Selling a Tree "Management" Program at your club

[RDecker]

I know this topic has been covered to a great degree by this website but I thought I might share the details of my experience while I am still enjoying the euphoria of sawdust and tree limbs surrounding my tees and greens.  My 1927 Donald Ross course was suffering from the very same Tree related issues that most of the classical era courses in the Northeast(Western Mass. in my case) and the United States for that matter are; Too many maturing around crucial playing surfaces that weren't properly maintained in the past.  When I came on board at my club in late spring of this year I started to plant the kernel of an idea, the turf quality at this course is suffering and it has more to do with the trees than any other factor.  The club was in the beginning stages of installing tee to green irrigation and was feeling that the water would fix all the problems.  I told them the water was only part of the equation and that something should be done about starting a "Tree Management" program sooner than later.  The Club had set up a walk through with the U.S.G.A. agronomist before hiring me and when he walked the course with myself and several club officials he corraborated my view of the tree situation within minutes of being on the property.  This helped get the wheels turning but the next step was alittle bit of good fortune and helped seal the deal.  I contacted Brad Klein and asked if he was ever in the area if he would stop by and take a look at my course.  He happened to be planning a trip up to the Berkshires to go antiqueing with his wife and stopped off and walked the property with my greens chairman and myself and again hammered home the message about tree management and especially removal.   Now people were thinking it was a good idea.  So next I had my local tree company rep. come and give me a quote on a substantial amount of work (about 10% of our annual budget) and convinced the club to add the cost into the total they were raising from membership to pay for the irrigation project.  Lastly while they were considering the proposal I convinced Ron Forse to see the course and when he did so and followed his visit up with a written report emphasizing tree work the deal was done so to speak.  What I'm trying to say here I guess is if someone out there is struggling to sell his or her fellow members or employers in my case on the idea of a Tree Management program that involves wholesale removals then my recommendation is to use experts in the area to hammer the concept home and don't be afraid to bring in as many as it takes to get the point across.  Now that nearly 30 pines of nearly 100 feet have been removed from one of my par 3's the golfers have been walking out through the snow and seeing an entirely different golf hole, one given them by a master over 75 years ago and they are looking forward to spring more than ever.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Nice post.  How many trees in total have been removed or put on a list for removal?

[Robert Overdorf]

Mr. Decker, I like your post, coming from a design background (my father Bill Overdorf) and being on the GPS end of the industry (for supers), I have discovered many integral aspects in maintaining a golf course.   I have found that while creating a asbuilt of a course (sq. footage of all features, location and description of all irrigation components, etc.),  I can apply the same amount of  detail to a tree asbuilt,  this allows me to map every tree to include approx. height, girth, and species along with taking a photo. Because of the software I use, I can put on a presentation to any board showing not only the location in reference to a feature but a view from a point that gives a board the ability to see what you are trying to accomplish. When I am done I load the data on the superintendents computer which can be used by him to maintain and manage his golf course. My data is also easily transferable into any irrigation software package also. I end up killing allot of birds with one stone.

So I applaud your ability to get it passed by your board as they have no idea how good the course will be now.

Have a Happy Holiday Season.

Robert

[Mark_Fine]

RDecker,
Well done!  Always nice to see a course that has decided to  remove trees.  I happen to believe trees are one of if not the biggest problem confronting the majority of the classic courses.  They lead to so many other problems as most of us know.  I get more requests when traveling around the country to comment on recommended tree removal then any other aspect of the design.  The problem is, few courses have the guts to carry it out!  In many restorations, trees are one of the last things to be addressed.  
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
What's your opinion of Weeping Willows? Pinus strobus?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I don't care for weeping willow trees on the golf course nor do I like pine trees such as the Pinus strobus!
Mark

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Weeds!  Weeds!  Weeds!!!!

[Dunlop_White]

R Decker,

Great job with the trees!

"TREE REMOVAL: FINESSING THE LANDMINE OF CLUB POLITICS:"

This is a heading in my Tree Maintenance/Removal Bible which I distributed at Golfweek's Restoration Conference last month. Portions of this document are located below:

1.  Take a Covert Approach with Tree Removal: Too often it is necessary to skirt membership detection and the wrath of those emotionally attached. So don't notify or alert the membership of tree removal plans. The practice of marking a tree for removal with orange paint or a red ribbon is much too conspicuous.

Unless it is an outright specimen, don't bother trimming a tree either. The wound typically leaves an obvious scar to remind all golfers of your sin.

When? The best time to remove trees is when the club is closed or when no one is around. Snow storms present ideal opportunities for tree removal.
If trees are removed in the middle of winter, no one will notice the next spring.
If trees are removed in the dead of night with a high horse power chipper, a tarp, and a sod crew, (like Oakmont), no one will likely miss the trees the next day.

How many? How often? Take a conservative, gradual approach. Do not send the membership into a state of shock or panic. Prioritize and start removing slowly. By the time memberships start noticing the tree loss, they are endorsing a program they never would have honoured up front. With tree removal, a methodical approach builds consensus.

If tree removal is necessary, but not urgent, copper nails and chemical treatments are fine choices to promote a slow departure. Ordinarily, memberships don't object to the removal of rotten, brown hardwoods which have mysteriously or inexplicably perished. Golfers will offer good riddance when these trees become unsightly and present liability or safety concerns.

2.  A Negotiable Approach with Tree Removal: Club democracies often demand membership approval and consent.

Agronomic Persuasion: Virtually all golfers prefer thriving turf.  Because memberships are more concerned with good agronomics than with strategic shot making, it would be good politics to approach tree removal with the emphasis on the ability of growing healthy, green grass. Architectural principals are generally unaccepted as justifications for tree removal. If you try to convince them that the tree was unoriginal, unattractive, unduly penal, or strategically improper, you had better take cover.

Barter and Compromise: Compromises work just as well. Golfers, who are sentimental about trees, ordinarily appreciate flower gardens and other formalized beds adorning the premises. Focus on such arrangements in conspicuous sections around the clubhouse. Thus, if you erect a shrub bed beside the parking lot, you will not appear as ecologically insensitive for logging a few menacing trees on the golf course.

Bring in the Experts: Memberships rely upon expert opinions. But make sure you hire informed experts. Preferably, golf course architects and USGA agronomists can persuade memberships to adopt a tree removal plan. Arborists and horticulturists should not be permitted to take on this endeavor.

Good luck to all!

[Peter Goss]

One of the standout benefits of the GCA site has been the dissemination of valuable information, experience and tactics regarding removal of unwanted trees. Dunlop's essays have been inspirational.
My home Club suffers major problems with tree encroachment. In the last 6 months I have gained agreement from Committee and members to
*Remove all pine trees (Over 50 years old, safety hazard - total 306 trees)
*Remove all trees inhibiting morning sun from important turfgrass areas such as tees and greens (80 treees)
*Return of all vegetation to that of indigenous (Australian) species (120 trees (mainly cypresses) and many "beautifying" shrubs such as agapanthis).
I suspect the average member has not yet fully interpreted  what they have agreed to. We are carefully  planning our course of action and are trying to avoid "shock" removal. It is at least comforting for some members to know that others have agreed to the plans! We will have a much better golf course over the next few years and will continue to learn from such valuable GCA postings.
We have taken out about 39 trees in the past 4 months. Plan to be at 112 trees by February. The point about NOT arguing on architectural basis is correct - much better to be on the safety and turfgrass (and indiginous flora/fauna) issues.

[Shane Gurnett]

Peter, I hope you are documenting all your good deeds, as they will surely prove to be the pathway that many of us others should be following. It seems to be not so much a case of what good things must be done, but rather what are the pitfalls to be avoided. That said, the issue of trees is never an easy subject to discuss with some people, but there are invariably surprises in whom is really on your side. Sometimes you just have to ask the hard questions. Has there ever been a case where too many trees have been taken down? I doubt it.

Dunlop White

When are you next coming to Melbourne? The sand belt needs you......

[RDecker]

A total of about 30 trees have been removed both by the contractor and myself ( not an insignificant amount on a 9 hole course)which include large white pines and several norway maples and willows both of which I consider noxious weeds on a golf course.  I wrote my original post last evening before attending my annual members open meeting and I was pleasantly suprised by the comments from the floor.
Instead of criticism the board and myself recieved some compliments and a few "how many more.." and "where else..."
type questions, on a whole the project has sat quite well with all concerned.  The Project was put forward as a "Good start" and hopefully the results this year coming will sell future work better than I or Mr.'s Klein or Forse ever could.

[Jeff Mingay]

Even if originally opposed to the idea, any rational golfer who takes in the undeniable benefits of tree removal, will unanimously support an intelligent tree management program.

Dunlop White's done excellent research and writing on the subject. I believe he makes the point above that the best appraoch is from an agronomic perspective.

Poor turf conditions, as at Mr. Decker's course, can almost always be attributed to an over-abundance of trees. Considering most golfers are more concerned about turf quality than architecture, this is the most successful approach to getting those first few trees around greens and trees won. Once those types of trees, causing agronomic difficulties, come down and the benefits are clear, golfers will start asking, "When are we taking more down?" Always.

Furthermore, I think it's also important to stress to a club membership that an intelligent tree management program is not strictly about removal. In theory, selective tree management involves the removal and REPLACEMENT of undesirable and non-native trees. In other words, when you remove junk and clutter, space is opened for native species, properly located and adequately spaced in indigenous arrangements.

Even if you don't intend to do any planting, talk about "selective tree management" when selling a program  

[Jeff Mingay]

I also agree with Mr. Decker's strategy of bringing in as many arbitrary third-party experts as possible -- ie. writers (like Brad), golf architects (like Forse), et.al. These types of people have no agenda in club politics. Thus, their opinions should be taken on face-value.

[Mark_Fine]

Great points everyone!!  I love this topic not only because it is a tough one to deal with, but because it can have dramatic consequences on a golf course.  

The winter months are a great time to remove trees.  Ice storms, disease, ... are all great excuses to take down trees that have outlived their usefulness (if they ever had any to begin with).  Furthermore, most members won't remember what was there and what wasn't.  

"Lightning", the best name for a chainsaw I've ever heard  

[RT (Guest)]

"The three best fungicides on the market are Stihl, Poulan and Husquavarna".

[Dunlop_White]

1.   Peter McCleery's column, "Mission Unpopular", in the October Issue of Golf Digest is a good source of information. The link is is below:

http://file:///C:/My%20Documents/Architecture%20Reports/GolfDigest_com%20-%20Mission%20Unpopular_files/trees1.jpg

Other great sources include:

2.   "Trees on Golf Courses: Do they Really Belong?" Rough Meditations, page 69, 1997, by Bradley S. Klein, Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, Michigan, USA.

3.   "Proud, Tree Loving Golf Host Often Out of their Tree", Golfweek, page 46, August 18, 2002 by Bradley S. Klein, Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA
      
4.   "Tree logic: If it's in the game's way, take it down", Superintendent News, November 10, 2000, by Bradley S. Klein, Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA.

And, I may be able to forward my "Tree Maintenance Plan' distribution to those who are interested.

      

[Paul Richards]

One of the best ideas, mentioned above, was to bring in experts and let them help educate our membership.

During the process leading up to a successful passage of Beverly's Master Plan (by 184 to 29 vote!) we brought in Bradley Klein, Ron Whitten, and Ron Prichard, who all gave speeches on not only restoration issues, but on tree plans as well.  Bradley gave the best speech in this regard and really blew some people away when he told them that "if a tree needs to be trimmed, it shouldn't be there."

[Dunlop_White]

Paul Richards,

Congratulations on all of your hard work up at Beverly. Ron Pritchard told me, at the Restoration Conference in Williamsburg, that it was your love and care for the Ross design coupled with your persistence with the membership which hammered the tree issue home.

Thus, it is certainly a team effort.

Experts, such as Brad Klein, and Ron Pritchard, cannot be as effective without an informed member masterminding the entire process. All clubs need informed members behind the wheel.

Way to go!

Dunlop

[Danny Goss]

Dunlop,
Thanks for mentioning where to get further information.

But where can we get hold of the articles mentioned in points 3 and 4 above? Are they available on the net?

[Paul Richards]

Dunlop:

Thanks for the kind words!

[Brad Klein]

Further helpful advice -

1. Never refer to the process as "tree removal." It's "tree management" and invariably the club has never had such a plan before.

2. You are not simply addressing issues of turfgrass quality but also of tree quality, esp. saving specimen hardwoods. Mr. Decker forget to mention that in the process of identifying candidate trees for "executive action" we also managed to expose and highlight a magnificent American elm on the left side of his 6th hole which was lost amidst junk trees.

3. Clearing room for air and sunlight also creates opportunities for the turf to dry out, thereby reducing the disease susceptibility of turfgrass and eliminating the need to rely upon herbicides and fungicides. The ecological arguments are all on the side of aggressive tree management.

4. Transplanting modestly or smaller hardwoods into proper places is a good political tactic, esp. early in a tree management program to reassure people and limit their fears. At the same time, it's crucial to avoid giving numbers out when people ask how many are you going to remove. The answer is always "3."

5. Don't be discouraged by early opposition. All tree management plans meet with resistance, and every one I've seen, once begun, begun meets with growing support among members and golfers. There will always be a few recalcitrant holdouts. Don't be discouraged. And at certain point, stop listening to them. They will become a silent minority  

[RDecker]

Brad,

Thanks again for your help with the project.  The 3 trees you speak of were willows that I took down from in front of the Elm and now the view from the 6 tee is fantastic.  Members have been talking about which trees we should take down next year already, Christmas came early in Lee this year!

[Guest]

A tree that needs to be trimmed, shouldn't be there???

Sorry Brad, but you would not have been welcome at the club that I worked at recently. There is a lot of helpful information in this thread, not counting Dunlop's advice to "skirt membership detection" with a "covert approach", but this tree razing love fest is going overboard. You guys might want to take a step back and take a deep breath and think about some of the things written here. The answer is always "3"? Geez Brad.

Case in point: I worked at club that had two creeks running through it. There is not an abundance of land for the course, so there are tees and greens tucked into shadier places. We were able to keep most of the natural beauty of the creeks by removing some trees and TRIMMING others to allow in air and light. We were delighted at the prospects of keeping a lot of trees and approaching the issues annually instead of turning a parkland course into an open field in one fell swoop.

And we did this without any opposition whatsoever (I guess we are the exception to your rule Brad) and without playig word games ("management" instead of "removal") with our members. Maybe I am missing something here. If so, I apologize. But if Paul misquoted you on the tree trimming Brad, you didn't correct him. And I would ask you guys to step back and reread this thread. It seems to me to be full of disrespect, not only for trees but for the members whose courses you would presumably consult on. There is a compromise in many of these situations. I know. I witnessed it. And our program had the full blessing of the course superintendent. His people did a lot of the work.

Like I said, there is some good stuff here, but some of this stuff about deception and the like is offensive, with all due respect to you guys. I wish everyone here well, but this does not read well.

By the way, what's not to like about White Pine just out of curiosity?  

Also, are there any trained and licensed horticulturalists posting here, again out of curiosity?

[Steve Curry]

Dear Mr/Ms Guest,

Perhaps the one course you were (working?) at didn't have a tree problem.

You are right in that we professionals tend to disrespect members who have irrationally planted and protected trees that make it extremely difficult to grow grass as well as thoroughly denigrate superior architecture.  But then, we do have our allies, I received an email a couple of years ago from a former president of one of the worlds greatest golf courses suggesting that I remove trees in the winter while my members are away.  Perhaps you know better than this quite successful and astute individual.

I tend to think, granted assume, that your experience in the realm of tree problems is limited, maybe due to locale.

White Pines as all conifers are particularly problematic as they block sunlight thoroughly and year round.  The fact that they have winter foliage contributes greatly to ice and winter damage issues.

I have the original A.W. Tillinghast plan for Berkshire Hills CC, where I am the superintendent.  He clearly shows trees on the property that were in existence as well as those that needed to be planted.  There are now, thanks to the state run tree planting programs of years past probably 500-600 more trees than originally outlined.  Many of which are noxious weeds that thwart the growth of grass and block tremendous vistas of the Berkshire mountains.

On an environmental note grass is a better filter for groundwater and producer of oxygen than trees.

Regards,
Steve

[Brad Klein]

Dear "Guest"

if you were so successful at your (former) club why are you so afraid to post your name?

Paul Richards misquoted me. What I said was that if a tree needs to be trimmed, it's easier and better just to cut it down altogether. If it needs trimming, it doesn't belong there.

Since you have not bothered to read beyond this post and haven't seen the essays I (and others) have been writing over the years, you do not appreciate that I emphasize that trees have a place on the golf course, but not in the middle of a golf hole. I'm not about to repeat myself in detail here, other than to affirm that I have written widely that trees have a place on the perimeter of a course, near stream beds, in dense clusters, and proving they are the right species. On clay soils, white pines are a disaster, as they acidify the soil, create winter shade that leads to ice and winter damage, exude bark and other debris, are surface rooters and thus dangerous to both mowers and to golfers. They rapidly decline, usually with diplodia. Deep rooting hardwods are very different and have a better place. Soft wooded trees like willows, birch, swamp maples and sumac are also very problematic.

My basic point is that most people who (literally) embrace trees on golf courses are more interested in trees than golf. That goes for most of those arborists' reports that look to protect trees and don't bother to integrate trees with golf and golf turfgrass

You're obviously more interested in taking cheap shots than making sound arguments or doing your homework.