How many tree's on a golf course ?

Hey everyone, I'm new here, but thought I would throw a question out to you all......

Is there some sort of a rule for how many tree's are suppose to be on a golf course ?   The reason I ask is this,  on the little 9 hole course I play,  there are so many tree's lined up down the edges of each fairway.... I mean, they are planted like every 15 feet, and now are very tall tall tree's.   If you hit a bad drive and are in the next fairway over, it makes it very difficult to get back over in your fairway...   I'm just wondering, is there some sort of rule or something on how many are suppose to be on a course ?

yes under ruling of trees 4.3..4 c

''there must be a minimum of 16 trees per hole''

ok, but how about the other way, can there be too many tree's ?

yes under rule 4.3..4 c

tell this to your pro and he will do something about it

where do I find that rule at..... USGA ?

It's a matter of balance. Trees serve as boundaries and obstacles for golfers, but also provide shade from the sun to different parts of the course during the day.

Too many trees cause problems. They mess up the original design of the hole, and disrupt turf growth for the course. Some specifics...

Mature golf courses end up with wider tree foliage (branches and leaves) than they counted on. Small trees planted along an open fairway can grow 40 feet high in a couple of decades, and get wider at the top. Over 20 to 40 years, volunteer (unplanted) sprouts can take root and grow into sizable new trees.

Trees start crowding the fairways, making them narrower. And, a group of large trees whose canopies (foliage) grow together can block out the sun from sizable portions of the turf. Grass doesn't grow underneath, and erosion can begin.

Also, trees too close together block wind movement, and can help promote fungus on some of the greens and tees. (Lack of sunlight contributes to this). Many courses are placing large fans near greens and tees in low spots to fight against this.

At Forest Park in St. Louis, the golf courses got rebuilt in the last few years, creating the 27-hole Probstein course and the 9-hole Highland course. In the rebuild, hundreds of trees got cut down. Many of these were small to medium size. The clumps of trees which remain come into play on the holes, but you don't have a tree wall on both sides of the fairways.

Another recent trend: Remove evergreen trees from main line of play. These trees tend to have shallow root systems just under the soil. These roots can injure golfers hitting out of the rough, and damage mowing equipment.

Here's a professional golf arborist website which tells all about trees:

http://www.golfcoursearboristtreeservice.com/

That's completely ridiculous.  Don't send the OP out on a wild goose chase.  Rule 4.3.4c was made irrelevant by 29.12/b: special amendment for numbers of shrubs and bushes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

That's completely ridiculous.  Don't send the OP out on a wild goose chase.  Rule 4.3.4c was made irrelevant by 29.12/b: special amendment for numbers of shrubs and bushes.

http://treesandshrubs.about.com/od/treeshrubbasics/qt/TreeVsShrub.htm

Rule 4.3.4c is therefore still valid and should be taken into account by the OP. I'd definitely ask to speak to your course groundskeeper and let him know of your issue. If he doesn't acknowledge the issue I'd find a course where they do!

Thanks for pointing out my oversight.  I would hate to mislead the guy!

Not a problem at all! Sometimes people make mistakes on forums and if I can help them learn from it I'm more than happy to.

can you guys help me out on where to find that rule 4.3.. 4c ?

rule 4.3...4c?? There must be a separate Rules of Golf Horticulture.

According to USGA Rules of Golf , Rule 4.3 addresses...

---------------------------

4-3. Damaged Clubs: Repair and Replacement

• a. Damage in Normal Course of Play
  If, during a stipulated round, a player’s club is damaged in the normal course of play, he may:
  PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 4-3a: See Penalty Statements for Rule 4-4a or b and Rule 4-4c.
  • (i) use the club in its damaged state for the remainder of the stipulated round; or
  • (ii) without unduly delaying play, repair it or have it repaired; or
  • (iii) as an additional option available only if the club is unfit for play , replace the damaged club with any club. The replacement of a club must not unduly delay play and must not be made by borrowing any club selected for play by any other person playing on the course.

---------------------------

Not sure how this intersects with the Rules of Golf Horticulture... unless the golfer damages his club accidentally hitting one of the 16 (?) trees along the hole.

Exactly.  My new understanding is that it applies both to the trees, and the bushes and shrubs.

Tell that to Woody.  He's already getting ready for the British Open so they can meet the 16 tree minimum:

More misinformation...everyone knows that the R&A; uses the British Imperial Tree Measurement System.  For the life of me, the conversion rate escapes me.

Yeah we're pushing to move over to Metric but it's impossible. For us it's the same mix as cars:

We buy a car that holds fuel in "litres" but we quote our milage in "miles per gallon"

We say "turn left in 100 metres" but our speeds are in "miles per hour"

We buy penny sweets as "quarters" but chocolate in grams

I think the stink with the BO (British Open) has caused them to take a leaf out of the Special Branch book to get to the root of the problem with tree numbers. As an example in Barking (Essex) there's an issue whereby numbers aren't known to be imperial or metric. Eventually though I'm sure they'll twig. Like the OP.

You guys are SOOO bad.

Can a guy with purportedly an 8 hcp really be serious with this question?

Just in case he is:

Some courses are literally carved out of a wooded, heavily treed area.

Some courses are built and shaped from a blank slate and add trees as features and obstacles.

Some courses have no trees, or nearly no trees (is there even one tree on the Old Course at St. Andrews?).

What was the question again?