[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not seeing it for the most important demographic in golf. As a straight short hitting old man who learned the game in more than one dimension, it seems tree removal only helps the young flogger. It doesn't help women. It doesn't help juniors learn all the shots.  And it most of all doesn't help high handicaps who play bogey golf at best and take 7's at worst.

We all know who I think it helps, who do you think?

[Tyler Kearns]

We all know who I think it helps, who do you think?

Turfgrass.


TK

[John Kavanaugh]

If you need a perfect lie everytime carry a mat.

[David Whitmer]

As a person who grew up playing a short, very tree-lined golf course, I think tree removal would clearly help the long and erratic golfer unless the trees are replaced with high grass. I was in the trees so often I learned how to play a low fade or draw out of rough, and as a result I can easily advance the ball from the trees. I can't, however, advance it from tall grass ("heather, "or whatever the technical term is).


Does tree removal benefit the turf? Does tree removal result in beautiful vistas that were previously covered up? If so, I'm all for it as long as there is trouble off the fairway. But if a big hitter can hit it anywhere and still be able to easily advance the ball, I'm not going to generically say yes to tree removal.

[Mark Pavy]

Who benefits from tree removal?

Saruman......but the Ents fought back and sorted him out!

[Joe Hancock]

Mr. and Mrs. Ambiance, and their neighbors, the Views.....

[John Kavanaugh]

This weekend I played at a course with no restriction on the customization of carts. I can assure you that I shall never seen a golfer lovely as a tree.

[mike_malone]

Tree removal is best for golfers who want to hit recovery shots on courses that were not designed with the trees in mind.

[Rob Marshall]

The future maintenance budget. Less fertilizer, less water, less tree maintenance, less labor to cut the rough.

[John Kavanaugh]

The future maintenance budget. Less fertilizer, less water, less tree maintenance, less labor to cut the rough.

Rob,


How many years will it take for these savings to recoup the cost of tree removal?

[RKoehn]

The primary beneficiaries of tree removal are the architects and contractors.  "Selective tree removal" can be used as a Trojan horse that allows an architect to gain entree to a club's payroll, as inevitably there will innumerable other suggestions for "improvement" and redesign to come once the architect has the ears of the greens committee and board.  ("Well, if we're removing these trees, why don't we move these bunkers while we're at it, and then wouldn't it be great if we just extended this green to create a few more pin placements?")  It is often difficult for greens committees and boards to resist the opportunity to leave their own marks on their courses.  Before you know it, the architects' original designs are virtually unrecognizable.

Unfortunately, I suspect tree removal will prove to be a fad, not easily undone.  Close examination of many original drawings of great golf courses from the '10s, '20s and '30s include plans for the planting of trees, particularly for parkland courses.

At the end of the day, there is common conflation of "restoration" with "redesign" - projects are sold under the "restoration" tag but often in reality become redesigns.

Strong greens committees and boards are required to resist this trend.

[BHoover]

Several months ago, JK accused (ridiculously, I might add) Mike Clayton of calling for softer conditions because Mr. Clayton suggested that Royal Melbourne was playing "too firm" for a women's tournament.

Admittedly I'm not an agronomist, but it seems to me that tree removal promotes better turf conditions, including firmer and faster playing conditions. So by questioning tree removal, I think JK should be taken to task for promoting softer and slower playing conditions. Trees also compete with turf grass for water, sunlight, nutrients, etc. So by opposing tree removal, he effectively promotes increased water usage. I find this view irresponsible.

Am I wrong?

[John Kavanaugh]

Brian,


Where I played this weekend the firmest ground on the course was in the trees.  No grass at all just roots and hard pan, I love it because experience will win over strength.  Knowing how to hit a topspin pop shot off roots is not something learned overnight.

[Rob Marshall]

The future maintenance budget. Less fertilizer, less water, less tree maintenance, less labor to cut the rough.

Rob,


How many years will it take for these savings to recoup the cost of tree removal?

Good question, Those were the savings the USGA gave us when we had them in. I don't recall a recovery period. We need to do it because our turf is suffering including some greens.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rob,


Removing trees to improve airflow to greens is invaluable.  If my home course had only done that before they bought the fans we wouldn't be stuck with those monsters.

[BHoover]

I'd love to give you the benefit of the doubt, but please forgive me for finding your love for trees, hardpan and bare dirt convincing. Why not put your money where your mouth and heart are and join a heavily tree-lined course, because I just don't think you get that kind of thrill at Victoria National and Dismal River with the unfortunate lack of trees?

And surely you wouldn't post something just to be controversial, never.

[Tony Ristola]

I'm not seeing it for the most important demographic in golf. As a straight short hitting old man who learned the game in more than one dimension, it seems tree removal only helps the young flogger. It doesn't help women. It doesn't help juniors learn all the shots.  And it most of all doesn't help high handicaps who play bogey golf at best and take 7's at worst.

We all know who I think it helps, who do you think?

The superintendent.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would think this site would be thrilled to not lose golf balls and see low handicap golfers forced to play the ground game.  You will never see as many 6 irons from 130 yds as you will see on a tree lined course.

[Andrew Buck]

I'm not seeing it for the most important demographic in golf. As a straight short hitting old man who learned the game in more than one dimension, it seems tree removal only helps the young flogger. It doesn't help women. It doesn't help juniors learn all the shots.  And it most of all doesn't help high handicaps who play bogey golf at best and take 7's at worst.

We all know who I think it helps, who do you think?

Tree removal doesn't need to be an all or nothing proposition.  Many, many courses over planted trees because when planting 6 feet tall trees, it's hard to imagine how large they will be in 30 years.  This has happened on many golf courses, as well as yards and parks.  In many cases, you can remove 30 - 50% of the trees without significantly altering their impact on strategy or difficulty of a hole, and improve views and turf quality in the process. 

I agree that simply removing all trees doesn't make sense unless there remains sufficient "penalty" for wayward shots, but don't underestimate the penalty of thick rough and firm greens.  Sure, a stronger player is also better suited to overcome that combination, but it may encourage a stronger player to take a chance he wouldn't normally, and get into more trouble. 

[Andrew Buck]

Also, in rural Illinois it is not uncommon to see different mixes of trees that different members gave the club at different times, which IMO, looks shabby and leads to trees that have no place on the golf course.  There is very little reason, IMO to have pine trees that go all the way to the ground and can play like mini-OB hazards anywhere in play, and especially around greens. 

In addition, I know arborvitae's where all the rage for 150 markers in the 1970's, but there is really no need for them today, and especially now that most have grown to a height where deers eat the lower two third and courses are left with penis looking trees. 

[Sam Morrow]

Trees get an unfair shake, on many courses they are a great addition to strategy, asthetics, and shade on a hot day.

[SL_Solow]

First; tree removal should not be viewed as an "all or nothing " proposition.  Selective removal where agronomic, strategic or aesthetic benefits result should be the goal.  Second, in reply to Mr. Koehn, I suggest that the excessive planting of trees is more the fad which occurred in the late 60's through the 80's in many locales resulting from greens' committees desire to beautify or toughen up their courses.  The proliferation of fast growers on the edge of fairways e.g. silver maples, are the best evidence.  Finally (for now) Barney, the benefits of removal for turf on greens also applies to fairways and tees, its just not as obvious.  Talk to any expert on agronomy and they will tell you the same thing.  Clearly there is a balance between agronomic and strategic issues.  Absent a lot of wind and interesting hazards or landforms, a barren landscape can make for uninteresting golf..  But properly done, taking into consideration the nature of the property, a well designed plan for removal of superfluous trees can both improve turf quality and the strategic merits of many courses.  I suggest that blanket condemnation of tree removal as well as blanket approval of "clear cutting" do not speak to either architectural or agronomic merits.  Rather they more likely reflect the individuals' view about trees and/or an inflexible view regarding strategic merit.

[Andrew Buck]

First; tree removal should not be viewed as an "all or nothing " proposition.  Selective removal where agronomic, strategic or aesthetic benefits result should be the goal.  Second, in reply to Mr. Koehn, I suggest that the excessive planting of trees is more the fad which occurred in the late 60's through the 80's in many locales resulting from greens' committees desire to beautify or toughen up their courses.  The proliferation of fast growers on the edge of fairways e.g. silver maples, are the best evidence.  Finally (for now) Barney, the benefits of removal for turf on greens also applies to fairways and tees, its just not as obvious.  Talk to any expert on agronomy and they will tell you the same thing.  Clearly there is a balance between agronomic and strategic issues.  Absent a lot of wind and interesting hazards or landforms, a barren landscape can make for uninteresting golf..  But properly done, taking into consideration the nature of the property, a well designed plan for removal of superfluous trees can both improve turf quality and the strategic merits of many courses.  I suggest that blanket condemnation of tree removal as well as blanket approval of "clear cutting" do not speak to either architectural or agronomic merits.  Rather they more likely reflect the individuals' view about trees and/or an inflexible view regarding strategic merit.

Well said.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob,


Removing trees to improve airflow to greens is invaluable.  If my home course had only done that before they bought the fans we wouldn't be stuck with those monsters.

I was surprised to see the huge fans at Bethpage Black and it really didn't look to me like the trees were close enough to impact airflow but what do I know.

[Rees Milikin]

The tree cutting & removal companies benefit the most.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()