trees

« **Reply #50 on:** March 06, 2007, 03:21:51 PM »

Quote from: Doug Siebert on March 05, 2007, 02:14:25 AM

Gary,

You'd have a different position about cutting down trees in favor of overhead wires if those wires were the route that electricity took to your home! We had a big ice storm here in Iowa last weekend and there were some entire small towns that were without power for 3-4 days (nevermind the individual houses with lines from the pole to the house still down that won't be 100% complete until a couple more days from now)

There are way more trees lost each year due to clearing land for new suburban develoipments than even redanman being put in charge of a tree removal program on every golf course in the world could cause. The sad thing is that they'll remove all those trees, then the first thing the new homeowners do after moving in is plant some saplings. I've never understood why the vast majority of developers clear cut a swath about 200' wide along street centers for a residential development, so every house ends up with a few saplings in the yard and a well defined dividing line in the backyard between the manicured and overfertilized lawn and an impenetrable forest of trees and brush. Then they sell them all as "wooded lots"

Doug, wires should go underground!

« **Reply #51 on:** March 06, 2007, 03:39:55 PM »

JES,

Thanks for your imput. Why are you not a greens committee member? If you were to look at our entire greens department, "compromise" is a factor in everything final decission.

Cosgrove,

As for commercial/residential developers, well, let's build more golf courses in lue of strip malls or homes. I am for it. If anybody wants to fund a project, contact me. I'll build any course.

« **Reply #52 on:** March 06, 2007, 09:22:13 PM »

Quote from: Lindsey_Baker on March 04, 2007, 07:24:44 PM

I recently have changed my opinion about cutting down trees to create new or original views on old golf courses. The global warming issue was the biggest factor, making me realize that tree's are necessary to help combat Co2.

Listen, I am for cutting down a hand full of trees per year but thousands is too much. We have made such strides in our industry to show how we perserve the environment. With all the tree removal occuring around the country, we are taking a huge step back.

A compromise must be made.

The melting glaciers[/color]

How is it possible that these massive ice formations on Long Island and throughout the North American Continent melted thousands of years before an agrarian or industrial revolution occured ?

Perhaps the process of Global Warming has nothing to do with eliminating trees from golf courses.

« **Reply #53 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:06:42 PM »

Keep in mind that trees are used as a safety mechanism to seperate holes. Especially on some cramped sites where old designs didn't anticipate golfers to hit it 300+, trees can buffer holes, add strategy, and sequester carbon. All while looking better than the god-awful mounds that are going up on some courses.
Not saying that i support mass tree palntings on golf courses, far from it. But sometimes safety concerns can override certain design elements.

« **Reply #54 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:30:51 PM »

I wonder why news about Mars is not out there in the mainstream media as it concerns to global clmiate change. Did you know that Mars is also under going a massive warming as well? Is AL Gore going to blame that on my driving my car as well.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

NASA has tons of data on this to support it as well:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

An excerpt:
According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.

The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

I'm sure the naysayers will dispute it and such, but why are they not willing to open thier mind to other possibilities.

« **Reply #55 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:51:55 PM »

Quote from: Peter Zarlengo on March 06, 2007, 10:06:42 PM

Keep in mind that trees are used as a safety mechanism to seperate holes. Especially on some cramped sites where old designs didn't anticipate golfers to hit it 300+, trees can buffer holes, add strategy, and sequester carbon. All while looking better than the god-awful mounds that are going up on some courses.
Not saying that i support mass tree palntings on golf courses, far from it. But sometimes safety concerns can override certain design elements.

As a contrary position, trees can create a false sense of security. When the vision is unobstructed, a golfer can give the appropriate verbal warning in the event of a mishit shot. When trees block that view, golfers in the vicinity but unseen are still in danger.

Joe

« **Reply #56 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:09:26 AM »

Lindsay, unfrotunately there doesn't seem to be the market for more golf at this moment, but those darn kids keep going to the malls!

« **Reply #57 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:41:30 AM »

Lindsey,

The topic of trees on golf courses really stems from what was there to begin with. Clear out the trees needed for a wide golf hole, leave strategic trees that direct play, and only plant additional trees in locations that add beauty and color without affecting play. I always recommend planting flowering trees in among the native hardwoods and/or softwoods and always in odd numbers starting with a group of 3.

GCA is all about revealing the golf course from the natural and leaving as much of the natural as possible without affecting the play of the course.

I like trees on a golf as long as the trees were there naturally. If the natural terrain is bare of trees or sparse of trees then layout a golf course should show the same. Do not create a forest golf course in the open plains and do not clear cut trees in a forest setting to create a false open setting. And again, adding a few strategic trees here and there, out of play, for aesthetic reasons.

Troy

« **Reply #58 on:** March 07, 2007, 05:53:05 AM »

" I think that we can hardly make a mistake taking a tree down compared to the much bigger problem of leaving the stupid ones there."

Mayday:

While some of the speculation or opinions on here seem to me to be a bit over the top, maybe it's not a great idea to just automatically assume 'we can hardly make a mistake...'

That point was brought home to me by the 95 year old man who sat on our master plan committee and never said a word for about a year while all of us constantly complained how excessively "treed up" our course had become in the last 50 years.

Eventually, he spoke up and said:

"I want you all to know that I've listened very carefully to what you've been saying about the over treeing of this golf course and the problems it's created and I want you to know I was the one who planted all the trees when I was the green chairman in the 1950s. I also want you to know that we had no idea back then what you all have been saying about the negative impact of too many trees on a golf course. So, if you'd like me to go in front of the membership and explain that we didn't know those things back then, I would be glad to do it."

My point, Mayday, is perhaps we should not just automatically assume that 'we can hardly make a mistake....'

« **Reply #59 on:** March 07, 2007, 06:00:09 AM »

On the other hand, I just saw a situation where a couple of no-count trees are apparently going to change the routing on a couple of holes on a new course, and definitely not for the better. And so today I'm a bit down on trees!

« **Reply #60 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:37:26 AM »

Tom,

I believe that too much energy is expended defending trees that should not be there. Rarely is it a mistake to take them down. The much bigger mistake is usually leaving them there.We should use our energies on other aspects of the course. Don't worry about whether or not to cut that tree down, just do it and move on.

BTW I think it is a good idea to find the person(s) who planted the trees and have a conversation with them. People have feelings; trees don't.

« **Reply #61 on:** March 07, 2007, 09:04:13 AM »

Mike,

In my opinion, a tree management plan should consider trees on a case by case basis. These blanket statements of yours are pretty disturbing and in the end, counter-productive.

"...don't worry about cutting a tree down, just do it and move on."

What is the point of such over the top statements? Such a position becomes so meaningless that it really discredits you and the positive aspects of what you are trying to achieve.

« **Reply #62 on:** March 07, 2007, 09:33:04 AM »

Wayne,

I used " too much energy" and "rarely" and " usually" before that phrase. If the tree huggers read like you do then there is no chance to communicate.. I'm not suggesting heartlessness, just pragmatism.

« **Reply #63 on:** March 07, 2007, 09:53:45 AM »

Coming from the Pacific Northwest may give me a somewhat different perspective than say someone from Oklahoma concerning trees. While turf quality and line of play are certainly important considerations, there is also the choice to save the best of the specimens and remove the weaker ones.

I am always amused when a member looks at me and makes some comment like 'they've always been there." Then you produce a photograph from 20 years ago and the tree either hadn't been planted or it had gone from sapling to monster. The monster now closes down playing corridors and had completely changed the options available on the hole.

Good stewardship actually requires the judicious removal and pruning of trees. The environmental issues should be based on the preservation of green space, which golf course do very well trees or not.

« **Reply #64 on:** March 07, 2007, 10:10:06 AM »

Wayne:

The lunge and parry or remark and riposte between you and Mayday is as ongoing and intense as it is between me and Pat---except you guys might be serious.

The tone between you and Mayday sort of reminds me of the Seinfeld show's;

"Hello Jerry",

"HELLO NEWMAN"

« **Reply #65 on:** March 07, 2007, 10:26:52 AM »

Tom,

As long as you see me as Jerry and Mikey as Newman

I think either Mike does not write what he thinks very well or he really believes what he's saying. If the former, he needs to work on his communication skills or he won't be able to be productive. If the later, I think he either needs to see Dr. Katz immediately or we should see him again for his weekly Friday beating

« **Reply #66 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:01:23 PM »

Quote from: W.Vostinak on March 07, 2007, 09:55:58 AM

Quote from: Kalen Braley on March 06, 2007, 10:30:51 PM
I wonder why news about Mars is not out there in the mainstream media as it concerns to global climate change. Did you know that Mars is also under going a massive warming as well?

I did, Kalen. Oh, look, my words are so appropriately green!

I promise not to get into the politics of global warming, who benefits and why and how the current campaign will eventually work. Oh maybe just a little ..... at the *end if anyone is still reading.

A much more insidious occurrence just might be occurring and the "global warming blitz" is to call our attention away from this doomsday inevitability.

THE SUN IS HEATING UP BEFORE IT GOES SUPERNOVA AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE FRIED and/or VAPORIZED!!!
THE SUN HAS TO GO RED GIANT FIRST. ANY DAY NOW...
Check page 26 of your newspaper in the next few weeks for the very small article about the multitude of European scientists who are currently suing to have their names removed from the recently-released UN Accord.

PROVE IT. THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR GETTING INTO POLITICS ON A GOLF BOARD.

« **Reply #67 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:04:50 PM »

Quote from: Peter Zarlengo on March 06, 2007, 10:06:42 PM

Keep in mind that trees are used as a safety mechanism to seperate holes. Especially on some cramped sites where old designs didn't anticipate golfers to hit it 300+, trees can buffer holes, add strategy, and sequester carbon. All while looking better than the god-awful mounds that are going up on some courses.

How would you explain their absence on links designs with an out and in routing where every hole abutts another hole, yet, the game survives quite well without the introduction of trees ?[/color]

Not saying that i support mass tree palntings on golf courses, far from it. But sometimes safety concerns can override certain design elements.

There's an inherent risk that the golfer assumes when they elect to play golf.

The safety issue is often an overreaction or the excuse used when trees are planted indescriminately.

To now claim that trees must be planted at the 300 yard mark due to lengthened drives is a waste of money and foolish.

By the time the trees mature sufficiently to block any errant drive, drives will be carrying 400 yards.

With the millions of rounds that are played, one rarely hears of a golfer being struck by a golf ball, and in some cases, when that happens, it's usually due to carelessness by the hittor, or the hittee [/color]

« **Reply #68 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:20:47 PM »

http://www.usga.org/turf/articles/management/trees/mans_friend.html

USGA's take on this.

« **Reply #69 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:52:28 PM »

Wayne,

How about this?

Whenever the discussion starts about whether a tree should stay or go,it probably means it should just go. It will be forgotten very quickly.

« **Reply #70 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:58:59 PM »

In my opinion, there is no need to be creating such rules of thumb. There is no practical purpose when it comes to tree issues. It is far better to create a comprehensive tree plan that is based on archival materials (drawings, aerial and ground photos, club minutes and other documentation) along with consultation with an architect, the superintendent and agronomy experts as needed and finally a broad perspective of the architect's work. Trying to ram a round theory into a square hole isn't going to get you where you want to go. A thoughtful and course specific (even tree specific if necessary) presentation is the only compelling method to achieve a proper management program, not a one-line unified tree theory.

« **Reply #71 on:** March 07, 2007, 02:34:25 PM »

Hey Tom - on your course I really enjoy the sycamore trees that some wise person planted near so many of your tee boxes. I seem to play GMGC on excruciatingly hot days, and the shade is really welcome. I don't know your track well enough to comment on if they would better be removed from a architectual standpoint, however.

« **Reply #72 on:** March 07, 2007, 02:59:54 PM »

Wayne,
I agree with your concept; it is not inconsistent with what I am saying .When , at any point in the discussion of a particular tree, one is considering keeping it or cutting it, I say just cut it. It's no rule; it's just a way to save time and energy.

« **Reply #73 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:14:40 PM »

Still in single digit posts and I'm already getting the infamous bold replies...

I guess I came off a little pro-tree there. All I was trying to say was that sometimes trees act as more than a penal/aesthetic element in golf courses and their planting is not always arbitrary. All of this, even if trees exist on golf courses largely due to cultural preference for the parkland setting.

Patrick-
I agree with most of what you said in the second part there. Playing golf does require risk and carelessly planting trees is a huge waste of money. But the tree 150 out, dead left, and adjacent to another green is the one my dad always seems to nail.

« **Reply #74 on:** March 09, 2007, 06:52:42 PM »

Lindsey,

I would go so far to say that the trees taken down on golf courses doesn't even break .0001% of the total removed each year.

Further,

If I remember correctly something like .75% of the oxygen is generated by the water bodies covering the Earth. So lets stop chopping the weeds for boating and fishing first.

Best,
Steve

News:

Gary Slatter

LBaker

Patrick_Mucci

Peter Zarlengo

Kalen Braley

Joe Hancock

W.H. Cosgrove

Troy Alderson

TEPaul

TEPaul

mike_malone

wsmorrison

mike_malone

W.H. Cosgrove

TEPaul

wsmorrison

John Kirk

Patrick_Mucci

mike_malone

mike_malone

wsmorrison

Dan Boerger

mike_malone

Peter Zarlengo

Steve Curry