The result of reinforcing the trend is that

[Jason Thurman]

Peter, I see what you're saying. I think there are a lot of different ways to look at the tree conundrum though.

You're correct that the committees who planted trees at these clubs acted benevolently and probably did what they thought would really improve the course. I also believe that, at a lot of courses, they achieved success. While Oakmont may be at its best when it's as treeless as when Fownes built it, there are also many courses that have benefitted from the actions of the men who planted trees at them long ago. Trees have added beauty and shotmaking qualities to many golf courses.

At any course, though, there comes a point when tree planting has to slow and management has to happen. We'd all agree that golf cannot be played in an unbroken forest, and we'd also all agree that trees grow over time and become larger than anticipated at the time of their planting. At a certain point if unchecked planting goes on for too long, the course begins to see some of its golfing qualities compromised. Turf suffers, playability suffers, and fun suffers.

That "certain point" varies from course to course. Sahalee can probably accommodate more trees without compromising architectural intent than Oakmont can. But at any course, trees eventually need to be thinned even if they don't need to be wiped out. So like Grant (and to paraphrase him a bit), I guess I'd hope for a MOVEMENT toward tree awareness and management at many courses without necessarily seeing an endless TREND toward wide-open, largely treeless golf. I like the results of the few that have been cut down at my course, and hope for a few more. Several other clubs in town have memberships that have also responded well to tree management programs. None of them are treeless now though, and even though my club began with very few trees, I think clear-cutting the ones that stand today would be as big a mistake as planting another 200.

This current trend of tree clearing will be a big win if it just makes memberships more aware of the need to manage their trees as opposed to treating every single specimen as though it's integral to the course's design. I read a Tom Doak post in another thread that said something to the effect of "People like to look for absolutes when it comes to things like trees (and other features for that matter), but the truth is that there's a lot of gray area when it comes to deciding how to manage them." I agree with that, and if the recent list of high-profile courses to clear trees helps illuminate that gray area for decision makers at the average club and makes them think a little harder about it, that's a good thing. If it makes them say "Trees are bad now! Cut them down like Oakmont did!" then I suspect it's not such a good thing.

[John Kavanaugh]

This is all great but won't mean diddly until a course gets rid of their fans. I've never met a modern super with the balls.

[Paul Gray]

To make a ridiculously sweeping generalisation about tree removal here in Britain, good clubs get it, bad ones don't.  

But seriously, it's probably still a majority over here that view shady, narrow fairways as a mark of quality. I can think of one local club in particularly which is being strangled by overhanging branches and the like but it's part of a certain large hotel chain and they are seemingly very proud of their current set up, even in the Pro Shop.

At clubs of that ilk you're likely to simply receive a blank look if you start making reference to wonderful brown running fairways.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Excuse the sidebar, but when I see a list like that, of quality courses with fine and long-standing pedigrees, I find myself wondering "Who planted the trees in the first place, and why?"

Peter,

In many cases it was benign neglect rather than a proactive tree program.

Trees, like grass, grow without detection each and every day.

So, each year, no one notices the encroachment until it reaches into the corridors of play.


I know, it's easy to dismiss past committees and chairs, easy to dismiss their (to us antiquated or foolish or short-sighted) concerns with/desires for more bucolic settings or ensuring safety or creating tougher tests or even maintaining  architectural/design integrity in the face of changing technology -- it's easy to dismiss all that as misguided concerns and poor decisions; but someone back then, at each of those courses, probably a chair or a committee member, probably as proud of his course and as interested in it as some of us our today, made those decisions and planted those trees for what he thought was the good of the course (maybe even with the architect's blessing), and with the aim of making it better.

From the mid 1970's arbor and green committees made decisions about trees, without thinking of the long term effect on the play of "golf"
Few understood that the sapling recently planted would one day have an 80 foot drip line.

They were misguided.

Trees were planted between stacked flanking fairway bunkers at # 6 at Mountain Ridge.
Thus, the golfer who drove into the bunker nearest the tee had to hit around or over trees planted on the green side of that bunker.
That pattern repeated itself on the 5th and other holes.
Eventually, Ron Prichard's retention led to their removal.
But, their removal did not go unopposed.
Once a tree is planted, it becomes adopted as if it existed in that particular location since day one.
Tree huggers are not yet an extinct breed  

Are we so certain that we, with our new rationales and ways of thinking, know so much better and see so much more clearly than they did?

Yes, and for a number of reasons.
Probably the most prevalent reason is to return the course to it's configuration on opening day, as the architect intended it.

As you know, I've been opposed to the feminization of golf courses for decades.
I find the planting of flower beds, flowering shrubs and trees in the name of "beautification" to be a drain on budgets and contrary to the presentation of the "field of play", the golf course, the golf course as the architect intended it to look and play.

"Framing" also became a popular fad in the last half of the 20th Century.
"Framing" to provide the golfer with added "depth perception"
Since my favorite greens are "skyline" greens, you can deduce my feelings on "framing"

I suppose the answer is "yes" -- but the certainty we all seem to have about that is striking. It's probably, I'd guess, the same kind of certainty they had back then.

I think there's a difference.
And that difference is the quality or "golf IQ" of the audience.

General memberships aren't comprised of the same intellect as those participants on GCA.com.
And, as such, I think memberships are more prone to sucuumb to fads/trends.

In addition, the concept of "keeping up with the Jones's" is probably rampant in clubs.
"Monkey see, monkey do" and I think that led to the snowballing of tree planting in the 1970's and subsequently.