANY past green committee planted  trees to cause unhealthy turfgrass.......BUT, that is EXACTLY what ended up happening at many courses here in the states. Those 2" caliper, 6 foot saplings GROW!! Here in the US, one of the best places to start is to have your USGA  agronomist do the TAS(turf advisory service) visit. A third party such as our USGA service can validate the "tree management" that should be done in the name of turfgrass health. Your superintendent should love it. If trees are encroaching on greens or tees(and that includes shielding the sunlight from a teeing ground or putting green at ANY point during the day), that is the first place to start trimming and "managing" these  sun blocking,nutrient stealing, moisture sucking,breeze negating,double hazard causing gifts from God. Another important place to educate your committee and members is to find other courses in your area that have effectively dealt with the problem and have them visit and discuss how they went about making progress. I  have personally hosted members from over 40 different clubs to witness the "tree management" program  at our club(Oakmont) and continue to help  and encourage others  get started in such a program. As an example ,Oakmont is  hosting the Mid-Atlantic(pennsylvania,west virginia,maryland, virginia, & DC) section of the USGA green section  this May to  see the turfgrass management and "tree management" program in person. This is a big part of the EDUCATION process mentioned by others.      Good Luck and be patient.....we are in our 14th year of "tree management". It is an ongoing process because the trees keep growing until they are completely "managed"!             Mark       p.s. Can you possibly imagine TOC or Muirfield deciding to plant a few conifers to "toughen up" the resistance to scoring?

[Dunlop_White]

Bobr,

getting on a regular tree trimming program

Bobr, be careful initiating a tree trimming program. This is not the lesser of the two evils. Even with the proper supervision, methodically removing one branch at a time, trimming too often creates a deformity, not setting a very good example for your membership, especially if you are trying to win their sentiment. The wound typically leaves an obvious scar to remind all golfers of your exploits. Plus, there will be no finality to your project, tree limbs grow, and you'll be trimming all the time.

[Paul Richards]

Dunlop makes a great point.  For years, we spent much of our tree-budget on trimming back trees that shouldn't have been there in the first place, and, now, most have since been removed.  Why waste resources on trimming when the money is much better spent removing?

[Dunlop_White]

a_clay_man,

1. Often the bone of contention is for safety between adjacent holes. But I argue that there is a false sense of security associated with trees which buffer or divide holes.  Some open, unobstructed site-lines between holes create a "visual awareness" between groups of players.  Trees can make matters much worse, because you can't forewarn other players of an errant shot that you cannot see.

2. Committeemen often plant trees to defend par. Too often this has a resounding effect on the character of the hole....trees essentially eliminate strategic angles of approach. Look at what ANGC has done to Hole 11, planting 60 trees on the right side, forcing balls to the center. Interestingly, MacKenzie originally placed a bunker in the center of this fairway strategically wanting golfers to use the periphery which is now suffocated with pines

3. Beautification committees also plant trees to adorn the golfing grounds.

4. Superintendents routinely leave trees to attract beneficial wildlife habitats.

5. Many clubs plant trees to honor loved ones. However, it is always good advice to avoid memorial trees. Determining desired tree types and locations are always at issue. Their sense of permanence also becomes debilitating in an ever-changing environment. Allow one memorial tree, and soon your course will be inundated with remembrances.

[Jeff Goldman]

Bobr,

   Your course isn't Ravisloe, is it?  I know David Esler has done a lot of work there, and the results are terrific.  It's a Donald Ross course that got completely tree-d over and its bunkers turned into saucers.  There's a good picture of the "before" in Brad Klein's book, and he could speak volumes more than I can about the changes.  Now there are bunkers everywhere, as in the original design (again see pictures in Brad's book) and trees in play really on only 1 hole, a short par-4 (the 5th?).  Although the course is short and pretty flat, with only a couple of gentle hills, the greensites are tons of fun, and I think the course was resurrected.  Incredible deal to join too.

Jeff Goldman

[Dunlop_White]

Mark Studer is right! Because memberships are more concerned with good agronomics, it's always good politics to approach tree removal with the emphasis on the ability of growing healthy turfgrass. Other architectural principals are generally unaccepted as justifications for tree removal….. simply because you're going to get an array of diverse opinions on it.

If you explain that a tree needs to be removed from behind a green because its roots are growing into the fill pad, then you will satisfy those who are most alarmed. However, if you try to convince a committee that a tree was unoriginal, unattractive, unduly penal, creates depth perception difficulties, or is strategically improper, you had better run for cover

[Dunlop_White]

Turfgrasses ordinarily require five (5) to six (6) hours of unobstructed sunlight per day. This may only be accomplished by removing trees and vegetation to the eastern and southern sides of critical turfgrass areas. But how far to the east and south sides must we remove?

A company like Arborcom can chart it out for you, or simply use these general rules.

Southern states of our country maintain high sun angles. Thus, use a 1/1 ratio in the south may be used whereby 40-foot trees should be removed if they are within 40 feet of significant turf grass areas, such as tees and greens.

Northern states maintain lower sun angles. Thus, use a 2/1 ratio in the north whereby 60-foot trees should be removed if they are within 120 feet of important turf grass areas, such as tees and greens.

[Mark Studer]

One test we used here in Pennsylvania was to go out to the sunblocked green sites at sunrise to see how long it took for the sun to beam directly on the putting surfaces(south eastern exposure,as Dunlop mentioned) and the teeing grounds in question.   It was informative and surprising /upsetting to see turfgrass struggle with 3-4 hours of direct sunlight.....especially when conifers were doing the shading. There is  an added benefit to your members  in areas with cold weather frost delays......drumroll......you can play more golf in the fall and spring when the  trees are removed because the early morning sunlight burns off the frost earlier than  when  blocked by trees bearing needles and leaves. I am sure Dunlop's stats are accurate, but take some interested  members out to see the sunrise on your course and visualize how spectacular the first sun could be dancing on your  greenside bunkers and putting surfaces. Who would argue with getting the greens crew out earlier in the spring and fall? At least to me , those mornings are bonus time and they are much appreciated in  the northern  climes.  Dunlop- Does that sound practical to you? It gets the interested parties involved with the education that was mentioned as critical.    Mark

[TEPaul]

Here's my suggestion to anyone who wants to encourage a tree removal program at his golf club. Matter of fact my suggestion is more than a suggestion it's a guarantee!

My suggestion and guarantee is;

Make Mark Studer an honorary member of your golf club and you will have a successful tree removal program!

[Big Pete]

Andrew
I am a member of Rosanna in Melbourne where Mike Clayton has been involved for the last year or two. It may never make the top ten but it is now a much better course for Mike's vision , which has necessarily included some serious tree management issues . I would encourage you to take the matter further with Mike himself  

[Bobr]

Your course isn't Ravisloe, is it?

No, Elgin. Essler recommended we remove 75 trees encroaching on the fairways. Also, did some tee box renovations. One of his best recs was fairway contouring. Has really brought definition back to the course and realitively inexpensive. I'm the Golf Chair and second on G&G and have worked with Essler a lot. I would receommend him to any club

[Dunlop_White]

Mark, sounds reasonable to me. Who would choose trees, shade, and moist, diseased turf over sun and green grass? Again, concentrate on agronomic justifications for tree management.

Mark, these stats below have been used by architects as "general guidelines" to determine just how far to the south and east trees need to be removed.

Southern states of our country maintain high sun angles. Thus, use a 1/1 ratio may be used whereby 40-foot trees should be removed if they are within 40 feet of significant turf grass areas, such as tees and greens.

Northern states maintain lower sun angles. Thus, use a 2/1 ratio whereby 60-foot trees should be removed if they are within 120 feet of important turf grass areas, such as tees and greens.

Of course, evergreens, which do not loose their leaf material, should be the first to go. Then reassess!

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't it also true that the needles from these conifers poison the ground so no other material can become established? Pine Barrens being obvious.

Should I start a new thread or can someone discuss the lame excuses for over-watering ?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

We looked at our greens in the context of morning sunlight too. I think our feeling (with our local USGA agronomist) was if a green wasn't getting direct sunlight and hour or so after sunrise something had to go to make it happen. First light is apparently extra important to turf health, particularly greens!

[Dunlop_White]

Tom,

Sure, morning sunlight exposure is critical.....removing trees varying distances away from the east and south of significant turfgrass areas .....exposes morning light.

[Dunlop_White]

A_Clay_Man

Overwatering?  Golfers should be wary of elaborate drainage schemes, especially near trees. After all, soggy areas and shade go hand in hand. Without six hours of unfettered sunlight each day, critical turf areas cannot properly dry. Moist turf attracts diseases which must be chemically treated with herbicides and fungicides. A chainsaw represents a better alternative!

Dunlop