How valuable are your trees?

[David Davis]

Ian,


Indeed an interesting one. As a member of a links course with a serious tree problem I've been through this exercise before (while on the greens committee). My conclusion which every single knowledgeable visitor I ever had at the club has agreed with is that there is not a single tree that adds anything of any value, be it strategic or environmental to this amazing links property. It's a hopeless battle that I have all but given up on. Thus we proceed on in ignorance and total disregard as caretakers of one of the very few courses on true links land and we ignore all of what other links courses and true experts do.


Ignorance is bliss....

[Josh Tarble]

I could pick 25 trees with merit...but only if you promise to remove all of the others. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Like others, I like the conversation flip to get them thinking.

What can trees do architecturally?  Strategic bunkers in the sky......force a fade or draw, (if desired, many don't care for this) ....... conceal the true direction/velocity of the wind.........safety......screen views you want screened.......frame nicer views from selected points (golf is strongly sequential, using them to frame views from the tee or green, where nearly everyone congregates is easier to do than in a village square or some such).....add seasonal color......or fragrance.......On the negative side, they can slow play (especially low branching evergreens causing ball searches, etc.)

What do you say when they reply "General beauty" or "Much needed shade?"  Certainly sun issues are getting a lot of play these days, and I can see some lawyer suing a treeless course for removing trees and causing skin cancer....but of course, I am a bit cynical like that.....

In that WSJ article on trees, Keith Foster mentioned he thinks many clubs over do it.  I suspect many old members recall the course as a cornfield, and don't want to go quite that far back in evolution reversal.  His is probably the right compromise over the wholesale approach at Oakmont.

[John Connolly]

Ian,

Like others, I like the conversation flip to get them thinking.

What can trees do architecturally?  Strategic bunkers in the sky......force a fade or draw, (if desired, many don't care for this) ....... conceal the true direction/velocity of the wind.........safety......screen views you want screened.......frame nicer views from selected points (golf is strongly sequential, using them to frame views from the tee or green, where nearly everyone congregates is easier to do than in a village square or some such).....add seasonal color......or fragrance.......On the negative side, they can slow play (especially low branching evergreens causing ball searches, etc.)

What do you say when they reply "General beauty" or "Much needed shade?"  Certainly sun issues are getting a lot of play these days, and I can see some lawyer suing a treeless course for removing trees and causing skin cancer....but of course, I am a bit cynical like that.....

In that WSJ article on trees, Keith Foster mentioned he thinks many clubs over do it.  I suspect many old members recall the course as a cornfield, and don't want to go quite that far back in evolution reversal.  His is probably the right compromise over the wholesale approach at Oakmont.

Jeff,
I don't see Keith saying he thinks clubs over do it. By my read, he states clubs tell him they don't want to go to Oakmont's extremes.