Have tree "management" programs become easier to sell to memberships?

[PCCraig]

Over the past ten years on Golf Club Atlas, there have been quite a few Tree Removal ("Management") program thread and discussions:

"Encouraging a Tree Removal Program" from 2004:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7908.0.html

"Selling a Tree "Management" Program" from 2002:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,1969.0.html

"Tree Information & Pictures" from 2003:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,5718.0.html

From reading through quite a few threads from the earlier days of GCA, it seems that Tree Management was a hot topic. Since then quite a few high profile clubs have undergone major tree programs (Oakmont, Shoreacres: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35693.0.html). With so many successful tree programs undertaken throughout the country, have they become easier to sell to memberships and golf course management?

Does anyone have any recent stories of trying to pass a program? Have any classic golf courses begun new tree programs recently?

[Jason Topp]

I think it has been an easier sell here because of the Minnikahda example.  I have never heard anything but praise for the huge tree removal project there. 

Many other courses have removed significant numbers of trees as well.  I am pretty sure Edina removed a large number but it is hardly noticable when playing the course now.

Some technological changes have also helped.  It used to be extremely expensive to get a computer demonstration of the sunlight change based on the removal of a tree.  Now it is literally and Iphone App.

Cost is probably a larger issue than getting approval. 

[Davis Wildman]

Will you forward a link for that iphone application for shade modeling/tree removal?  A quick search at the iphone app site doesn't provide such...thanks.

[JMEvensky]

Cost is probably a larger issue than getting approval. 

Funny you mention this as I recently had this conversation.

A couple of months ago,the USGA website had an article where they broke out the tree expense for an average club--resodding,extra mowing time,picking up leaves,etc. They came up with an average cost of $200,000/year.

My point to people who oppose tree removal on the basis of cost is that you're spending the money anyway--and you're golf course is worse off.

NB--in my part of the world,we deal with trash pines and the cost of removal would be small compared to golf courses with a lot of hard woods.

[Morgan Clawson]

I would think tree removal would be part of virtually every remodel/renovation proposal from an architect.

I played Minneapolis Golf Club 2 weeks ago and they had 2 cherry pickers parked in the middle of the course. At that time they were in the middle of general pruning.  They had piles of limbs in the rough areas of several holes. Perhaps they are going to be more aggressive after the course closes for the winter.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  Easier to sell, yes.  Since 2008 no money to continue the good work.

[JR Potts]

Yes, they're an easier sell to younger members - members who weren't on the very greens committees who planted the trees.

However, it's still incredibly difficult to sell it to a membership as a whole.

However, I think the logic of engaging in a program is undenyable....at least I think...I'll tell you next week whether that's true or not.

Many seem to forget that trees, do in fact, grow.

[PCCraig]

I would think tree removal would be part of virtually every remodel/renovation proposal from an architect.

I played Minneapolis Golf Club 2 weeks ago and they had 2 cherry pickers parked in the middle of the course. At that time they were in the middle of general pruning.  They had piles of limbs in the rough areas of several holes. Perhaps they are going to be more aggressive after the course closes for the winter.

Morgan:

When searching through past threads on the subject I found a quote from Brad Klein who wrote something to the effect "if you have to prune a tree because it's in the way, you should probably just take the whole thing down." 

I really like the golf course at MGC, and while I understand they are on a somewhat tight property, I think there are places where a chainsaw would do wonders. Most notably on #7, which I personally think would be 10x stronger if they took down every single tree inside of the dogleg all the way to the property line.

[Morgan Clawson]

Pat,  good suggestion on #7 at Minneapolis. If the trees were gone and they added a few bunkers on the right side it could somewhat play as a cape hole.

It would also be great to remove most of the trees between 3 and 5.  The vistas from the top of the fairway on 3, green on 5 and green on 4 would be wonderful.

#5 is the favorite hole of my 2 member friends. I think part of that is due to the fact that the view up the hill from tee to green is pretty neat.

[Joel_Stewart]

Yes, they're an easier sell to younger members - members who weren't on the very greens committees who planted the trees.

However, it's still incredibly difficult to sell it to a membership as a whole.

Many seem to forget that trees, do in fact, grow.

This is so true.  I've been playing a private course the last year and the older members, wouldn't even consider taking out one tree.  It's just not an option.  Furthermore, they are oblivious to other courses taking out trees and the improvement that it makes.  Sadly most of the trees (my guess between 500 and 700) are eucalyptus trees, that are ugly, dirty and drink enormous amounts of water.  They block the most beautiful views as well.

[Terry Lavin]

I've been intimately involved in several such programs and I can tell you that it hasn't gotten any easier to sell tree management programs. The combination of emotion and obstinance is very volatile. I had members verbally threaten me. I had a guy lament that they cut down a certain bur oak because it would have been a "perfect tree to hang" me from!  But I'll just as happily report that the post removal vibe at every club that has cut down hundreds or even more than 1000 trees has been overwhelmingly positive.

Even the guy who wanted to string me up is now a fan of golf course sawdust. Which smells like victory, in the morning, of course!

[Jason Topp]

Will you forward a link for that iphone application for shade modeling/tree removal?  A quick search at the iphone app site doesn't provide such...thanks.

Davis:

I do not have it but I will see if I can get it.  A USGA consultant showed it to me and he may have referenced it in his report.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The UK answer to the question is a very big NO. In the UK the more trees the better is the popular way forward although a small percentage do realise the evil ways of the committees.

[Mike_Young]

Hell no.

[JMEvensky]

But I'll just as happily report that the post removal vibe at every club that has cut down hundreds or even more than 1000 trees has been overwhelmingly positive.

This is the part I will never understand.You'd think that a putz opposed to tree removal would,at least,do a little research.

My personal favorite was a guy who said that he didn't care if the turf at XYZ club across town was better after removing a lot of trees.He and his wife didn't want the golf course to become too easy--him ,a vanity 14;her,happy to get it airborne.

[Jason Topp]

A couple of months ago,the USGA website had an article where they broke out the tree expense for an average club--resodding,extra mowing time,picking up leaves,etc. They came up with an average cost of $200,000/year.

My point to people who oppose tree removal on the basis of cost is that you're spending the money anyway--and you're golf course is worse off.

JM - I appreciate the sentiment but doubt the argument would be very effective at most clubs.  We could remove half at my course (mostly hardwoods) and I would be surprised if the maintenence costs would be significantly smaller.  By contrast the cost for removing the big trees is significant even when the small ones are removed in-house.

[JMEvensky]

A couple of months ago,the USGA website had an article where they broke out the tree expense for an average club--resodding,extra mowing time,picking up leaves,etc. They came up with an average cost of $200,000/year.

My point to people who oppose tree removal on the basis of cost is that you're spending the money anyway--and you're golf course is worse off.

JM - I appreciate the sentiment but doubt the argument would be very effective at most clubs.  We could remove half at my course (mostly hardwoods) and I would be surprised if the maintenence costs would be significantly smaller.  By contrast the cost for removing the big trees is significant even when the small ones are removed in-house.

Agreed that when hardwoods are involved,the cost for removal gets up there quickly.

But,anytime you can quote the USGA to non-believing members that NOT removing trees is pretty expensive also,it's got to bolster your case.

[Travis Dewire]

Removing tree's to cease shadowing of greens, will always be worth it, IMO.

Too many trees on golf courses, here in America, IMO

I would like to see tree lines replaced with bunkering/mounding. Trees are too, one dimensional of a hazard for me.

[Tim Martin]

With so many golden age courses undertaking such programs the results speak for themselves. The sell is not so much whether it is the best thing for the golf course but rather where do the funds come from to accomplish it. When the USGA or an archie comes in to make recommendations about tree removal at the request of the club it is usually because it has been neglected for too long and the costs associated with taking down and hauling away mature hardwoods can be costly. You also need to have a greens chairman and/or committee that understands the benefits and will stand it`s ground against those that are not easily swayed. Some before and after photos of Yale, Oakmont or St. Georges could be a good starting point.

[don_bartlett]

I played Oakmont yesterday and this was a topic that was discussed for much of the round.  While there were a couple of instances where it was done to improve air circulation around green sites, the majority was done to restore the course to the original design. 
The story goes that many years ago, an Oakmont member was also an ANGC member, and he wanted to frame each hole like Augusta and sold the rest of the membership to add trees.  The members I played with seemed to be very pleased with the restoration and the results do speak for themselves. 

[Tim Martin]

I played Oakmont yesterday and this was a topic that was discussed for much of the round.  While there were a couple of instances where it was done to improve air circulation around green sites, the majority was done to restore the course to the original design. 


Isn`t that why restoration is the current "it" word in the world of golf course architecture? 

[Mike Hogan]

My club, Bemidji Town and County is currently beginning the process of beginning the process of tree removal.
They has a GCA come in an tell them they should remove 100's of tree for all sort of reasons. They want to remove mostly Red Oak, Spruce and a few other undesireables. The cost of the tree removal was going to be prohibitive due to the high number of tree scheduled for removal.

I volunteered my services as a forester and I proposed that they remove all of the trees at one time or as many as possible, instead of removing just a few trees per year. Removing a few trees per year was going to cost the club money each year depending on how many trees where taken.

By removing all of the trees at one time, trees being removed and could be sold as firewood, taken to local timber mills, or chipped up and sold as woody Biomass.

I am currently in the process of appraising the wood and arranging for a local Logger to come in and Pay the club to remove the trees. The work will be done in the winter when the ground is frozen and the logger will have low pressure tires on the equipment. This should minimize any damage done to the turf.

The club should make a few thousand dollars depending on how many trees are removed, instead of having to pay someone to do the same job. The only cost to the club would be to pay in house staff for time it takes for the disposal of the slash (twigs, branches, and junk wood) by chipping or burning.

I think this could work in many places. I believe that a club should consider a large tree removal program and that the there actually might be an incentive to remove more trees at one time.  
I also think people would be surprised how much large specimen hardwood trees are worth to the right people.  

[Padraig Dooley]

We're in the middle of a landscape management program. The first small bit of tree clearing had some complaining it was making the course too easy.

This was the second piece of clearing

Before



After





Most of the dissenting voices quietened down after the second piece of work.

A small pilot project can go a long way to sell a program.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

I have posted some of our work at Northland on here in the past. We are currently in the process of further removals and there will be some pretty awesome changes.

Since our last work was done in 2008 we have completed a master plan with Ron Prichard. The plan includes tree removals and was overwhelmingly approved by the membership. At this point the only part of the plan we are able to implement is tree removals. As another poster mentioned junk pine and spruce are much cheaper to remove than hardwoods. Nearly all of the trees we are removing are pine and spruce and we are completing the work in-house, with a smallish crew at a fairly good pace.

I will be posting updates on our blog as the removals are complete. Feel free to follow along.

www.northlandgrounds.blogspot.com

I would say for us the tree removal process has gotten easier with the passage of the master plan. Those who dislike the work will still grumble but they have little ground to stand on due to the plan being in place. Also, as others have found the work done in 2008 is almost universally hailed and therefore continuing work is going over well.

Just saw Padraig's post after I finished writing mine. This is exactly what we have seen. We went from "what the hell?" to "what's next?"

[Morgan Clawson]

Chris,

Congrats on getting your master plan approved!

Are you removing the trees between 8 green and 10 fairway?