Selling a Tree "Management" Program at your club

[RDecker]

Dear Guest,

In addition to the information previously mentioned I think it merits mentioning that the USGA agronomist who consulted has an extensive background in arborcare and the tree company we dealt with had not 1 but 2 certified arborists on my course during the process.  In addition to agronomic and and shot value considerations golfer safety and tree health were also considered during the project.  Several of the species that had been introduced to the course weren't native and not well suited for the soil conditions...  With all these factors in mind we did the work at my course.  In consideration of all these factors and the vast experience of Mr. Klein and Mr. Forse if you are still unsure of the validity and motives of "Tree Management" programs then I eagerly await your textbook that will help us all grow healthy turf in shade dominated environments.

[Guest]

Steve,

Your "assumptions" about my experiences are misguided at best. I have 16 years horticultural experience--all the while a golf nut. The club I mentioned had a definite tree problem, if you consider 8 straight weeks of removal and trimming in phase one alone, and years more to come on top of that.

I am sure that there are current and "former" presidents of clubs that advocate going behind members backs. That sounds disrespectful to me. I guess it is always fine to go behind a memberships' back when it is an issue of tree removal, yes? How about if it is an issue of green renovation? Does the renovation crew just show up one day and the members start playing a temporary green? No questions asked? If a member is told up front when he/she is joining that he/she will not be consulted or given a heads up regarding any future course work, then fine. That would not be going behind their backs though, because they would have been warned to expect anything anytime.

I don't have a problem with tree removal at all (your example of removing misplanted trees is misplaced; you are preaching to the choir). I don't "know better" than the former president you mention. Maybe his former membership thrives off deception.

I also don't have a problem with growing healthy turf; again I am part of that choir. I do find people on this website however who don't believe the turf on a course has to be perfect.  

I have a problem with an international golf architecture website advocating such a heavy handed approach to tree care. I would just like to see this thread be a bit more well rounded. In addition to the disrespect toward members I believe I am hearing here, I also have trouble with blanket statements like "if a tree needs trimming, it shouldn't be there". I can't imagine you or Brad or Dunlop really believes in such blanket statements. Maybe you do. If not, it would serve those looking in here to read a more thorough accounting of the possibilities in this area. Just my opinion. Again, I wish you all well.

[By the way, conifers are ideally suited to snow. Their close to 90 degree branching structure allows them to take on large amounts of snow that at some point slides off. A trip to the Rockie Mountains this winter will verify that. The major susceptibility problem for evergreens is not snow and ice. It is wind and drought. (DISEASED trees are susceptible to a lot of things.) Yes there are occasional ice storms that create problems but that is not the norm where I live in the Midwest and, in and of itself, should not be used to discount the value of evergreens. A normal Midwest winter does not harm the conifers around here in the slightest. And as for ice storms, it is often the native deciduous species themselves that get hit the hardest. Here in the Midwest, our most recent storms have taken a serious toll on the cottonwoods, ash, boxelder, silver maple, to name a few. Ash have been planted widely as golf course trees due to the fact that they do not surface root as much as many other trees.]  

[Guest]

RDecker,

That all sounds great. I hope it works out. I like you am for healthy turf. You are preaching to the choir also. But you did not address the troubling tone of what is written above.

By the way, there is no need for that passive aggessive "textbook" comment.

[Guest]

Brad Klein,

I don't think asking for a more well rounded accounting of tree care here is a cheap shot. I appreciate that you have written much on golf. But people looking in here may only be reading what you are writing on this thread. I am glad that you responded in more detail as that will add to the thoroughness of this thread.

As for trimming trees, you say that it is easier to remove them. If it needs trimming it doesn't belong there. That is what I thought Paul wrote. At any rate, do you advocate removing the trees in Amen Corner or trimming them? Would #12 play better if all the trees that have been trimmed over the years had instead been removed? I am sure you agree (I hope   ) that there are many situations when tree trimming as opposed to tree removal is useful. I just want others here to be able to read that. Is that so wrong?

As for the cheap shots, I am not sure what I said that was unfair. I prefer open discussions with members on course changes. I don't prefer blanket statements. If you show me that I took a cheap shot I will apologize. Maybe the "tree razing love fest" is what you are talking about. I apologize. Otherwise, I am confused. I wished you all well and I said there were some good things on this thread in addition to some troubling things.

[RDecker]

I'll apologize for the snipe but won't apologize for getting upset about the nature of your argument.  You make it sound as if superintendents that strive to grow the best turf possible are being selfish.  In the golf world I work in Superintendents are getting fired and phased out at clubs where the memberships don't accept anything but tournament type playing conditions every day.  The bar has been set unrealistically high by golfers, who by and large have no idea what it takes to grow grass at an eighth of an inch in 90 degree temps.  The fact is we do a very difficult job on a daily basis with constantly changing factors and we do it without the support of enough people at our clubs.  We all do this job for the love of the game and the places it is played but we must also remember that we are paid to grow grass and ultimately that is how we are judged so forgive us for the disregard for the the value of some out of place trees that a greens committee may have planted 30 or 40 years ago.  If I lose my job for taking steps that I feel will best serve the playing conditions at my course or become a hero for my efforts I'll be able to live with myself in either instance.

[Guest]

RDecker,

I accept your apology.

But I fear your defensiveness is making it difficult for you to get my point. Please reread all that I have written and see if you still believe what you just wrote.

You write, "You make is sound as if superintendents that strive to grow the best turf possible are being selfish." I do? I will quote myself: "I don't have a problem with tree removal at all" and "I like you am for healthy turf. You are preaching to the choir also."

You write, "...so forgive us for the disregard for the value of some out of place trees that a greens committee may have planted 30 or 40 years ago." Since I have stated that I am not against tree removal and have been involved in the removal of hundreds of trees, I again think your defensiveness is causing you to miss my point.

This thread was titled "Selling a Tree 'Management' Program at you club". All I want along those lines is to ask that posters here consider dealing with the wide range of issues relative to trees and broaden the discussion toward some of the good aspects of trees. It makes for a more thorough discussion in my opinion and helps uninformed readers get a more well rounded understanding of the place for trees on the course. For example, golfer safety was brought up in a point about tree removal I believe. Well, the truth is that trees are one of the best things for increasing golfer safety because they block errant shots. For me it is a lot of fun to consider the swirling winds at Augusta and the role that the trees play in that and the cost to the course to maintain that. It is less fun to simply chop them down--for me and many others. I just thought that sort of idea should be expressed here.

At any rate, I am sorry that some have become defensive here. I even offered up an apology (that I fear Brad missed) in my first post in case I was missing something here. I did take some of you to task for what I read as advocation for deception; and if we are 'selling' tree care to memebers, why would we deceive them? It seems incongruous with the game of golf.

I may have happened upon the wrong thread and maybe I asked for this to be something that only I want it to be. Rather than get you guys any more worked up, I will head on to other topics. I wish you well.

[Jeff Mingay]

Guest,

For the sake of discussion, I'd like to know what "the trees" have to do with the merits of the 12th at Augusta National? Perhaps the trees aid in "swirling" the wind down there. Nonetheless, if they clear cut Amen's Corner, the same great golf holes would be down there by Rae's Creek. Those holes were designed around ground features, not the trees. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was pretty barren in that area of the course in 1933, and for many years after.

[Guest]

Jeff,

Check the photos of Amen Corner from the beginning. You can look some up in Geoff's book THE GOLDEN AGE OF GOLD DESIGN pages 163-166. They left a lot of trees (I presume they were part of the nursery) when they built the course. In fact, those trees are limbed up quite a bit in the photos and they are even throwing shadows on the course. So, maybe MacKensie didn't want the place to be barren. The overhead layout he did for 12 and 13 shows a lot of trees on it. And yes, time and again, the drama of the 12th hole has increased (especially for the Masters tournament) as players stood there trying to decide what club to hit. In my humble opinion, and you should definitely have your own opinion, this is PART of the golf hole. The 13th would play differently too if someone who liked to play left to right could start the ball out way to the left and bring it back. But the trees effect that shot. For a short par five, maybe not being able to cut that corner is a good thing, no? It takes a specific controlled hook to get around the corner. Not a bad request from the architects at that hole. The truth is, they did not clear cut those holes.

If you were in charge, would you clear cut those trees or trim them?

[Steve Curry]

Guest,

Gun shy about nameless people off the bat!

"Brad, but you would not have been welcome"
Didn't feel any better after that.

"by removing some trees and TRIMMING others to allow in air and light"
turns into
"if you consider 8 straight weeks of removal and trimming in phase one alone"

And this comment is exactly what I hear from irrational members who won't compromise, "instead of turning a parkland course into an open field in one fell swoop"

"[By the way, conifers are ideally suited to snow. Their close to 90 degree branching structure allows them to take on large amounts of snow that at some point slides off. A trip to the Rockie Mountains this winter will verify that"

Guest, I have hundreds if not thousands of coniferous limbs on the ground right now that all snapped of in a heavy snow storm a couple of weeks ago.  Most of them are from trees that are too close to playing corridors and or shade my grass.  When I referred to the ice and winter damage I meant that the trees inflict this on my turf.  But now that you have brought it up the Scotch, Austrian and White pine that are prevalent here all break easily in the heavy snow we tend to get in the east.

I guess we just started on the wrong foot or root, whatever the case and are on the same page.  But, if you think it is entirely disrespectful to not listen to 500 members some of which are irrational on good days, then so be it.  I think the most telling occurrence in this regard is the situation in which a member will insist that a tree not be removed and never even notice after it is removed.  This happens all the time!  One last comment, my deceptive thoughts are encouraged by BOD members probably because they know I am to be trusted and won't have a "raze the trees fest".

Regards,
Steve

[Guest]

Steve,

I am glad we are on the same page. Sorry to hear about the tree damage on your course. No doubt the trees were not hardened off for the winter. Early storms are killers.

[HW]

Jeff:

FYI.  Augusta National was built through a nursery.  It should also be pointed out that each hole is named after a tree.

Guest:  You are right on the mark.  

New Idea:  Smart trees should remain on a golf course.

Lessons Learned:  Not all courses that have removed large quantities of trees have received long term positive professional critiques.  Kennett Square (D. Ross course) comes immediately to mind.  


HW

Guest,

For the sake of discussion, I'd like to know what "the trees" have to do with the merits of the 12th at Augusta National? Perhaps the trees aid in "swirling" the wind down there. Nonetheless, if they clear cut Amen's Corner, the same great golf holes would be down there by Rae's Creek. Those holes were designed around ground features, not the trees. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was pretty barren in that area of the course in 1933, and for many years after.

[Paul Richards]

Brad:

You said:
>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.


I agree.  Sorry if I misquoted you.  

[Bruce Bearer]

Our club planted several hundred pine trees of various types during the early 1980's.  They were planted along what was the edge of the fairways at the time.  Now, our fairways are half the width.  We are badly in need of a tree "Management" program.  Some influential members are fairly open to the concept but need a little more "justification" to get on board. 

Does anyone have an analysis of the savings in maintenance cost, on a "cost per tree" basis?  Less time mowing rough, trimming, pest control, leave/branch clean up, water, etc. 

If we remove 300 trees (20-30 foot pine trees) how much will we save per year in course maintenance?

[Simon Holt]

Bruce,

You need to message Kris Shreiner.  His brothers company are the best!  I will not drop names in an open forum but they deal with THE best courses in the US and will give you the best read on this.

www.shreinertreecare.com

They host a BBQ each year at Aronomick and also did at the Walker Cup at Merion.  Lots of GCAers were there.  They really 'get it'.

Simon

[RDecker]

There was a really good article in the spring issue of LINKS magazine that presented the cost analysis for trees on golf courses.  USGA
was quoted and it was very detailed.  If you can't find it online or whatever let me know, I have it posted in the men's lounge at my club and I could email you a copy or something.

[JMEvensky]

RDecker,thanks for the Links Magazine article heads up (and the original thread).The article is available online--it just takes a little time to find it.

[Doug Wright]

Our club planted several hundred pine trees of various types during the early 1980's.  They were planted along what was the edge of the fairways at the time.  Now, our fairways are half the width.  We are badly in need of a tree "Management" program.  Some influential members are fairly open to the concept but need a little more "justification" to get on board. 

Does anyone have an analysis of the savings in maintenance cost, on a "cost per tree" basis?  Less time mowing rough, trimming, pest control, leave/branch clean up, water, etc. 

If we remove 300 trees (20-30 foot pine trees) how much will we save per year in course maintenance?

Read the two Feature Interviews with Dunlop White from February/March 2005.

[Mike McGuire]

Don't try to sell it (they might say no).

Just do it and most will be on board when they see the results.

Start slow and keep the pedal down.