How to assess the merit of each individual tree when considering removal?

[Mike McGuire]

The trees that give greenkeepers the most trouble are:

Silver Maples - liter the greens with wind blown seeds in the spring and you have to keep staff on all day for several weeks to blow the greens off.

Willows - clog drain lines, keeping the course wet after a rain fall.

Norway Maples - they have the wider leaf blade that casts shade so deep that grass can't grow under them.

Get rid of all these you'll have a much better golf course.

Good post Bradley.

Many members think every tree is equal or special and can't look at some species being more evil than others.

[Joe Leenheer]

I have one criteria when deciding which trees should be removed.

Does it produce leaves?

No: take it out as it is dead and may be a danger.

Yes: take it out as no one likes to lose a ball under a leaf and no true golfer uses the "leaf rule".

Oh....and pine trees do neither so they should go too.

I've watched my clubs waste countless man hours hurding leaves each fall. I say trade in the backpack blowers for chainsaws.

[Joe Sponcia]

I wonder aloud the opinion of the board on trees, individual or clusters, specifically placed in the corner of doglegs to force the player to play EVEN further away from what I would consider the ideal, or best angle?  I like, several have already said, believe those that are actually hanging over the fairway, no question, need to go, but it seems many greens committee's at many clubs like to "toughen" up holes in this manner.  

I just read an account last night of the alterations made after Ross passed on Number 2, I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but I believe it was Tufts who observed balls landing in specific spots, and later adding bunkers, tightening up the lines so as to force the player to only play one way.  That is how I feel about trees in certain spots.  It forces one-dimensional, boring golf.  

[BHoover]

Consider all trees on a golf course as tall weeds, then determine whether an individual tree has merit as a specimen hardwood or as a strategic obstacle. Unless there is some merit for the tree, treat them as one would treat any other weed and terminate with extreme prejudice.

In all seriousness, I think that the intent of the original architect should determine whether trees should be retained or removed. For example, a course such as Harbor Town probably would be ridiculous without the trees. The course was meant to use trees as an integral part of the strategy and routing. On the other hand, if a classic era course was meant to be free of trees, then I think the proper course of action is clear.

[Joe Sponcia]

Brian,

The weed analogy is a good one.  I had a discussion the other day about removing a few (read again: few) trees hanging over fairways and one of my fellow members said, "Tree's are fine, the course is fine". 

Me:  Really, they don't affect me, like they do you (our handicaps are 12-13 shots apart), I can hit a 15 yard cut three wood from a 22 pace pinched in fairway, you probably can't, so how does that make you like having that shot?

Member:  I wouldn't cut it.

Me:  Woud you add any then?

Member:  No, I would leave everything as is.

...and that was kind of my point.  I don't believe every tree needs to be scrutinized per se, but I could name twenty that do.  What strikes me as odd is the phenomenon of low handicappers wanting to make the course more playable for high handicappers and the high handys fighting them because it will, "make the course too easy". 

[Paul Jones]

If lighting strikes the tree, would it be replanted ?

[Joe Sponcia]

Paul,

We had that very thing happen to my former club, #1 fairway.  Two tree's sat like field goal posts for years, the one on the left got knocked down...a week later, I'll be damned if the greens committee superintendent didn't plant a cluster of 3-4 in its place.  Two will hang over the fairway in 5 years easily.  Awful.  

As I was resigning, he had already narrowed up a few fairways, added more trees, and was embarking on three new tee boxes because the web.com qualifiers were going "too low" 1 out of 365 days.

When trees get planted, few say anything.  Cut one.  They come out of the woodwork!

[Paul Jones]

I remember years ago when Peachtree Golf Club hired this firm to assess which trees should be removed.  They numbered each tree, took aerial photographs and mappings then put them into a computer program that showed shade cover / grass growth / etc...  This made is a lot easier to very specifically pick which trees need to go in favor of better turf.

[V. Kmetz]

Brian,

It's hard to put one blanket, one system, over an entire approach to individual trees.

But I would mention these criteria in gross:

The "Gotta Go" Factors

AIR+LIGHT = if a tree (or small copse of them) is creating turf issues in areas of regular play, it's got to go.

RECOVERY = if a tree is shutting down or limiting a recovery (or heroic) avenue for a ball out of position on a hole, it's got to go.

EXISTING HAZARD = if a tree is in the line of play (frequent or not) for where a hazard "drop" occurs, it's got to go.

TEE CORRIDOR = Here I'm NOT referencing the tree at or near the landing zone, but the 200-225 yard corridor along the way.  If a tree (or small group of them) regular interfere with the ability of a shot to reach the landing zone, it's got to go.

For me Brian, these are the absolute no-brainers, things I could advise from a chair in CT, without ever seeing the course.

The next list, really bears individual site examination, informed by both the maintenance side and the people who have the most voluminous experience of how the course plays and exists for recreation, championship purposes, etc.

A.  SHADE -
B.  LANDMARK - as an aiming spot and/or yardage token for blind, semi-blind or doglegging holes/shots.
C.  HISTORICAL STRATEGIC VALUE - has a particular tree continually played an historical/intended part in the conduct of a hole? Though it may be arbitrary and capricious in that effect, perhaps that bit of fortune is desired and just for THAT hole.
D.  QUALITY of SPECIMEN IN QUESTION
E.  BARRIER for SOUND and/or NEIGHBORHOOD
F.  SAFETY - sometimes this is overstated by some who want a tree to stay and undervalued by some who want it gone, this is why no objective standard can be applied from afar for all trees.  Someone like a a long-time caddie or senior player who's seen perhaps thousands of rounds on a hole is usually best qualified to say what tree is or isn't a safety barrier.

Lastly, there is the rare instances when a tree (usually) a group is

**a "SAVER" and not a "DESTROYER" - sometimes a tree's removal can remove a helpful guardian, one that keeps balls from OB or water or just frequents its ricochets back into play.  This is a rare case, but I mention it because one of the courses I work at has two holes (or trees on them) where the removal of a certain tree would be a bad thing as it is usually aiding the errant ball back in to a better place.

So Brian I guess my final summary is that there are a handful of absolute factors for evaluating a tree from afar and another handful that are specific to the provincial experience.

Should factors from either list contradict however, I think the list of absolute factors should hold sway.

cheers

vk

[Thomas Dai]

"If in doubt, take it out."
                  - Don Mahaffey

Difficult not to agree. Generally speaking, IMO trees on golf courses are only of use to male dogs.
All the best.

[BHoover]

VK, I think your response is the most reasoned and articulated response that I've ever seen when it comes to how to assess trees.  Thanks for the insight.

I have played two courses recently that have benefitted exponentially from tree removal--Canterbury and Brookside (Canton).  I'm much more familiar with Brookside because I grew up working and playing there, so I knew the course both pre- and post-restoration.  It was a good course before the restoration, but it's fantastic now.  And the reason that it's so great, IMO, is that the turf is SO much better now than it used to be thanks, in no small part, to significant tree removal.  The club removed trees that were adversely affecting the health and quality of the turf, and the course is all the better for that.  But, the club also kept specimen hardwoods and trees that border the property.  So I think it's a good mix of removing and retaining trees.

I'm less familiar with Canterbury, but I did have the chance to play it recently with fellow GCAers Bill McKinley and Jonathan Becker.  Bill explained to us the tree removal plan that the club has been implementing gradually.  I can't speak to how Canterbury played before the tree removal, but I can definitely say that the turf there now is the BEST that I have ever played anywhere in Ohio.  I'm neither an agronomist nor an arborist nor am I am architecture expert by any stretch of the imagination; but, Canterbury's superb turf has to be due, at least in part, to the removal of trees that competed with the turf for water, light and nutrients.

[Joe Sponcia]

VK,

That is a well-written explanation.  Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[Terry Lavin]

Consult with experts, like an architect, like an arborist, like the computer shade people. Get educated, pass it on to your grounds committed and come up with a tree management program designed by these professionals. Then find somebody like Brad Klein to help sell it to your reluctant, tree-hugging membership. On the typical tree-lined parkland course, the members will still see plenty of trees, just the ones that are appropriate in their locations. This is a very gratifying process, trust me.

[Jason Thurman]

Trees remind me of women with long hair. As long as there's a conceptual aesthetic determining just how much growth is allowed to keep things ideal in presentation, it can add a lot. But we all know women who let their hair grow endlessly, mostly just for the sake of letting it grow. It stops framing their features and accentuating the aesthetics, and just starts to look overgrown and cover over the architecture.

I've noticed that many golfers miss the course for the surroundings. When they say a course has great visual appeal, they're not talking about the shaping of the features. They're talking about the trees surrounding the holes, or the mountains in the distance, or just the lack of houses in view. The real challenge isn't about getting members to see the benefits of removing trees. For the reasons already articulated by earlier posts, a certain amount of tree management has pretty obvious benefits. The challenge is about getting members to see the course on the ground instead of the vertical surroundings. It's a lot easier to sell someone who notices the ground on removing a tree than it is to sell someone who only notices the vertical stuff.

[V. Kmetz]

Thank you Brian and Joe for the positive feedback.

I wanted to modify last night's post (but wasn't happening by the computer) about the ABSOLUTE slate and EXISTING HAZARD...I didn't mean to limit it to water hazard drops/avenues...but bunkers too.  

Back in the bad ol' tree-loving days of the 70s and 80s, it was a routine event to find your ball in a fairway or intermediate bunker, further stymied or hectored by a tree right in the flight plan.

Thanks again

cheers

vk

[Bryan Lewis]

Tom,

You had an interesting story about the tree on the 18th at CommonGround.  I don't remember exactly how it went, but seems like you were in the minority in favor of keeping it but somehow you won the day.

Bryan

[Tom_Doak]

"If in doubt, take it out."
                  - Don Mahaffey

Difficult not to agree. Generally speaking, IMO trees on golf courses are only of use to male dogs.
All the best.

The problem with such statements is that, much like political arguments, the other side stops listening to you entirely as soon as you say this.  You have to make a case for specific trees (or specific views or specific shade problems) in order to get people to see the light.  Then, they may be willing to consider further removal that just makes the course more fun to play.

[Andrew Buck]

Thank you Brian and Joe for the positive feedback.

I wanted to modify last night's post (but wasn't happening by the computer) about the ABSOLUTE slate and EXISTING HAZARD...I didn't mean to limit it to water hazard drops/avenues...but bunkers too.  

Back in the bad ol' tree-loving days of the 70s and 80s, it was a routine event to find your ball in a fairway or intermediate bunker, further stymied or hectored by a tree right in the flight plan.

Thanks again

cheers

vk

Unfortunately, it's still the default at a lot of places, including my Club.  

We had a USGA consultation last year and finally convinced the head of the greens committee to take out the trees overhanging greens.  I'm slowly working toward the ones between bunkers and greens, a few that ruin otherwise great views of holes and places where 5 trees occupy the space for 2.  

Now it's a long and slow process to win over members on many of them.  I really don't want them all gone, many are great, especially some of the old Oak trees, and they can work in strategy.  So far the biggest aide has been Medinah, and reminding people how many trees have been removed on #3 and now #1.  Slowly opens peoples minds.

[Andrew Buck]

"If in doubt, take it out."
                  - Don Mahaffey

Difficult not to agree. Generally speaking, IMO trees on golf courses are only of use to male dogs.
All the best.

The problem with such statements is that, much like political arguments, the other side stops listening to you entirely as soon as you say this.  You have to make a case for specific trees (or specific views or specific shade problems) in order to get people to see the light.  Then, they may be willing to consider further removal that just makes the course more fun to play.

Tom,

Absolutely agree.  It's almost impossible for a membership that has bought into "trees are good" for their entire life, and in many cases helped procure and plant some of them, to immediately accept they are all bad.

First step has to be convince they harm certain surfaces.  Ironically enough, when they see a green after encroaching trees have been removed they realize it actually looks better as well as improving surfaces.  Next step is convincing that certain areas have too many trees for both grass growth, and makes mowing more difficult.

[Joe Sponcia]

Tom D,

Interesting you said, "convince them that it will make the course more fun to play".  

Every time I speak to members with regards to trees, or the course in general, they always want to make it harder.  Not more fun or easier for the 60 year old with a 30 yard slice?  We have a web.com event at our club and I don't know if that is what they are worried about?  I should probably ask.  

I would be curious how to frame "fun" to members without them chaining themselves to trees or threatening to quit?  What is sad/frustrating, just across town sits Holston Hills which, Tom I believe you had a hand in reshaping bunkers (?), has removed tons of trees and the course is GORGEOUS now.  You can see so many holes from so many different tee boxes.  Fairways appear to be wider (too) which presents more options when hitting a tee shot...but no one will tackle it at my club?

[Eric_Terhorst]

The trees that give greenkeepers the most trouble are:

Silver Maples - liter the greens with wind blown seeds in the spring and you have to keep staff on all day for several weeks to blow the greens off.

Willows - clog drain lines, keeping the course wet after a rain fall.

Norway Maples - they have the wider leaf blade that casts shade so deep that grass can't grow under them.

Get rid of all these you'll have a much better golf course.

Good post Bradley.

Many members think every tree is equal or special and can't look at some species being more evil than others.

Mike and Bradley, or others if you know--where do Honey Locust trees fit on the spectrum?  They don't strike me as "specimen" trees like oak, hickory, etc. and they have a spring-time tendency to dumb tree shmutz everywhere, creating a maintenance issue--but maybe I am just biased?

[Andrew Buck]

Tom D,

Interesting you said, "convince them that it will make the course more fun to play".  

Every time I speak to members with regards to trees, or the course in general, they always want to make it harder.  Not more fun or easier for the 60 year old with a 30 yard slice?  We have a web.com event at our club and I don't know if that is what they are worried about?  I should probably ask.  

That is what I don't understand.  I feel like the guys I have to fight against are all 55+ and carry double digit handicaps or higher yet they think we need to make it more demanding.

Our previous pro really pushed making the course more challenging and I'm not sure if it's a main reason.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should cut down every tree and mow everything at fairway height, I think there should be some premium on hitting fairways and placement, but there are trees that can be removed without really significantly reducing the challenge.

[Bradley Anderson]

The trees that give greenkeepers the most trouble are:

Silver Maples - liter the greens with wind blown seeds in the spring and you have to keep staff on all day for several weeks to blow the greens off.

Willows - clog drain lines, keeping the course wet after a rain fall.

Norway Maples - they have the wider leaf blade that casts shade so deep that grass can't grow under them.

Get rid of all these you'll have a much better golf course.

Good post Bradley.

Many members think every tree is equal or special and can't look at some species being more evil than others.

Mike and Bradley, or others if you know--where do Honey Locust trees fit on the spectrum?  They don't strike me as "specimen" trees like oak, hickory, etc. and they have a spring-time tendency to dumb tree shmutz everywhere, creating a maintenance issue--but maybe I am just biased?

Eric,

I agree Honey Locust trees do not develop in to specimen trees the way Oaks do or sugar maples, but the canopy allows ample sunlight to reach the turf; the leaves are small and easy to mulch when they drop in the fall; there is a brief period of seed pod droppings in the spring, but nearly every tree produces a fruit or seed that needs to be cleaned up at some point in the year.

The silver maple seed is especially a problem because the trees produce so many of them and they can float pretty far and collect on to putting surfaces.

The honey locust is just a good plain shade tree that doesn't cause too much trouble as long as it isn't planted too closely together. But don't look for it be a legacy or specimen tree.

[Jason Thurman]

Tom D,

Interesting you said, "convince them that it will make the course more fun to play".  

Every time I speak to members with regards to trees, or the course in general, they always want to make it harder.  Not more fun or easier for the 60 year old with a 30 yard slice?  We have a web.com event at our club and I don't know if that is what they are worried about?  I should probably ask.  

The funny thing is that it's usually those same 60 year old slicers who are arguing to keep the trees for difficulty, but the trees they want to keep often don't affect the better players on any substantial level.

There's a tree on the 17th hole at my club that blocks the entire left side of the fairway of a layup zone on a par 5. It's fronted by 50 yards of water, which is wisely placed as a Hell's Half Acre style hazard. For the strong player, the water is in play off the tee for a pulled shot. For a weaker player, it takes two strong shots to cross it in two shots and leave a 100 yard approach.

Unfortunately, the tree blocks the layup for weaker players. They can't hit over it or around it, so they have to hit at it and hope the ball gets through to the other side. It completely nullifies the brilliant placement of the lake on that hole. For the strong player, though, a good drive basically goes past the tree and leaves an open second shot at the green. Alternatively, most strong players can either go over or play a soft draw around it.

So the tree really doesn't affect difficulty for low handicappers, but the high handicappers can't imagine the hole without it because it would be "too easy for good players." In reality, the tree is largely out of play for those good players and removing it would only make the playing field a bit more level for the shorter guys.

[Andrew Buck]

Tom D,

Interesting you said, "convince them that it will make the course more fun to play".  

Every time I speak to members with regards to trees, or the course in general, they always want to make it harder.  Not more fun or easier for the 60 year old with a 30 yard slice?  We have a web.com event at our club and I don't know if that is what they are worried about?  I should probably ask.  

The funny thing is that it's usually those same 60 year old slicers who are arguing to keep the trees for difficulty, but the trees they want to keep often don't affect the better players on any substantial level.

So the tree really doesn't affect difficulty for low handicappers, but the high handicappers can't imagine the hole without it because it would be "too easy for good players." In reality, the tree is largely out of play for those good players and removing it would only make the playing field a bit more level for the shorter guys.

This is almost exactly my experience at my club, and if a low handicap player gets away with a wayward drive (sometimes with a good and difficult recovery shot) it's further proof that they need to toughen the course up for the good players.