Tree Removal and Native Grasses (Pics)

[Sean_A]

See 1928 aerial below. Ross left a tree there when he designed the course in 1926. Plus he spent summers in Roaring Gap as it was owned by Pinehurst, Inc. The Tufts were the founders. Ross had plenty of opportunities to take the tree down until his death in 1948, but didn't. I am one of the largest advocates of tree management anywhere, and to me, this one is not a priority.

Perhaps the pics don't accurately represent the true beauty of this transformation. Personally, I marvel at the progress here.

The texture and the colors that native mountain fescues add to an otherwise green-and-white golf course are remarkable.

Plus, only 1/4th of the tee was usable in the 90's due to tree encroachment.

Everyone must play this hole to get a full appreciation of it. It is a true "volcano green" and it must be hit off the tee.

Dunlop

I think many display a cautious optimism about this native grass trend because they know fescues can easily get out of control if not managed properly and detract from the playing of the game.  It has been witnessed time and again.  Its the easiest thing in the world to ignore these areas or worse yet, feed them with runoff.  Being mainly a links golfer I have a love/hate relationship with the stuff because it does add loads of texture and a great varietal hazard if well managed, but the stuff is also a ball eater.  Guys who are in charge of planting/encouraging this stuff really need to keep their ear to the ground about what folks are saying about how these fescues effect play.  The look is only aesthetics, what really matters is how shots are effected - so this means higher cappers need to have some influence in these decision-making processes.

Ciao

[ed_getka]

I don't see what the problem is with the tree in question. It is at the back left of the green so the only shot it would affect would be a long one and how often does that ever happen?
   As for the walking path I think one possible idea would be to mow it on the direct line from the tee box once and then as walkers begin to form a path just let the grass fill in the area where people aren't walking over time. Of course if the vast majority of golfers here are taking carts then it probably wouldn't work.

Ed

It looks ugly and awkwardly out of place.  What purpose does it serve?

Ciao

Sean,
   If the tree isn't in the way of play then I don't personally have a problem with it. However, Carl pointed out above that the tree was in the way when he tried to recover from the bunker and I don't approve of that sort of double hazard. It is more obvious in the aerial Dunlop posted that the tree impinges on the bunker.

[Dunlop_White]

This tree does not impinge on the bunker. However, it is losing favor with me. Doesn't take a lot of convincing for me to want to take a tree down.

[ed_getka]

Hacker that I am, my tee ball landed in the left bunker.  As I recall, the pin was back, and my shot from the bunker had to go under the little tree, doubling the hazzard.  I can't recall the outcome clearly, but I think that in keeping my bunker shot low, I went over the green and down the hill on the right, and ended up with a double at best.  Golf?  Sure.

Dunlop,
   Not having been to the course I am only basing my comments on what Carl posted above. From the aerial you posted it appears you would have to be way back in the bunker with a rear pin placement for the tree to be a problem. Thanks for posting all the pix, these kind of threads keep it interesting around here.

[Sean_A]

I don't see what the problem is with the tree in question. It is at the back left of the green so the only shot it would affect would be a long one and how often does that ever happen?
   As for the walking path I think one possible idea would be to mow it on the direct line from the tee box once and then as walkers begin to form a path just let the grass fill in the area where people aren't walking over time. Of course if the vast majority of golfers here are taking carts then it probably wouldn't work.

Ed

It looks ugly and awkwardly out of place.  What purpose does it serve?

Ciao

Sean,
   If the tree isn't in the way of play then I don't personally have a problem with it. However, Carl pointed out above that the tree was in the way when he tried to recover from the bunker and I don't approve of that sort of double hazard. It is more obvious in the aerial Dunlop posted that the tree impinges on the bunker.

Ed

That is an interesting take - sort of live and let live.  My approach is with trees is for their existence on a course to be justified.  For instance, blocking out harsh views and noise or they just look good - especially in the classic park setting where a lovely tree stands on its own.  Once in a while  - if the tree is an exceptional specimen, I even like it to be part of the architectural makeup of the hole.  In any case, I want solid reasons (just as I would for the placement of a bunker which I believe many should be eliminated) why the tree(s) are there or else I would rather they go. 

Ciao

[Carl Nichols]

My approach is with trees is for their existence on a course to be justified.  For instance, blocking out harsh views and noise or they just look good - especially in the classic park setting where a lovely tree stands on its own.  Once in a while  - if the tree is an exceptional specimen, I even like it to be part of the architectural makeup of the hole.  In any case, I want solid reasons (just as I would for the placement of a bunker which I believe many should be eliminated) why the tree(s) are there or else I would rather they go. 

Ciao

Sean:
If a course is built through what was previously forest, should the rule be reversed, i.e., for every tree, there has to be a justification for cutting it down? 

[Sean_A]

My approach is with trees is for their existence on a course to be justified.  For instance, blocking out harsh views and noise or they just look good - especially in the classic park setting where a lovely tree stands on its own.  Once in a while  - if the tree is an exceptional specimen, I even like it to be part of the architectural makeup of the hole.  In any case, I want solid reasons (just as I would for the placement of a bunker which I believe many should be eliminated) why the tree(s) are there or else I would rather they go. 

Ciao

Sean:
If a course is built through what was previously forest, should the rule be reversed, i.e., for every tree, there has to be a justification for cutting it down? 

Carl

Sure, so long as wide corridors (meaning 70-80 yards wide) were cut in the first instance.  I like the idea of great trees being saved from the clearing and used as features.  Here is a great example of a tree I would never dream of cutting down.  Mind you, Kington is blessed with many skyline greens so this aspect isn't so important.


Here are examples of stupid trees that serve no purpose and I have no time for.



Imagine if this lot were cleared out and the one or two best examples were allowed to stand out like the old parks of 100 years ago.  Far, far better.


Same as above.  In fact, Whittington Heath is a poster child as to why trees can be so useless.


Ciao