Remind me why US parkland courses have fescue roughs in play?

[Tom Bacsanyi]

If it is in the Midwest fescue does not grow.  But native areas work if they are ignored, no water ever.  Some years are impossible, 2019.  But in drought years one can bomb away. 


My problem is otherwise difficult golf courses add tall grass as a hazard as a reaction to some young member setting a course record.

Your first sentence is fundamentally incorrect.  Fescue grows everywhere in the Midwest and anywhere in the cool season turf zones, but it is frequently crowded out by excessive irrigation and fertility and the species that come along with those things.  The Loop has fescue fairways, and fescue areas have been established at places such as Chicago Golf Club. 

[Rob Marshall]

We have a course in western New York, called Crag Burn. It is a 1969 RTJSR course, a golfer's club, no pool, no tennis courts. It was built on land previously used to stable, train, ride horses and have fox hunts by a wealthy family. The club has a high number of very-low handicap, non-golf professionals, some of the best golfers in the area and the state. CB is known for its heather (strike one) err, fescue (strike two) err, native grass (bingo) areas 'twixt corridors. When the stuff is high, you lose lots of golf balls, if you don't aim properly, or anticipate the bitter medicine you will need to imbibe.


Stories abound on the origin, care, and futility of the long and thick stuff. Some say that the grounds crew lost control of it all, attempted a thin-out five years back, but whatever happened, there are still barber-shop poles out in the native areas, to give you an idea of where your futile search for your lost ball will commence. The stuff is hewn in the fall, rolled, and given away free to local farmers for bovine and horse feed.


To change the status quo, would be akin to the Oakmont Miracle of the 1990s. They would have to begin with a small area, and little by little, spread the elimination. I don't know if this is even something the membership wants, but guest should choke up two inches on the driver, bunt it out there on the first 14 driving holes, and then take a rip at it on the practice range, post round.

The last time I played Crag Burn the fescue had been dramatically thinned out to were you could find your ball most of the time and advance it. It’s IMO the best course in Buffalo.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
How those fescue/native areas are maintained is key.  Have you ever played Sunningdale in the U.K.?  I suggest you do and see if your thoughts change as far as these types of areas on a tree-lined parkland golf course.  You might also play Royal Ashdown Forest while you are in the area.  It has no sand bunkers. 
Mark

[Jason Thurman]

Because everyone for the last 25 years insisted they cut all their trees down, and they had to fill the empty space somehow.

[mike_malone]

Mike,
How those fescue/native areas are maintained is key.  Have you ever played Sunningdale in the U.K.?  I suggest you do and see if your thoughts change as far as these types of areas on a tree-lined parkland golf course.  You might also play Royal Ashdown Forest while you are in the area.  It has no sand bunkers. 
Mark

I have played RAF and St.George’s and Swinley Forest in England. That’s why I put US in my title.

[jeffwarne]

Because everyone for the last 25 years insisted they cut all their trees down, and they had to fill the empty space somehow.

+1

[Sean_A]

Because everyone for the last 25 years insisted they cut all their trees down, and they had to fill the empty space somehow.

+1

-1.  Obviously a huge dose of hyperbole.  Exactly how many courses have cut all their trees down?  By what order of magnitude are their course which need trees removed...maybe 100x?  Its funny, I never saw a hole and thought, a tree or 50 would be a good addition.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Because everyone for the last 25 years insisted they cut all their trees down, and they had to fill the empty space somehow.

+1

-1.  Obviously a huge dose of hyperbole.  Exactly how many courses have cut all their trees down?  By what order of magnitude are their course which need trees removed...maybe 100x?  Its funny, I never saw a hole and thought, a tree or 50 would be a good addition.

Ciao

my +1...
 had nothing to do with whether any or all trees should be removed or planted, just an acknowledgement of what is a very common reaction/response(planting of high ornamental/penal gras) when trees are removed.
In this era (particularly in the northeast)of near epidemic spread of Lyme disease, Lone Star meat allegies and Rocky Mountain spotted fever amongst avid golfers and nearly all of us in the golf industry, I am no fan of additional and widespread planting of "native" ball hunting gunch to please the aesthetic, "par protection" or photo opp ego of a zealous golf chairman who replaces mown rough or broken ground previously occupied by trees or maintained rough, by rarely maintained and cultivated tick enabling high grass symetrically framing both sides of many fairways.
-the theme of this thread...
I have heard several such "so what do we put there? comments in response to tree removal at the few clubs I'm well acquainted with (which are considered quite forward thinking and well respected architecturally)-and see a lot of ball eating tick infested shite planted when trees are removed, so I know this is a conversation that occurs consistently, often with negative consequences.
Mowers are great herbicies as well as pesticides, and as I commented earlier, high grass could well be a native species, but regardless should be used with restraint and thoughtfully, as opposed to symetrically and ornamentally which dramatically increases the odds that it is "in play" and players spend the day traipsing through areas that dramatically increase their chances of serious disease
exactly the same way too many trees were planted in the past

[Dave McCollum]

We're in the West where the native landscape is the sagebrush prairie that has been largely invaded with the non-native cheatgrass which clearly out competes native grasses.  From afar it looks good and isn't too bad for finding balls if not watered.  It's also playable in most cases.  Problem is when one goes into it the seed heads are barbed and stick to you socks and clothing.  Terrible stuff.  It's very difficult to get rid of it because it likes fire.  Burn it off and you're just killing of more native plants and encouraging the cheatgrass.  We've been experimenting with reducing maintenance on other out of play areas just by reducing mowing and irrigation.  Looks a little ragged and weedy now, but no cheatgrass and the turf thins out nicely in the heat.  As said above, the labor savings is significant.  If nothing else, we are advertising the concept that golf does not have to be wall-to-wall plush green, mowed turf. Time will tell if that works.  If so, we'll do more of it when we redo the irrigation.           

[Greg Chambers]

Because everyone for the last 25 years insisted they cut all their trees down, and they had to fill the empty space somehow.

It hasn’t been 25 years.  I’d say closer to 12-15

[Sean_A]

Because everyone for the last 25 years insisted they cut all their trees down, and they had to fill the empty space somehow.

+1

-1.  Obviously a huge dose of hyperbole.  Exactly how many courses have cut all their trees down?  By what order of magnitude are their course which need trees removed...maybe 100x?  Its funny, I never saw a hole and thought, a tree or 50 would be a good addition.

Ciao

my +1...
 had nothing to do with whether any or all trees should be removed or planted, just an acknowledgement of what is a very common reaction/response(planting of high ornamental/penal gras) when trees are removed.
In this era (particularly in the northeast)of near epidemic spread of Lyme disease, Lone Star meat allegies and Rocky Mountain spotted fever amongst avid golfers and nearly all of us in the golf industry, I am no fan of additional and widespread planting of "native" ball hunting gunch to please the aesthetic, "par protection" or photo opp ego of a zealous golf chairman who replaces mown rough or broken ground previously occupied by trees or maintained rough, by rarely maintained and cultivated tick enabling high grass symetrically framing both sides of many fairways.
-the theme of this thread...
I have heard several such "so what do we put there? comments in response to tree removal at the few clubs I'm well acquainted with (which are considered quite forward thinking and well respected architecturally)-and see a lot of ball eating tick infested shite planted when trees are removed, so I know this is a conversation that occurs consistently, often with negative consequences.
Mowers are great herbicies as well as pesticides, and as I commented earlier, high grass could well be a native species, but regardless should be used with restraint and thoughtfully, as opposed to symetrically and ornamentally which dramatically increases the odds that it is "in play" and players spend the day traipsing through areas that dramatically increase their chances of serious disease
exactly the same way too many trees were planted in the past

Jeff

Interesting perspective.  That said, I did see it at Orchard Lake and wondered how well it will work (these areas were definitely not out of play) unless serious maintenance time was committed to keeping the areas thin enough.  That said, I have seen horrible rough under trees, just a different sort of rough.  So I don't think stupid rough maintenance is due to trees or lack thereof.  That said dos, I saw this fescuey rough maintained extremely well at Barton Hills...a very under-rated Ross in Ann Arbor.  What is very interesting is how often "out of play native areas" are in play. This in part is because thick trees blocked shots from reaching these areas.  One very uncomplicated way to reduce the effect of horrible "native areas" is to have wider fairways.  Its much easier to forgive shit rough when a fairway is 50 yards wide with 10 yard wings of light rough.

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

We have a course in western New York, called Crag Burn. It is a 1969 RTJSR course, a golfer's club, no pool, no tennis courts. It was built on land previously used to stable, train, ride horses and have fox hunts by a wealthy family. The club has a high number of very-low handicap, non-golf professionals, some of the best golfers in the area and the state.


Stories abound on the origin, care, and futility of the long and thick stuff.

Since that's where I work....

1. During the build, they kept the native field grasses in place. It's always been there. So has the super, who's still there today. They used to bale and sell the "hay" to local farms. I have great photos of the bales in the background.

2. They want the native to have more fescue and less field grasses. They have begun a long-term transition through re-grassing and active management to transition areas to fescue.

3. The soils underneath are fertile and they are moist ... it will be heavy in wet years ... like Muirfield can be.