Mark - I'm going to call this the NE mentality - please look at my response to the current thread on Florida golf!

Forrest wrote:

Trees are just grass, but taller.

Forrest, I guess it depends upon your perspect. Dr. Frank Rossi, Department of Horticulture at Cornell University, says that "trees are just weeds, but harder". Like weeds, trees and grass don't get along either.  

Classical architects rarely if ever made trees a focal point of play. They were influenced by links golf enough to know that strategic ground game contours should prevail.

C'mon, you can't expect a guy named FORREST to not be in favor of trees!  

The "Back up" tree!? That's an interesting subject!

At first I was going to say I haven't seen that much of that mentality but on second thought I might feel that because of something that happened at my course during our recent "restoration" or "master plan" or whatever we call it.

The subject of tree removal obviously came up with some resistance and adverserialness (as with almost every course like mine) as we'd had decades of continuous tree planting with little overall management or long term consideration, certainly not in the context of how the tree planting may have been affecting agronomy and altering strategies on the golf course.

We put in place a basic four step analysis of each and every tree considered on the master plan for removal and that very quickly appeared to diffuse the initial resistance and adverserialness to tree removal. Basically with not too many exceptions we were able to remove the trees that were slated for removal on the original master plan presented to the membership.

Then to our mild amazement the subject of "If we agree to let you take them down will you agree to replace them?" came up.

In retrospect I'd say because our four step tree analysis was basically so commonsensical and effective the general policy was adopted that we would not do that (replace a tree for one removed). The real reason that was acceptable to our membership, I think, was we really could convince almost any member of the fact that the problem with many of our trees wasn't that we didn't actually like them but unfortunately they'd been planted with little thought for the agronomy of the course and its basic strategies and that if they had been planted with that in mind decades ago we wouldn't have to be going through all this. Plus the very old member who had planted all those trees bought into our logic and offered to present that case to the membership.

So I guess we both killed two birds with one stone and also skated by the subject of "back up" trees without fully appreciating how well and how effectively we'd done that!

Tom

Have you kept all those humongous Sycamores that Donald Ross used to frame many (all?) of his tees at GMGC?  Talk about visionary "design intent!"  I can just see DJR sittin' up in his grave and smirking:  "Try and build new tees that obsolete those babies, you Phillistines!"

PS--were you successful in selling your large Monterrey Pine to Pebble Beach for their sensitive 18th hole restoration?

It is a rediculous concept! It never looks good, especially when trees are planted in a line.

Has anybody walked down the Mall in DC lately? They've done it there extensively, the back up trees look like they're about to die as the old trees are stealing all their nutrients.

Back-up trees can also look like little unwanted "tag-alongs" if singled out in the open, or too much "stuffing for the understory" if within a grove.

Again, it is best if a tree does not make a hole, but if one does, there are alternatives to protect it, preserve it, and/or replace it with a like/kind specimen instead of backing it up with impinging smaller ones.

"-no questions, please"

redanman:

Why no questions? Do you feel incapable of fielding convincing answers for those who might ask or do you think  if it were your call on a particular golf course or club you're someone who doesn't need to be asked questions of for some reason?

In any case--when you mention your first step of "cut em down" perhaps it would be wise to specify if you mean all of them, some of them, or perhaps, and better yet, which ones.

Also, your golf course is a William Flynn design and a very fine one, so I should ask you again are you completely familiar with Flynn's thoughts on trees and particular golf courses as well as his known use of them occasionally for strategic reasons? And if you are familiar with his thoughts on those things perhaps you might mention some distinctions in that regard rather than just to say "cut em down".

 Bill
    Of course Flynn had a different challenge at Rolling Green.He needed to cut parts of at least 5 holes out of trees .

Next thing you know you have a grove of trees backing up the original one that was there.  

Mark:
4th hole of Richmond CC in Richmond, California.  They have a straight row of trees along the boarder of the property line.  Lets say 20 or 30 tall trees.  Then about 20 yards in from the property line and trees, they have another row of trees defining the fairway.  I wish I had a picture, perhaps Neal has one.

A couple of cute back-up trees are below:

"Oh, BTW TEP, you take yourself too seriously."

redanman;

Perhaps, and if so I'll do my best to get over that. But at least I learned some time ago not to take you seriously.