[Patrick_Mucci]

Today, I visited a golf course that underwent a fairly major tree removal program over the winter.

I hadn't seen the golf course since last September.

I was impressed by what I saw.

A great number of randomly planted pines and ornamental trees that were too close to the lines of play were gone.

A great deal of framing was ..... gone

The stark definition offered at several tees was gone.
The fairway/rough line was the prime indicator, whereas, previously, defined corridors created by trees, dictated play.

Angles into greens were opened up by the removal of many trees.

Since it was so windy, I couldn't tell how much, if any, the tree removal might have reintroduced the wind into the playing experience.

Greens were exposed to sunlight from all directions, whereas, many had been shaded previously.

Over the winter, without having seen the golf course, many members were upset about the tree removal, and complained bitterly about the potential impacts.

Many claimed that it would produce lower scores.
Others protested that the golf course wouldn't look as good.
Others complained that the golf course would look like a public golf course (whatever that means)

I"m told that the feedback, based on the members actually playing the golf course has been very favorable.

So, why do so many golfers object to the tree removal project in principle, but, when they see and experience the results, they embrace the concept.

Why did American golf courses fall in love with trees to begin with ?

Why do so many members object in principle, to their removal,
especially trees that have been planted/added over the last
10-20-30-40 years ?

Have hi-tech clubs made trees less necessary in screening golfers on one hole from golfers on another hole ?

Is the open look coming back into vogue ?

Upon seeing and playing courses with substantive, successful tree removal programs, will guests return to their course to champion that cause ?

Does F&F begin to take hold once trees are removed and the golf course opened up ?

[grandwazo]

Pat

After reading your post I wondered if you had visited Muttontown today.  Word for word you described what has happened there.  

Two weekends ago one of our "problem" members came up to me and said that "you guys" are going to "tear this place up" and we now had a "links course".  What a joke!

The leaves came in over the past two weeks and if you had never visited before you would say the course was still "tree lined" and could stand to lose a few hundred more trees.  

The only problem I have is not with the work that was done, but now with it done, the "weak" spots on the course, i.e. the overall design and bunker construction is now much more obvious.  

The holes that Kelly Blake Moran was able to get done are so far and above better than the 14 holes that haven't been touched that it's almost painful.  

The course is in fantastic shape and should only get better as the tree removal benefits really take hold.  

To answer your basic question...why do members complain?

Human nature....they just can't help themselves.  For the most part, the majority of the people who are privileged to enjoy private club membership, really have NO substantive knowledge of golf course architecture and maintenance practices.  Sad....but true.  It's up to the select few who don't necessarily have the specific "how to" knowledge but do have the intelligence to know that our golf courses need to be constantly renewed and stand up when necessary to say, "Hey, it's not working, and it's time to make a change" and then follow through.  

I'm proud to have been a part of the process at my club and pray that the current leadership continues to "renew" the course by following the master plan that Kelly developed for us.
 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat

Wait until the members see what has happened when the US Open is on tv and Oakmont is on display.

[Andy Troeger]

People I think like what they are used to. Many people have grown accustomed to playing tree-lined golf courses and they have a general affinity for playing golf on those types of courses.

Its much easier to understand the changes made to a course once you've played it. Talking about it only does a lot of good if you're really knowledgable about the subject matter in the first place.

[Jamey Bryan]

I played yesterday with a couple of members of our course who play many times a week.  One noticed (apparently for the first time) that three trees had been removed next to what has always been the worst conditioned green on the course.  Note:  the trees were taken down about a month ago, and didn't really come into play except to save a REALLY bad shot.  2nd note:  These were trash pines!

He asked why the trees were taken down, and I told him they limited half the green to about 3 hours of sun per day.  His response was "It takes a lot of years to replace a tree."

Sad.

Jamey

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

A couple of weeks ago I made a consulting visit to a course we haven't worked on before.  Over the course of my tour with two club officers, they were accosted on four separate occasions by members worried about whether they were going to remove trees, with comments ranging from unflattering to downright threatening.

I hadn't seen that side of it for many years.  It is no wonder the club's board is reluctant to remove trees, even though they agree it's necessary ... if they follow through, they may be sacrificing their own ability to enjoy the club in peace.

It just baffles me why people are so attached to nursery trees.

[Mike_Young]

I think it will become worse as courses become older.  Most courses in this country are less than 60 years old and the problem will do nothing but get worse.
Golf Clubs will not have as much problem with trees as country clubs.  IMHO the country clubs are so often run by "those who play golf" and not golfers.  To compound the problem...at our course...we presently have the supt place mulch in a circle around the trees on an average of say 10 ft radius....rain moves it and playing out of it is a major hassle.....
another reason for benevolent dictators....

[David_Tepper]

Among the several worthwhile articles in the May/June issue of LINKS Magazine is an article on the tree removal program at Oakmont CC ("The Cutting Edge," p. 65). The tree removal program literally began there under the cover of the darkness of night, as every attempt was made to hide what was going on from the general membership. When the members discovered the planned scope of the tree removal program, it "caused an uproar at the club."

People (and most certainly golfers) are creatures of habit. For the past 3 or 4 decades, US golfers have been conditioned that a tree-lined, parkland course is the ideal to which all courses should aspire. Aside from Shinnecock, how many notable golf championships in the US have been held on a course that was NOT tree-lined? Even when AGNC played "wide," the trees were a notable visible feature of the course.

I would also add that someone who has been a member of a golf club for 30+ years does likely feel some subliminal emotional attactment to the trees on the course. After all, they have grown both up and old together!  

 

[Mike_Clayton]

I would think we have cut down as many trees as anybody in Australia and I have yet to remove one that I wish I had left.
We have removed a handful of beautiful trees for the sake of a hole but most have not been trees of any great indigenous significance.
People all profess to wanting a course to feel natural but they play courses smothered with trees that often are not even native to our continent - let alone the local area the course is in.

At one club, a supporter of the tree removal asks those who complain about the removal which trees they would put back.
The illogicality of the arguments is highlighted by the usual answer ' Oh,we wouldn't put any of them back!"

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The ninety-ten rule comes into play here.  Ninety percent of the members don't care and 10% do, that 10% is loud and militant.  

They make stupid coments like, "I'm going to quit the club" if this that or the other thing happens.   Boards and committees buckle to their whining and voila, you have management by the minority.  

See T. Doak's thread on fairness.  I would love to be in a position where you say fine, if you want out of the club your gone!!  If you threaten you're gone period.  

Cut the damned trees down if they are in the way or causing agronomic problems, the minority be damned.  And by the way if you can make that happen come on over to my place and we can cut some stuff down there too!

Tree problems never happened at our Club! RIGHT!

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

   In the general area of NE USA it seems to me that the reason was different than your idea. I say this because since the 1960's+/- the tree of choice was an evergreen. I think the main reason was because they grew fast. These trees didn't distinguish courses ; it made them all look alike.

   Here in the Philadelphia area it is often referred to as the "Pine Valley effect " because PV's holes were separated by trees. But, I think there was also a huge movement "to make courses harder" and to provide a safe shield for players from wayward shots.

   

   As an aside, what percent of PV's separating trees are of the thick impenetrable evergreen type ?

[mike_malone]

 My favorite reaction to tree removal at my club is best expressed by this exchange.


    Unnamed member " Mike, every tree you suggested we remove has been a good idea".

 Me  " Well, we need to remove those two by the bunkers on #12. They cover up some wonderful design work".


   UM  " We will never take them down ; it will make the hole too easy!".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Hurricane Wilma destroyed an inordinate number of non-indigenuos trees on golf courses in South Florida.

Mother Nature's message was clear.

It was addressed to the Snowbirds.

It said:  Don't plant northern trees in a tropical climate.

Some clubs understood the message, and the only replanting they did, was with trees indigenous to the area.

Other clubs didn't get it and began repacing the same trees.

The insurance companies got it and revised many of their policies to exclude tree damage on golf courses.

What I find so interesting about this issue is, as you said, the blind love for nursery trees that were forced onto the golf course over the last few decades by green committees.

[mike_malone]

 What is a nursery tree ?

[Phil Benedict]

My course has taken down hundreds of trees and I have yet to hear a negative comment about the tree removal program.  There are still lots of trees on the course or bordering the course.

We have had lots of turf problems in recent years and our membership seems to understand that tree removal is good for the grass.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

It's a tree you purchase from a nursery.

In many cases it tends to be an ornamental tree, although, pines, spruces and evergreens were purchased in volume.

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: I was just wondering, have you ever seen a course where trees were successfully added? How about on a piece of property that had no trees to begin with - how about in Florida, any courses where added trees worked - or how about up north, any courses where trees, especially pines, were successfully added?  My impression has been that nearly everyone agrees that adding trees is almost never a good idea.

[D_Malley]

i have found that alot of people get an initial shock of the new look of holes where there has been extensive tree removal and they usually object at first.  after repeat plays they seem less concerned about it, until eventually they are onboard and raving about the improvement.  un til the next round of tree removals starts and then same process begins again.  

how about the people that approach you and ask
"why are you removing all the trees?"  like they really want to be educated on the reasons. when they really don't care why they are being taken down.  they just want to tell you how much they loved those trees.

[tlavin]

I've been through this process at Beverly and Olympia Fields here in Chicago.  Many members have a hysterical reaction to the proposed cutting of any trees.  Education helps, but some people ardently believe that a golf course is part arboretum.  Generally speaking, most everybody winds up liking the new, less forested look and I do believe that this is a trend that is gaining acceptance across the country.  Oakmont was surely a pioneer in this department and those who led that process deserve our thanks.  Here's a simple rule: If the battle is between a tree and turf, the turf should win pretty much every time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry Kluger,

I would state that adding trees at the perimeter of the golf course can be advantageous.

Screeing the outside, from the inside, visually and accoustically has merit.

On a hole that was designed as a dog leg, I can see a reason to plant trees, for safety and playability issues.

[Tom_Doak]

I have to jump in and answer the question posed to Pat:

"Have you ever seen any good tree planting programs?"

The answer is absolutely, yes.  Many on this web site decry having any trees in play, ever, and I wonder why they feel they have to go to that extreme, because it often causes their arguments to fall on deaf ears.

Oak Hill (Rochester) was an open farm field at the start, and all those big oaks give it great character ... although they took a good thing and went too far with it, and now they need to take some of the more recent plantings out.

San Francisco Golf Club has some beautiful trees ... some people tell me it would be better if it was all opened up again, but I can't imagine that is really the case.

Judicious planting can enhance a golf course.  The only problem is that amateurs don't know when to stop, and demand instant gratification and overplant instead of letting the trees mature over 20-30 years ... and then the next generation thinks their dad's trees are sacred and doesn't want to take them out.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I would take it then that it is very important that the correct type of tree is selected.  So often, I have seen pine trees planted because it is easy and they grow quickly.

[Mike Policano]

Pat,

I think a contributing factor to members' views on keeping trees is rooted in a lack of understanding or interest in gca. I rarely run into someone who reads about gca, other than those who are aware of this site.

Furthermore, I observe that those who are expert in other fields often assume they are knowledgable on gca even though they haven't studied or even read about gca.

The tree work on my home course has been great. And beyond the "90-10 Rule" quoted above, has been well-received.

And, finally, contrary to comments of the "10" I have not seen handicaps going down because it is 'easier'.

Heck, I can't bank as many tee balls off the trees into the fairway now.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   Thanks for your reply. I was thinking of dogwoods or cherry trees. They have no reason to be in areas of play. These types of trees start to branch a few feet from the ground which eliminates any chance for a shot without cutting your golf shaft in half.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

I can cite you a good number of clubs that populated their course with an abundance of Dogwoods and Cherries.

The desire to "add color" to the golf course is something I refer to as the feminization of golf courses.

If clubs want to add color, let them build formal gardens.

A recent trend is to "add color" to select locations.

Areas where carts are parked by tees and greens are now being heavily planted with decorative shrubs, trees and flowers.

This represents a hit to the operating budget and a maintainance headache.

I prefer the Carl Spackler approach to the tulips.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()