Stumping for conservative tree use

Trees and grass often are at odds with each other on a golf course, as are the views of golfers when they disagree with what a superintendent believes is best for the course. These kinds of disagreements aren’t always in play, but the desire to have a course set up to play as hard as possible shouldn’t always win.

Trees can be beautiful things and the key element to some courses, as Rees Jones notes in the story “Appreciating the forest for the trees.” But when distributed too liberally they can detract from the golf experience. Trees too often are added to a golf course without considering the long-term effect and often merely are used to defend par, add fall color and separate holes.

Back in the 1920s, golf was not about challenging every shot on the course. Fairway widths averaged between 50 to 60 yards(!!), allowing for angles of play that could benefit a more thoughtful player. As trees were planted and defense of par became a principal to be followed, golf courses were narrowed and lined with trees. The change was subtle, but over the years as the trees matured they started choking off angles of play and broad vistas. Too often any open spaces between holes were filled, and lines of trees were viewed as optimal. In addition, fairways became ribbons of their former selves, with trees shading turf, roots impacting play and branches deflecting proper irrigation.

Tree removal has been on the rise lately with the intention of restoring long-lost vistas and architectural features, and removing older, compromised trees.

When trees are removed, the knee-jerk reaction too often is to say the hole will play too easy, but after only a year or two the idea is moot as most golfers forget about the trees and the hole still is as challenging sans trees.

Yet another issue is planting the wrong trees to begin with. Just because someone grew up in the Northeast with hardwoods and fall color shouldn’t mean that the course operators should plant trees that aren’t native to an area so they can have a show of color. These trees often are slow growing and can be prone to disease. This results in trees that struggle and look out of place. Finding trees that are native to your locale helps define the course and connect it with the immediate surroundings.

Golfers are drawn to a certain look based on their own self-interest, and that sometimes doesn’t allow a course in another part of the country to have its own identity defined by the trees already there. When golfers complain about the lack of color, I often point out the varying shades of green and browns, and that this is what makes northern California special, in the same way fall color defines the Northeast.

Then there’s the idea that each hole should have its own identity, going so far as to block the view of other holes on the course. I’ve worked on a course that removed a large number of trees that were compromised, considered non-native and in some cases invasive, and it restored broad views that add to golfers’ experience. Far too often our sense of place is limited to trees, and having a longer view not only challenges the eye, but it also opens vistas that allow for taking in the topography and immediate surroundings.

Why not see the golf course roll out and develop before your eyes, adding to your experience as you reflect on the holes already played and allowing the excitement to build as you reach the climax of the final holes?

Trees have a place in golf, but I believe that fewer trees, planted in the right locations and using appropriate species, can have just as much of an impact on a golf course as having a course overrun by trees.