News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
When does tree removal go too far?
« on: October 28, 2021, 05:30:35 PM »
It seems as if most US golden age courses have removed a boatload of trees over the last ten years.  For the most part, I see that change as positive - better course conditions, wide playing corridors, etc.


It strikes me that such efforts could go too far.  I think trying to hit shots over, under or around trees is an interesting part of the game.  Un-mowed areas yield lost balls and ball searches while trimmed trees do not.  Exposed trees at one time used to the protection of neighbors appear to sometimes struggle to stay healthy. 


On a treeless parkland course a long wild driver of the ball can often hit wedge onto the green from a neighboring fairway without much trouble.  I have no problem with that result at times but at some point it seems like a price should be paid.


Anyone have guidelines on when a tree removal program goes too far?  Any examples?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2021, 06:20:31 PM »
Tree cutting has gone too far when great specimen trees or cool copse are needlessly removed. The idea of tree removal is help grass grow and beautify the property by showcasing lovely trees.

Ciao
« Last Edit: October 28, 2021, 06:45:16 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2021, 06:26:36 PM »
Tree removal has gone too far when a committe has a meeting to decide what to put in their place once they are already gone.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2021, 09:12:52 PM »
I didn’t know tree removal could go too far ;)
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Peter Pallotta

Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2021, 09:22:47 PM »
For my tastes and temperament, when trees are cut back so that they frame vistas and not golf holes, the tree-cutting is just perfect and has gone far enough. But when the trees are then cut back further so that a vista in Pittsburgh or Chicago or Toronto looks just like a vista from the Scottish coast or the Sand Hills of Nebraska, the tree-cutting has gone too far.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2021, 09:53:04 PM »
It has gone too far when the architect’s design is hindered and/or severely altered.  Think about that before responding.  I know many here don’t think we can figure out an architect’s design intent if they are no longer around to ask but I am with Ron Forse on this one, trying to understand their intent plays a big part in the way we both address a golf course looking to make changes. 


One example to ponder; the tree work at Oakmont transformed that golf course.  In my opinion it is sooo much better without all those trees that lined every fairway and hid all the ditches/hazards.  But did they go too far?  If you study original plans and aerials, Fownes had some trees planted near tees.  I wonder why?  Could they have been to offer some shade  :D
« Last Edit: October 28, 2021, 09:58:38 PM by Mark_Fine »

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2021, 10:29:35 PM »
One example to ponder; the tree work at Oakmont transformed that golf course.  In my opinion it is sooo much better without all those trees that lined every fairway and hid all the ditches/hazards.  But did they go too far?  If you study original plans and aerials, Fownes had some trees planted near tees.  I wonder why?  Could they have been to offer some shade  :D


I could say the same about Inverness. When the mid-summer sun is pounding that course combined with high humidity, there is no escape from the heat due to the tree removal that has taken place there the past ten years. It makes a walking round with a caddie an exercise in survival. Trees not only serve a purpose in the comforting shade they provide, but they're strategic obstacles that are to be negotiated and weighed against possible shot outcomes as well. We need to get past the mindset that trees = bad. There's a happy medium somewhere between an overabundance of trees and desolation.
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2021, 11:25:52 PM »
For my tastes and temperament, when trees are cut back so that they frame vistas and not golf holes, the tree-cutting is just perfect and has gone far enough. But when the trees are then cut back further so that a vista in Pittsburgh or Chicago or Toronto looks just like a vista from the Scottish coast or the Sand Hills of Nebraska, the tree-cutting has gone too far.
Peter,


Your comments make sense to me. IMO, a course that demonstrates your point is Sand Ridge near Cleveland.


When the original clearing was done, the result was sufficient width that I don’t recall a tree ever having any influence on playing a shot. However, trees do provide some beautiful vistas that add to the “walk in the park” pleasure of playing the course, especially in the fall.


The two best examples might be the approach shot on #11 and the tee shot on #17.
Tim Weiman

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2021, 02:16:59 AM »
I am curious of the classic courses which ones had trees as a design element to play around? I think very few used trees to frame golf holes, even ANGC the early photos we see very few trees being a design element. So any tree removal for health of grass and turf conditions (airflow and sunlight) is a good move. ANGC is the antithesis of that as: 'The addition of trees at No. 11 continues our longstanding emphasis of accuracy off the tee,' club chairman Hootie Johnson said.  ::)
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2021, 07:27:53 AM »
It has gone too far when the architect’s design is hindered and/or severely altered.  Think about that before responding.  I know many here don’t think we can figure out an architect’s design intent if they are no longer around to ask but I am with Ron Forse on this one, trying to understand their intent plays a big part in the way we both address a golf course looking to make changes. 


One example to ponder; the tree work at Oakmont transformed that golf course.  In my opinion it is sooo much better without all those trees that lined every fairway and hid all the ditches/hazards.  But did they go too far?  If you study original plans and aerials, Fownes had some trees planted near tees.  I wonder why?  Could they have been to offer some shade  :D

Mark

Your basic premis seems to be that the original architects intent is sacrosanct. That in itself assumes their design is worth keeping and shouldn't be altered which is not always the case, or perhaps rarely the case.

Niall

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2021, 07:43:09 AM »
Tree clearing probably goes too far when it wanders off the property to someone else's land ;) .......although I have seen a few cooperative arrangements where an adjacent landowner agrees to some trees going down on his own land to help the course, for a fee, of course. 


On any modern course, I believe the routing should take trees that you can't cut down, i.e., not on property, by keeping greens and tees as far from the property line as required to provide adequate sunlight, but I can recall a few cases in my own career where a combo of topography and real estate needs combined to keep a green so close to the eastern property line that the green was guaranteed to struggle.


I was called just the other day from a course who wanted my opinion on removing a tree.  After looking at it on Google Earth, I saved them the cost of a site visit.  There have been a few instances where they ask if they should remove a tree and I just said yes, without the benefit of even doing that.  If they are asking, my experience is that it probably needs to go.


And, I have told the story before, but one query about whether I could save the trees was answered with, "Sure, just tell me where to stack the logs!"


All that said, I agree with the idea that trees are needed for golfer shade, especially down here in Texas and similar climates.  At many tees, it's either save the tree or build some kind of shade structure for golfer comfort.  And, they say (I don't know) the weather is getting more extreme, the lower ozone levels make sun exposure more problematic, etc.  I don't recall reading anywhere that the Golden Age guys would opt to give more golfers skin cancer to avoid a few trees.  In many ways, having the primary design brief be to anticipate the original architect's wishes and thoughts, or even take a course back to its state in 19XX is a false premise.  Good design still anticipates current and future problems and tries to solve those.




Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2021, 08:45:43 AM »
Tillinghast and Flynn incorporated trees in their designs.  Flynn once said (even though he never travelled across the pond to study the famous links courses) that the canny Scots would have used trees in their designs if there were any as they were to frugal to cut them down”.  Ross not so much as he said a tree that interfered with a good shot should be removed.  Colt was one of the first to do tree planting plans so future stewards of his courses would know his intentions.  Many modern architects incorporate trees as well.  We have talked a lot about Harbour Town as one example.  Pete used trees a lot as did RTJ Sr.  Think about Valderrama.  Jones called them bunkers in the sky. 


Niall,
I am interviewing for a new project right now and did quite a bit of research on the history of the design. The conclusion that I presented to the club and they agree was that the course is not worthy of resorting. Very few are (less then 10% maybe) but all are worth studying before making major renovations. 


We can and have spent ages on this site talking about trees and their evolution on golf courses.  They do have a place depending on the setting and the design.  Some courses are much better because they have trees.  Others not so much.




Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2021, 08:48:41 AM »
Only when it’s caused by uncontrollable weather, like tornadoes, straight-line winds brought about by the rather unpredictable derecho.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2021, 08:53:39 AM »
Wouldn't Oakmont be so much more interesting and attractive if each hole still had 2 or 3 of those beautiful old majestic oak trees?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2021, 09:04:37 AM »
Wouldn't Oakmont be so much more interesting and attractive if each hole still had 2 or 3 of those beautiful old majestic oak trees?

I think so.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2021, 09:17:41 AM »
I played a course with my wife this summer that we knew well. The club cut down over a thousand tree. It did open up vistas and the turf was healthier in places. One of the things my wife noticed was that on some of her shots into the greens she was bothered by all the movement on the next tee. Previously there had been trees to block the view. There also were some great giant oaks and chestnuts that were not in play that were removed. My host noted that the wholesale removal of trees was the most controversial work done in the $17,000,000 project.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2021, 12:10:10 PM »
I've always felt that courses like Pebble and Cypress have just the right amount of trees, and it certainly seems to me that it has to do with the fact that some holes have multiple trees and others none.

P.S.  Mark you beat me to the punch on Oakmont.  I look at those trees near 9 and 18 green and think it sure would be nice to see a few more of those scattered around the landscape, and perhaps even be a consideration to negotiate on a tee shot or two.

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2021, 06:10:06 PM »
Trees the keep a good portion of the fairway turf in shade, thus resulting in moist soil, need to be thinned or removed.  Most trees which are along the eastern property line (sun rises in the east & sets in the west) need to be very well thinned or removed to promote turf growth, especially if there are tee and green complexes close to that boundary.


I always recall my 1st play at Tilly's home club (pre-tree removal).........I could see how well the course was laid out and the green complexes; but having to try and hit either a running shot thru a sand trap because I missed pin high but someone had planted ceremonial flowering ornamental trees not far from the green was quite daunting. 


In the same vain, I felt the same about Old Oaks in Westchester - no one would miss the 1500 trees I thought should be removed and the turf would be some improved.

Charles Lund

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2021, 12:21:11 AM »
I’ve thought about issues of the presence of trees and tree removal quite a bit during the course of golf travel this year, during trips to various parts of the country and while playing near where I live in Western Washington, not far from Seattle.  I’ve traveled to Pinehurst in the spring, Sand Valley and Wisconsin in early summer, done multiple trips to San Diego, played a few courses like Gold Mountain Olympic and Port Ludlow near where I live, visited Minnesota and Iowa for the Midwest Mashie, and then did a two week road trip in Eastern Washington, Bend, and Bandon Dunes.  I also did a short trip in August and played both Pumpkin Ridge Courses near Portland.
One thing to remember is that, in different regions, there is different terrain and different native vegetation.  The original course design takes into account the features of the site, such as terrain, native vegetation, and other off site elements, like mountains, rivers, lakes, or an ocean.  Eastern Washington courses may be in areas where there are limited trees in prairie type land or high desert.  The Bend area in Oregon is not at all like Portland or Bandon Dunes and the terrain and forestation at Bandon Trails is different from the other courses there.  The Pinehurst area seems to have found a balance between the pines that are everywhere and quality golf courses.  I played Southern Pines in early April and saw the renovation work being done there, including massive tree removal.  Besides the benefits of more light and ventilation, the tree removal seemed to open up better view corridors that exposed more areas of the course from other playing areas. 
Most of the courses were modern and the work of many different designers.  Generally speaking, the more heavily treed courses like Gold Mountain Olympic had adequate width.  I’d say the same about the Pumpkin Ridge courses.  I’d have a hard time thinking how large scale tree removal on these courses could improve aesthetics, much in the same way that tree planting at Wine Valley or Gamble Sands would at best be aesthetically neutral but most likely unattractive.  Cedar Rapids Country Club had a tree removal program and a storm that removed a lot more trees, but trees did not contribute to a feeling of claustrophobia.   The Harvester had fewer trees and an open feel.  The same is true of the two Sand Valley courses I played, with trees occasionally being a factor on some holes.  The trees at Windsong Farms were mostly on the perimeter of the course or in areas on the course where they did not interfere that much with play.
Living on forested property, I can speak to a few facts about trees:
1. They grow, some fairly quickly and some with a lot of width and massive canopies as they mature.
2. They get diseases and they die.
3.  As the disease process continues or in the presence of severe weather, they become hazardous and can come down. 
4.  The cost of dropping a large tree is about one third (or less) of the cost of the cleanup, so cleanup is the big ticket item. 
5.  Some trees can contribute in ways to a forest eco-system and are not attractive.  I leave certain types of trees alone in some       places and happily remove them in others.  I have a process I have tried to follow if I am thinning out an area.
6. You can’t stand a tree back up after you take it down.
I’ve happily played courses all over the world and many had virtually no trees.  I’ve also played lots of heavily forested courses and would return again.  The course closest to my home was built in the 1970s in a second growth forest of mostly fir, cedar, and hemlock.  Over the past 20 years, lots of perimeter trees were removed and occasionally large stately firs came down to bring light into more areas, like greens.  The change in height and width of many trees over more than 40 years suggests the need for ongoing limbing and other shaping to limit their intrusion into how a hole plays.
I played Capilano in Vancouver about four years ago.  The course is built on the side of a mountain in an area that was logged in the early 1900s.  Fir, cedar, and hemlock trees grew back and are dense in some areas, with large numbers being 100 to 150 feet tall.  Given the massive size and height of many trees, the height tends to distort the actual width of the fairways.  I played with a member who had a career in forestry and the lumber industry.  He described a fairly intelligent approach to thinning to remove less healthy trees surrounded by older, more stately trees, removing hazardous trees, and removing individual trees and clusters of trees which limited air circulation and light in areas where more ventilation and light was needed.  Like so much of how things are done in Canada, what they were doing made sense.
Charles Lund
« Last Edit: October 30, 2021, 11:09:14 AM by Charles Lund »

Ryan Farrow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2021, 01:48:28 AM »

Some trees were present at Oakmont during its early days and the course would be better off now with a few clusters or individual oaks scattered throughout the course, unfortunately all of the trees were removed. The unforgivable act was the removal of all trees right of 12 green and behind 11 tees. After removal, views of the PA Turnpike were opened up along with plenty of road noise. Mounds were subsequently built to try and mitigate this. It was shocking to see and quite a baffling decision that cannot be reversed.  On the other hand, I walked away from my 7 year involvement of a muni renovation in the city because they were not willing to remove ANY trees.










Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2021, 09:07:25 AM »
   Would Pine Valley be better if most of the trees were cut down?  I’m sure the before and after pictures would be dramatic, showing how the expansive vistas allow beautiful views of the course to be revealed.  And so much air and light would allow for better turf conditions.  But, do beautiful before and after pictures always mean a better golf course, even if the pictures are appealing?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2021, 09:10:11 AM by Jim_Coleman »

Peter Pallotta

Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2021, 09:49:39 AM »
   Would Pine Valley be better if most of the trees were cut down?  I’m sure the before and after pictures would be dramatic, showing how the expansive vistas allow beautiful views of the course to be revealed.  And so much air and light would allow for better turf conditions.  But, do beautiful before and after pictures always mean a better golf course, even if the pictures are appealing?
Not to mention how incongruous it would be if Pine Valley were pine-less. They'd have to call it Newark instead.


« Last Edit: October 30, 2021, 10:13:19 AM by Peter Pallotta »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2021, 10:09:22 AM »
Who decides if it’s too many trees? Who decides how many trees per hole at Oakmont and which holes get the trees?


Most courses look very similar. Those with a distinctive look draw attention to themselves. Pine Valley’s trees add to the distinctiveness of the place when combined with the other features. Oakmont’s lack of trees adds to its sense of place. It accentuates the land.


  I’m concerned when the design called for trees and cutting them down compromises that design. We are dealing with that but the trees were dead.
If you want to avoid taking down trees that you like don’t hire an arborist. They will tell you the truth.



AKA Mayday

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2021, 10:19:29 AM »
The problem with using trees to create strategy is that they are living things and living things die.


Even the massive trees Tilly used largely for show to frame the backs of certain greens at Winged Foot and Baltustol are no more. 
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: When does tree removal go too far?
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2021, 01:57:03 PM »

Who decides if it’s too many trees? Who decides how many trees per hole at Oakmont and which holes get the trees?





I'd guess this is exactly what happened at Oakmont. Someone with the authority to decide came to the conclusion that if a few trees were left here and there, some members would then say "why not a couple more on this hole, and maybe that hole?". That's probably how they got over-treed to begin with.


You can't trust the membership to do the right thing where trees are concerned.




Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back