Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: PCCraig on November 09, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
-
Over the past ten years on Golf Club Atlas, there have been quite a few Tree Removal ("Management") program thread and discussions:
"Encouraging a Tree Removal Program" from 2004:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7908.0.html
"Selling a Tree "Management" Program" from 2002:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,1969.0.html
"Tree Information & Pictures" from 2003:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,5718.0.html
From reading through quite a few threads from the earlier days of GCA, it seems that Tree Management was a hot topic. Since then quite a few high profile clubs have undergone major tree programs (Oakmont, Shoreacres: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35693.0.html). With so many successful tree programs undertaken throughout the country, have they become easier to sell to memberships and golf course management?
Does anyone have any recent stories of trying to pass a program? Have any classic golf courses begun new tree programs recently?
???
-
I think it has been an easier sell here because of the Minnikahda example. I have never heard anything but praise for the huge tree removal project there.
Many other courses have removed significant numbers of trees as well. I am pretty sure Edina removed a large number but it is hardly noticable when playing the course now.
Some technological changes have also helped. It used to be extremely expensive to get a computer demonstration of the sunlight change based on the removal of a tree. Now it is literally and Iphone App.
Cost is probably a larger issue than getting approval.
-
Will you forward a link for that iphone application for shade modeling/tree removal? A quick search at the iphone app site doesn't provide such...thanks.
-
Cost is probably a larger issue than getting approval.
Funny you mention this as I recently had this conversation.
A couple of months ago,the USGA website had an article where they broke out the tree expense for an average club--resodding,extra mowing time,picking up leaves,etc. They came up with an average cost of $200,000/year.
My point to people who oppose tree removal on the basis of cost is that you're spending the money anyway--and you're golf course is worse off.
NB--in my part of the world,we deal with trash pines and the cost of removal would be small compared to golf courses with a lot of hard woods.
-
I would think tree removal would be part of virtually every remodel/renovation proposal from an architect.
I played Minneapolis Golf Club 2 weeks ago and they had 2 cherry pickers parked in the middle of the course. At that time they were in the middle of general pruning. They had piles of limbs in the rough areas of several holes. Perhaps they are going to be more aggressive after the course closes for the winter.
-
Easier to sell, yes. Since 2008 no money to continue the good work.
-
Yes, they're an easier sell to younger members - members who weren't on the very greens committees who planted the trees.
However, it's still incredibly difficult to sell it to a membership as a whole.
However, I think the logic of engaging in a program is undenyable....at least I think...I'll tell you next week whether that's true or not.
Many seem to forget that trees, do in fact, grow.
-
I would think tree removal would be part of virtually every remodel/renovation proposal from an architect.
I played Minneapolis Golf Club 2 weeks ago and they had 2 cherry pickers parked in the middle of the course. At that time they were in the middle of general pruning. They had piles of limbs in the rough areas of several holes. Perhaps they are going to be more aggressive after the course closes for the winter.
Morgan:
When searching through past threads on the subject I found a quote from Brad Klein who wrote something to the effect "if you have to prune a tree because it's in the way, you should probably just take the whole thing down." :)
I really like the golf course at MGC, and while I understand they are on a somewhat tight property, I think there are places where a chainsaw would do wonders. Most notably on #7, which I personally think would be 10x stronger if they took down every single tree inside of the dogleg all the way to the property line.
-
Pat, good suggestion on #7 at Minneapolis. If the trees were gone and they added a few bunkers on the right side it could somewhat play as a cape hole.
It would also be great to remove most of the trees between 3 and 5. The vistas from the top of the fairway on 3, green on 5 and green on 4 would be wonderful.
#5 is the favorite hole of my 2 member friends. I think part of that is due to the fact that the view up the hill from tee to green is pretty neat.
-
Yes, they're an easier sell to younger members - members who weren't on the very greens committees who planted the trees.
However, it's still incredibly difficult to sell it to a membership as a whole.
Many seem to forget that trees, do in fact, grow.
This is so true. I've been playing a private course the last year and the older members, wouldn't even consider taking out one tree. It's just not an option. Furthermore, they are oblivious to other courses taking out trees and the improvement that it makes. Sadly most of the trees (my guess between 500 and 700) are eucalyptus trees, that are ugly, dirty and drink enormous amounts of water. They block the most beautiful views as well.
-
I've been intimately involved in several such programs and I can tell you that it hasn't gotten any easier to sell tree management programs. The combination of emotion and obstinance is very volatile. I had members verbally threaten me. I had a guy lament that they cut down a certain bur oak because it would have been a "perfect tree to hang" me from! But I'll just as happily report that the post removal vibe at every club that has cut down hundreds or even more than 1000 trees has been overwhelmingly positive.
Even the guy who wanted to string me up is now a fan of golf course sawdust. Which smells like victory, in the morning, of course!
-
Will you forward a link for that iphone application for shade modeling/tree removal? A quick search at the iphone app site doesn't provide such...thanks.
Davis:
I do not have it but I will see if I can get it. A USGA consultant showed it to me and he may have referenced it in his report.
-
The UK answer to the question is a very big NO. In the UK the more trees the better is the popular way forward although a small percentage do realise the evil ways of the committees.
-
Hell no. ;)
-
But I'll just as happily report that the post removal vibe at every club that has cut down hundreds or even more than 1000 trees has been overwhelmingly positive.
This is the part I will never understand.You'd think that a putz opposed to tree removal would,at least,do a little research.
My personal favorite was a guy who said that he didn't care if the turf at XYZ club across town was better after removing a lot of trees.He and his wife didn't want the golf course to become too easy--him ,a vanity 14;her,happy to get it airborne.
-
A couple of months ago,the USGA website had an article where they broke out the tree expense for an average club--resodding,extra mowing time,picking up leaves,etc. They came up with an average cost of $200,000/year.
My point to people who oppose tree removal on the basis of cost is that you're spending the money anyway--and you're golf course is worse off.
JM - I appreciate the sentiment but doubt the argument would be very effective at most clubs. We could remove half at my course (mostly hardwoods) and I would be surprised if the maintenence costs would be significantly smaller. By contrast the cost for removing the big trees is significant even when the small ones are removed in-house.
-
A couple of months ago,the USGA website had an article where they broke out the tree expense for an average club--resodding,extra mowing time,picking up leaves,etc. They came up with an average cost of $200,000/year.
My point to people who oppose tree removal on the basis of cost is that you're spending the money anyway--and you're golf course is worse off.
JM - I appreciate the sentiment but doubt the argument would be very effective at most clubs. We could remove half at my course (mostly hardwoods) and I would be surprised if the maintenence costs would be significantly smaller. By contrast the cost for removing the big trees is significant even when the small ones are removed in-house.
Agreed that when hardwoods are involved,the cost for removal gets up there quickly.
But,anytime you can quote the USGA to non-believing members that NOT removing trees is pretty expensive also,it's got to bolster your case.
-
Removing tree's to cease shadowing of greens, will always be worth it, IMO.
Too many trees on golf courses, here in America, IMO
I would like to see tree lines replaced with bunkering/mounding. Trees are too, one dimensional of a hazard for me.
-
With so many golden age courses undertaking such programs the results speak for themselves. The sell is not so much whether it is the best thing for the golf course but rather where do the funds come from to accomplish it. When the USGA or an archie comes in to make recommendations about tree removal at the request of the club it is usually because it has been neglected for too long and the costs associated with taking down and hauling away mature hardwoods can be costly. You also need to have a greens chairman and/or committee that understands the benefits and will stand it`s ground against those that are not easily swayed. Some before and after photos of Yale, Oakmont or St. Georges could be a good starting point.
-
I played Oakmont yesterday and this was a topic that was discussed for much of the round. While there were a couple of instances where it was done to improve air circulation around green sites, the majority was done to restore the course to the original design.
The story goes that many years ago, an Oakmont member was also an ANGC member, and he wanted to frame each hole like Augusta and sold the rest of the membership to add trees. The members I played with seemed to be very pleased with the restoration and the results do speak for themselves.
-
I played Oakmont yesterday and this was a topic that was discussed for much of the round. While there were a couple of instances where it was done to improve air circulation around green sites, the majority was done to restore the course to the original design.
Isn`t that why restoration is the current "it" word in the world of golf course architecture?
-
My club, Bemidji Town and County is currently beginning the process of beginning the process of tree removal.
They has a GCA come in an tell them they should remove 100's of tree for all sort of reasons. They want to remove mostly Red Oak, Spruce and a few other undesireables. The cost of the tree removal was going to be prohibitive due to the high number of tree scheduled for removal.
I volunteered my services as a forester and I proposed that they remove all of the trees at one time or as many as possible, instead of removing just a few trees per year. Removing a few trees per year was going to cost the club money each year depending on how many trees where taken.
By removing all of the trees at one time, trees being removed and could be sold as firewood, taken to local timber mills, or chipped up and sold as woody Biomass.
I am currently in the process of appraising the wood and arranging for a local Logger to come in and Pay the club to remove the trees. The work will be done in the winter when the ground is frozen and the logger will have low pressure tires on the equipment. This should minimize any damage done to the turf.
The club should make a few thousand dollars depending on how many trees are removed, instead of having to pay someone to do the same job. The only cost to the club would be to pay in house staff for time it takes for the disposal of the slash (twigs, branches, and junk wood) by chipping or burning.
I think this could work in many places. I believe that a club should consider a large tree removal program and that the there actually might be an incentive to remove more trees at one time.
I also think people would be surprised how much large specimen hardwood trees are worth to the right people.
-
We're in the middle of a landscape management program. The first small bit of tree clearing had some complaining it was making the course too easy.
This was the second piece of clearing
Before
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc235/pdools/CGC%20Winter%202010/CGC3rdOct102.jpg)
After
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc235/pdools/CGC%20Winter%202010/029.jpg)
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc235/pdools/CGC%20Winter%202010/030.jpg)
Most of the dissenting voices quietened down after the second piece of work.
A small pilot project can go a long way to sell a program.
-
I have posted some of our work at Northland on here in the past. We are currently in the process of further removals and there will be some pretty awesome changes.
Since our last work was done in 2008 we have completed a master plan with Ron Prichard. The plan includes tree removals and was overwhelmingly approved by the membership. At this point the only part of the plan we are able to implement is tree removals. As another poster mentioned junk pine and spruce are much cheaper to remove than hardwoods. Nearly all of the trees we are removing are pine and spruce and we are completing the work in-house, with a smallish crew at a fairly good pace.
I will be posting updates on our blog as the removals are complete. Feel free to follow along.
www.northlandgrounds.blogspot.com
I would say for us the tree removal process has gotten easier with the passage of the master plan. Those who dislike the work will still grumble but they have little ground to stand on due to the plan being in place. Also, as others have found the work done in 2008 is almost universally hailed and therefore continuing work is going over well.
Just saw Padraig's post after I finished writing mine. This is exactly what we have seen. We went from "what the hell?" to "what's next?"
-
Chris,
Congrats on getting your master plan approved!
Are you removing the trees between 8 green and 10 fairway?
-
P Craig,
I think so, due to the ability to cite third party references, including some rather prominent clubs, icons of American Golf.
I'm not saying that it's easy, but, I think it's easier.
-
Pat is right, it is definitely easier, but never easy. I think in almost all cases, a major tree removal program takes a thick-skinned board and/or greens chairman backed by the written reports of the architect and USGA agronomist. It is easier now because so many courses have already led the way, and the word is definitely out that tree removal is a growing trend. There will always be hardcore tree huggers, but I think clubs just need to go ahead, trusting that the positive results will prove the correctness of the plan.
Cost is an issue, GREAT job by Mike Hogan and a good post!
The other part of "tree management" is tree pruning, which may be the most expensive tree work, but has some of the best benefits.
-
I think Tree removal is the single most difficult maintenance issue most clubs face. The concept that courses evolve is lost on most memberships. Trees grow slow and few members connect the before and after. In a word No, it not easier now than before whenever before is to be.
-
With all the clubs doing it successfully tree management should be easier to sell to your board of directors. Once you have permission just get started. The members will come around. Don't risk it by asking members for permission to get started - they might say no.
-
I am having a brutal time getting anyone to listen to my suggestions, but our course (BraeBurn CC in Houston) really needs to hold a chainsaw party. I sent a time series of aerials to the head pro and club gm, but the members would rather spend money on a new brick wall for the perimeter of the course. Bredemus is probably rolling over in his grave.
The typical retort from the younger guys/low handicap players is that the course would be too easy/it's only 6800 from the tips, etc.
-
Jeff,
Does the USGA agronomist visit your course? If he recommends tree removal, that is always a nice report to start with.
-
Jeff,
Does the USGA agronomist visit your course? If he recommends tree removal, that is always a nice report to start with.
How long does a USGA report take? Is it expensive?
-
Jeff,
Does the USGA agronomist visit your course? If he recommends tree removal, that is always a nice report to start with.
How long does a USGA report take? Is it expensive?
I believe it is part of your club's USGA dues, or perhaps each club indicates how many visits per it wishes to schedule, and pays accordingly. When I was Grounds Chair I used to attend ( I seem to recall two meetings per year) and it was very interesting. The super and the USGA agronomist talk turf, chemicals, bugs, etc., most of which I had no clue about :) The USGA guy will pull cores in the fairways and greens and study the turf, etc. And in his written report, which I made sure went to the full board, was always a comment about trees.
-
Bill, Is correct. Contract for a half day visit, should cost about $750. And buy them lunch...RHE
-
Definitely easier but harder to fund with all of the other budget considerations and adjustments that must be accounted for in this economy. I think we would actually see a lot more tree removal if we had the funds that were available ten years ago.
-
Many of our forests and urban woodlands are currently under assault, or have the potential for serious damage, from several aggressive pests and bacterium. Whlie the impacts and practical solutions for these issues are ongoing, and in the early stages of evolving, some information is available that I hope will help those seeking answers to what is unfolding.
As an avid outdoorsman, landscape professional and ardent golfer, what I'm seeing out in the field, within or near golf facilities, is alarming and of great concern. As our forests and woodland settings are the regenerators of our ecosystems, the significants threats they have been experiencing are serious issues.
In America, three pests, two that are foreign invaders, and one native than has shown explosive growth in destructive numbers outside its traditional range, bear watching. All three attack the vascular systems of trees, inhibiting the transfer of nutrients to the tree, much in the same way our human system transports blood to our various body parts. As this ability diminishes, the tree begins to stress, shuts down and then dies, often within weeks.
Public Enemy # 1 - EAB- Emerald ash borer- A faster-moving, invasive pest from Asia that hitched a ride here, probably in packing crates, first discovered stateside in 2002(Michigan and Winsor, Canada). There are two treatment methods showing promise. While no absolutes can be claimed, these both have shown a fairly consistent ability to mitigate infestation and death of ash trees due to EAB. Ideally, treatment should begin shortly prior to EAB being discoverd nearby. An extensive and comprehensive trapping/monitoring network has been set up nationally, with ash-dense forest land and woodland settings getting priority status.
1) Soil -drench or injection with ground probe- Prodect name- Merit, active ingredient-Imidacloprid, treat Mid-Fall, and/or late Spring. Caution must be used when applications are in areas near waterbodies, as studies have shown potential for adversely affecting species of beneficial insects and other wildlife.
2) Trunk Injection-Product Name-Tree-age, active ingredient-Emamectin benzoate, treat early May to mid-June.
Some arborists are combining both as a double-prevention option. The soil drench approach has shown solid results thus far.
Costs vary from $200.00-$500.00 per tree, depending on size and topography. Generally, each treatment last 2 years. Obviously monitoring pest movement, numbers with traps to ascertain activity, and ash tree populations, all are sound compliments to achieving maximum preservation of treated ash trees. It is also advised to vary the size and age of trees selected for preservation treatments, as the research and survival rates have many factors involved that haven't been established yet. It is also hoped that some natural selection will occur among untreated ash trees than show inherent resistance to EAB.
Public Enemy # 2 - ALB- Asian Longhorned Bettle- this is one nasty hombre! Another packing crate denizen from Asia, it has shown a voracious appetite for a wide variety of tree species. The only positve thing about this little piece of work is it moves slowly, so while there are NO KNOWN eradication or preventive treatments, once an infestation is discovered, a quarantine, complete removal and incineration of the tree material will eliminate the problem if complete containment is achieved. Needless to say, this isn't cheap and involves a lot of man hours, so monitoring is crucial and needed to quickly identify and neutralize the beasts! Outbreaks have been dealt with in New York, Chicago and Worchester, Mass. New Jersey also has had limited infestations.
Public Enemy # 3- SPBS- Southern Pine Bark Beetle- Native, but expanding to new areas in prolific numbers, with devestating results for a variety of pine species, primarily due to milder Winters which prevent larvae die-off that formerly restricted their migration. Severe drought conditions in the Mid-Atlantic states also have been associated with their explosive damage, as trees under stress are more easily attacked.
Interestingly, this pest also carries the blue stain funges, which works in concert with the beetle by suppressing the "pitch" or sap pines produce to help defend against pest infestation. While woodpeckers, and some other insect species prey on SPBB, during major population spikes, only quarantine, removal and incineration will suffice to end the threat.
Additionally, BLS- Bacterial Leaf Scorch- an infectious, chronic disease transmitted by xylem feeding insects, has shown dramatic increases of occurence in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic regions during the last several years. With no known cure, it has shown to be a serious problem for certain host trees such as: maples, oaks, sweet gum and American elm, among others. It generally takes several years for the bacterium, Xylella fastidosa, to totally kill the tree, but it becomes stressed and unsightly within a year of infection.
As the complexity and layered overview of all that is involved with these tree management concerns would confirm, a wing-it, reactive aproach to tree care for any property, but especially golf facilities, is unwise. Progressive property owners and management folks understand that a solid relationship with an established, certified arborist team is the way to go. Those that make decisions from a knowledge-based, light footprint perspective, when assessing tree care issues, come out wth superior results in the long term. Why wouldn't you manage the tree canopy component with an integrated approach that compliments the comprehensive care of the turf? They don't function independently, why would you manage them differently? It makes no sense, yet the vast majority of property managers take a wait-and-hope nothing happens approach to their tree concerns.
While this rather sobering information is ment to illuminate, not depress, folks seeking a better understanding of what is transpiring, my hope is that all of us come away with a better appreciation for some of the negative elements this embracing of the "global economy" mantra can produce.
Humanity, being mammals, has evolved over thousands of years. If you look at most mammal species, significant portions of their day are spent resting or in an unstressed state. Conversely, if you look at our increasingly frantic, hard-wired existence...ordered by who...the greedy clowns that seek to wring ever more from every soul possible...it becomes clear...this unsustainble insanity needs a major course correction! So my friends, let's appreciate each other a lit more, take time to share insights with those who add to our lives, and REJECT the nonsense that we don't have to question what the hell is going on once in a while.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
P.S. - Anyone needing more info can kindly IM me your email and cell details and I'll help as best I can.
-
Bill,
The USGA agronomist was out to the club a few years ago when they did the redesign. I believe the comment from them was "are you guys trying for an arboretum or a golf course?"
-
Ask for a copy of the written report. I bet he has a comment about trees and the need for removal. Maybe your club needs to schedule another visit and make sure the written report comments on trees.
Are you close with your current Greens Chair? If he is a tree hugger, you are probably going no where. But if the Greens Chair (and I assume the Superintendent) are in favor of tree removal, the written USGA report carries a lot of weight.
Too bad you are in Texas. Up north we have a few months to remove selected trees and clean up the mess before golfers return in April. One of my favorite things to do when playing with a tree hugger early in the season was to ask him "what is different about this hole?" when I knew we had taken down a tree or two, and rarely could they remember the tree(s). One was a HUGE willow 50 yards off a tee that you seemingly could never forget. It was starting to fall in the pond. We took it down in December and not one guy noticed it gone the next year...