[Patrick_Mucci]

Gene,

How could I forget Southampton and the tremendous positive impact that tree removal had on Southampton and the play of the course.

The course is vastly improved and the wind even more of a factor, and, I'm sure the quality of the turf is improving.

It's interesting how those opposed to tree removal inevitably try to claim credit for same when it becomes apparent to almost everyone that the course is vastly improved after the trees have been removed.

[Michael George]

Pat:

I actually asked a guy at my club yesterday the question - after tree removal, has any club felt like they made a mistake.  I cannot think of one example.  Yet, it is like moving heaven and earth to get membership behind it.

Any insight on how you get membership and certain board members to change their opinions on trees would be greatly appreciated by me.  It is one difficult task.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I actually asked a guy at my club yesterday the question - after tree removal, has any club felt like they made a mistake.  I cannot think of one example.  Yet, it is like moving heaven and earth to get membership behind it.

Any insight on how you get membership and certain board members to change their opinions on trees would be greatly appreciated by me.  It is one difficult task.

Michael,

I think one method which may have a positive impact is showing the membership what the course looked like in the past.

In that sense, "Historicaerials.com" can be an invalueable source.

When members see photos of the course with limited treeing, taken in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's and 40's it's hard for them to argue that the trees, usually planted in the late 60's, 70's and 80's, when arbor committees were popular and misquided green committees abounded, they begin to recognize that the trees weren't always there or weren't there in the invasive manner in which they exist today.  And, that the architect never intended for the course to be lined with trees.

In that sense, Historicaerials.com is an independent, irrefutable third party.

It also helps to show before and after photos of Oakmont, NGLA, Shinnecock and others.

When you combine the two presentations, it makes a powerful argument for tree removal.

Once you establish that irrefutable photographic evidence, that your club wasn't intended to be tree lined, it makes it easier to make the argument to return the playing corridors to their earlier configuration, ergo, tree removal.

In addition, the USGA can be helpful, and there's a computer program that shows the impact of trees blocking the sun on the putting surfaces as the day goes by.

When you combine all of the above, it makes for a strong, fact based argument for removing trees.

But, remember, no matter how correct your facts, no matter how prudent your argument, you will not convince the dedicated tree hugger.
So, ignore them.  Focus instead on those in the membership who want to see all of the facts before making up their mind.
You'll never convince the radicals, but, you can convince prudent members and that's the group who you need to focus on.

[Jason Walker]

Pat-

great reply as I'm at this very moment helping to put together a tree remvoal plan for Tavistock and using aerials from 1925, 1940, 1951, 1970, and 1995.  It's amazing that there wasn't a single pine on the golf course prior to 1970, yet even with significant tree removal during our restoration in 2006 we still have a tree problem on the golf course.  

We've had a significant proliferation of hardwoods as well over the last 35 years, encroaching into areas that have actually evolved into "hazards" now.

Despite what the aerials show, given what occurred in the past re: trees we anticipate a tough fight to clear the areas we want to.

[J_ Crisham]

Pat:

I actually asked a guy at my club yesterday the question - after tree removal, has any club felt like they made a mistake.  I cannot think of one example.  Yet, it is like moving heaven and earth to get membership behind it.

Any insight on how you get membership and certain board members to change their opinions on trees would be greatly appreciated by me.  It is one difficult task.

Michael,   I can think of one example where a single tree being removed polarized a large number of members- the sentinel oak on the left side of  11 at Chicago Golf Club. This tree had no effect on turf quality but added great pressure to placement of ones tee shot. This was in my opinion a mistake to remove this strategic tree. Make no mistake, I  am a big fan of selective thinning for turf improvement.

[Jason Walker]

Pat:

I actually asked a guy at my club yesterday the question - after tree removal, has any club felt like they made a mistake.  I cannot think of one example.  Yet, it is like moving heaven and earth to get membership behind it.

Any insight on how you get membership and certain board members to change their opinions on trees would be greatly appreciated by me.  It is one difficult task.

Michael,   I can think of one example where a single tree being removed polarized a large number of members- the sentinel oak on the left side of  11 at Chicago Golf Club. This tree had no effect on turf quality but added great pressure to placement of ones tee shot. This was in my opinion a mistake to remove this strategic tree. Make no mistake, I  am a big fan of selective thinning for turf improvement.

Jack-
First off, how are ya?  I'm going to be out your way in a couple of weeks, I'll drop you a note.

Second, I know next to nothing about Chicago Golf Club other than from a history perspective.  Did the tree you are referencing exist in the original design of the golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Many trees, planted 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years ago were located improperly.

Those planting them never envisioned the impact on the playing corridors when those trees matured.

The impact of the encroaching drip lines becomes invasive, insidiously.  But, removal becomes apparent instataneously, and therein lies the rub.  If one could reverse the process the members wouldn't even notice the trees "shrinking" from play, but, cutting them down is a highly visible act that riles up the tree huggers.

Pines, not indigenous to the area are probably the biggest and easiest offenders.

The hardwoods are another story.

I think they have to be removed........selectively, over time.   

And, always in the winter.

[J_ Crisham]

Jason,    My understanding is that the oak was in fact part of the original routing- obviously it grew larger over the last 100 plus years- there are very few trees that come into play at CGC ,but this was a dandy. Still a stern hole due to a tremendous green complex.

[Philip Caccamise]

Michael George mentioned the clubhouse. It's the best clubhouse I've ever been in bar none. And the food is the absolute best I've ever had. I had some crabcakes that put anything in Baltimore to shame, and the server said they fly in seafood daily (don't know if that's true or not but I'm a believer.)

[Jason Walker]

I should also add that I'm incorporating the historic aerials and Google earth aerials of Oakmont into our tree removal plan.  They've set the gold standard for sure.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Take a look at Shinnecock as well as they've done a fabulous job with tree removal very recently

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()