News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Obviously, more pine trees were required
« on: November 20, 2015, 01:55:54 PM »
Par three 17th Hole at Edgewood, Lake Tahoe. The trees in the middle speak for themselves. But I really like the two on the right because that view of Lake Tahoe must be broken up.



« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 03:00:35 PM by Bill Brightly »

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2015, 02:53:27 PM »
Egads.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2015, 03:10:27 PM »
Isn't there a local ordinance in Lake Tahoe that you can't chop down or remove any Pine tree....of any size without a special permit or permission otherwise?  And that it is literally on a tree by tree approval basis to do so?

Anyone in the know?

Matt Frey, PGA

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2015, 03:24:49 PM »
Good golly, I hope those are the strain that stay the size of shrubs.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2015, 03:29:26 PM »
Obviously not applicable to all circumstances/locations, but one advantage of having animals grazing on courses is that tiny wee growing things get nibbled away before they have a chance to grow. Once upon a time many courses benefitted from such, alas not many these days.
Atb

Aaron Marks

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2015, 03:34:07 PM »
http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news-sierra/tahoe-hotel-owner-fined-40000-over-removal-of-pine-trees/32194940

The highlights:
"property owners must obtain permits to cut down any tree that is at least 14 inches in diameter at breast height, agency spokesman Thomas Lotshaw said"

"The deal also requires Demetriades to plant four Jeffrey pines in "similar locations" where the trees were cut down."

And let's not forget the permitting process!
http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Tree_Removal_Application_2013.pdf


So, if you remove them and are caught, they make you replant them?  Awesome. But it doesn't seem like those trees are 14 inch diameter yet, they might want to uhhhhhhh...nip it in the bud?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 03:36:57 PM by Aaron Marks »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2015, 03:39:33 PM »
Thanks for the clarification Aaron,

I must admit, it is in an interesting place to let these trees grow...

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2015, 03:41:13 PM »
I'm assuming they cut down a few others and had to replace.
Perhaps they cut down a few along the shore?
of course in a few years they'll be planting a few more after they cut those down ;) ;D
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2015, 06:27:37 PM »
What the actual f???

A year or so ago I ran a light hearted little 'worst golf holes' thread. Give those trees a few years and this fine effort is a shoe in.  ;D
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Obviously, more pine trees were required
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2015, 07:45:12 PM »
 :'( ::)




Another classic example of big government doing a great job .....