Tree removal projects, big and small

In the lead-up to the U.S. Open at Oakmont, everyone was talking about the tree removal program and how the course had been restored to the original Fownes vision. But by Sunday the conversation had switched back to the faster-than-fast green speeds and Dustin Johnson overpowering the golf course. 

Before and after shots of Oakmont.

The massive tree removal at Oakmont over the last 15 or so years offered a great opportunity to start a conversation among golfers at their own courses in regard to implementing a tree management program. But should Oakmont be the model for others to follow? Does it make it harder for some clubs to start removing trees, given a model of near total removal?

As we all know, golf courses cannot, and should not, be compared to each other. This is a key point that often is lost on golfers, but an issue all too familiar to superintendents. How many times do we as superintendents hear golfers comparing green speeds from one course to another?

This idea plays into the conversation started by the tree work at Oakmont. It’s asking the wrong question. And that wrong question is, “Does a course need to go Oakmont’s route and remove all of its trees?”

The problem with this idea is simple. Each course has its own history and identity. Case in point: The week following the U.S. Open, the PGA Tour was at Congressional Country Club, Bethesda, Md., ironically another U.S. Open venue, but one that is the polar opposite to Oakmont in regard to tree management.

Would Congressional be honoring its history by removing all of its trees? Probably not. However, it could benefit from a tree removal program on a smaller scale.

Yet as good as the Oakmont story is, there are other stories just as important that need to be told, and that, for many courses, might be just what the doctor ordered. Trees can provide a deeply dividing conversation at any golf course. It’s important to know how to handle the topic and share with golfers not only the benefit — but more important, the historical precedent — for tree removal.

The shift from an open golf course to that of a narrow, tree-lined course takes as little as 30 years. But all too often through multiple generations, golfers only see a small shift instead of the bigger picture. Corridors not only become narrower, but doglegs can be straightened out and prime landing areas can be hidden in the trees, nullifying the original intent of the architect. The idea of separating holes has driven tree planting with little to no thought to tree planting besides filling in the gaps. As courses look at tree removal programs today, these same trees are given much more consideration — both positive and negative — than when they were originally planted, and as to what they offer a course from an architectural and agronomic perspective.

One such story is taking place at Moraine Country Club in Dayton, Ohio. Originally designed by Alec Campbell, a highly respected golf professional and architect with ties to Brookline, the course recently was restored by noted architect Keith Foster. Foster worked closely with Jason Mahl, the superintendent, to open up vistas long lost to tree plantings that hid the course and its rolling topography. This work has allowed Foster to highlight the original design by drawing from early aerial photos to identify the time frame to which they wanted to restore the course. Not all the trees were removed, but many were, and the results have made an already great course that much better.

Considering how prolific the parkland style of course is in Ohio, it says a lot about Moraine Country Club’s decision to remove as many trees as they did and make the centerpiece of the club what the membership values most: their golf course.