Cost seems like a pretty good reason to me.
The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.I am convinced this is right. If it's good enough for de Pan it should be good enough for anywhere. Any club worried about the cost of maintaining these areas can make money by charging farmers to allow their cattle/sheep/goats to graze. As I recall it, de Pan use mobile pens to keep their goats to particular areas needing "work".
The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.I am convinced this is right. If it's good enough for de Pan it should be good enough for anywhere. Any club worried about the cost of maintaining these areas can make money by charging farmers to allow their cattle/sheep/goats to graze. As I recall it, de Pan use mobile pens to keep their goats to particular areas needing "work".
So, who should have the final say as to weather a club should or shouldn't have native areas? Most clubs do a very good job of keeping them a fair distance out of the line of play, so instead of blaming the course....
Does anyone here thing Chicago Golf of Shinnecock should remove all their no mow areas? Of course not. Silly thought. The only negative about no mow areas is lost balls, but that's usually the golfer's problem.
https://www.turfnet.com/turfnet-tv.html/profiles/chicagofescue/ (https://www.turfnet.com/turfnet-tv.html/profiles/chicagofescue/)
Does anyone here thing Chicago Golf of Shinnecock should remove all their no mow areas? Of course not. Silly thought. The only negative about no mow areas is lost balls, but that's usually the golfer's problem.
The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.
Jon
What are the costs of maintaining a herd to do so? Let's figure 15 head of goats or sheep.
The only negative about no mow areas is lost balls, but that's usually the golfer's problem.
https://www.turfnet.com/turfnet-tv.html/profiles/chicagofescue/ (https://www.turfnet.com/turfnet-tv.html/profiles/chicagofescue/)
I certainly enjoy the look of the no mow areas as they add a great deal of texture to a course. That can be "needed" (?) at a place like Jason's home club which is built on essentially the Minnesota Prairie. Not sure mowed rough would look all that great?
Jason i sympathize with the fragile state of your game but you are dangerously close to resorting to one of the few four letter words I avoid on the golf course; fair. Golf was not meant to be fair or endless pleasurable excitement towit the original 8th of twelve rules of golf concerning lost balls.
I strongly believe native areas increase my appreciation of the flow of a design by serving to frame and separate playing corridors when properly done; they are grand at Morraine.
Tom,
What are the costs of maintaining a herd to do so? Let's figure 15 head of goats or sheep.
That's not nearly enough. The number to maintain 40 acres of rough would probably be over 100, and the reason it's not done is to keep the considerable droppings of 100+ animals out of the fairways.
The cost is negligible. In fact, usually a neighbor farmer would pay YOU to graze some animals out there, so he can make money off the meat later.
You must have been to de Pan. No droppings in the fairways there. Indeed, the course is in immaculate condition. Nonetheless, they have goats maintaining the "no-mow" areas.
Yes, as I understand it that's exactly what they do. Frank Pont would know exactly how it works. As Thomas says, the propensity of goats to eat just about anything makes them perfect for this. I'd love it if one of the really smart UK or US clubs adopted this as a maintenance tool. There's no reason they shouldn't. These areas are areas that balls really shouldn't be going anyway.You must have been to de Pan. No droppings in the fairways there. Indeed, the course is in immaculate condition. Nonetheless, they have goats maintaining the "no-mow" areas.Do they pen them up in one area at a time and then move them around every few days?
The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.I am convinced this is right. If it's good enough for de Pan it should be good enough for anywhere. Any club worried about the cost of maintaining these areas can make money by charging farmers to allow their cattle/sheep/goats to graze. As I recall it, de Pan use mobile pens to keep their goats to particular areas needing "work".
Let's talk history, at least in the USA. During the 60's and 70's, wall to wall green maintained turf was the ideal largely inspired by color tv's Masters coverage. It was often referred to as the Masters Syndrome. In 1976, Paul Voykin, who was in the midst of a 48 year tenure as Superintendent at Briarwood CC, published an article in the Greens' Section Record and gave a talk to the superintendents association entitle Over G. rooming Is Overspending. PV suggested that maintaining out of the way areas was unnecessary and costly. He also suggested that significant benefits relating to beauty and the environment would follow. If you look at the article, the dollars involved compared to today are laughably small.
PV's talk did not result in a rush to naturalizing golf courses but over time the sheer logic of his position has taken hold. Certainly there are instances where the practice is taken to the extreme. I concede that significant forced carries over impenetrable gunk should be avoided. There is also a level of skill, often developed via trial and error, in developing the appropriate density of naturalized areas. At Briarwood we learned that in planting fescue, we needed to use less seed per square foot than was recommended to achieve the desired look and feel. But I suggest that when properly done, naturalized areas provide the benefits that Paul Voykin touted more than 50 years ago. They save significant amounts of money. They add beauty to the course and make it appear less artificial. They create a better habitat for wildlife. As we have added natural areas, more small animals have a place to live. This attracts other animals and birds so that,for example, we now have nesting Hawks living on our grounds. . I concede that there are a few more delays looking for potentially lost balls, although not nearly to the degree suggested by Jeff. But I suggest that, properly placed, these areas add far more than they take away through occasional delays caused by extremely errant shots. I know that our membership feels the same.
What are the costs of maintaining a herd to do so? Let's figure 15 head of goats or sheep.
That's not nearly enough. The number to maintain 40 acres of rough would probably be over 100, and the reason it's not done is to keep the considerable droppings of 100+ animals out of the fairways.
The cost is negligible. In fact, usually a neighbor farmer would pay YOU to graze some animals out there, so he can make money off the meat later.
Jason,Thanks for having the onions to suggest on GCA.com that there should be more mowing and maintenance. I'm not joking; that's a bold premise on this site!
That said, I think that no-mow areas are a growing trend, for obvious reasons. I'll go one step farther and say that I've never seen a no-mow area that was a really bad feature IF the golfer was playing the correct tees and could execute pretty basic shots.
[/size]I have to say that I don't see the difference between losing your ball in a no-mow area that's 50 yards off line or requires a reasonable forced carry vs losing you ball in a water hazard or the trees.[/size][size=78%] [/size]
A.G. - I would like to know whether such areas really reduce maintenance costs. Does anyone have experience over an extended period of time comparing the cost of running a mower over such areas (but not irrigating them) vs. the cost of maintaining them? I know of one course that spent $500k per year over multiple years with little visible benefit. I admit that is an extreme example.
Jason,
I think the point some are making, including myself is...nothing ever "compels" you to look for a ball off the beaten path.
If you hit it into thinned out areas, go take a look as you'll probably find it/be able to advance it.
If you hit it into the thick gunch, then skip it.
Jason,
I think the point some are making, including myself is...nothing ever "compels" you to look for a ball off the beaten path.
If you hit it into thinned out areas, go take a look as you'll probably find it/be able to advance it.
If you hit it into the thick gunch, then skip it.
I agree with this in theory, but I think Jason's point is that on some courses, these areas aren't off the beaten path -- they are a couple of yards off the fairway. And these aren't all courses with 60-70 yard wide fairways, either.
Let's talk history, at least in the USA. During the 60's and 70's, wall to wall green maintained turf was the ideal largely inspired by color tv's Masters coverage. It was often referred to as the Masters Syndrome. In 1976, Paul Voykin, who was in the midst of a 48 year tenure as Superintendent at Briarwood CC, published an article in the Greens' Section Record and gave a talk to the superintendents association entitle Over Grooming Is Overspending. PV suggested that maintaining out of the way areas was unnecessary and costly. He also suggested that significant benefits relating to beauty and the environment would follow. If you look at the article, the dollars involved compared to today are laughably small.
PV's talk did not result in a rush to naturalizing golf courses but over time the sheer logic of his position has taken hold. Certainly there are instances where the practice is taken to the extreme. I concede that significant forced carries over impenetrable gunk should be avoided. There is also a level of skill, often developed via trial and error, in developing the appropriate density of naturalized areas. At Briarwood we learned that in planting fescue, we needed to use less seed per square foot than was recommended to achieve the desired look and feel. But I suggest that when properly done, naturalized areas provide the benefits that Paul Voykin touted more than 50 years ago. They save significant amounts of money. They add beauty to the course and make it appear less artificial. They create a better habitat for wildlife. As we have added natural areas, more small animals have a place to live. This attracts other animals and birds so that,for example, we now have nesting Hawks living on our grounds. . I concede that there are a few more delays looking for potentially lost balls, although not nearly to the degree suggested by Jeff. But I suggest that, properly placed, these areas add far more than they take away through occasional delays caused by extremely errant shots. I know that our membership feels the same.
Jeff,Let's talk history, at least in the USA. During the 60's and 70's, wall to wall green maintained turf was the ideal largely inspired by color tv's Masters coverage. It was often referred to as the Masters Syndrome. In 1976, Paul Voykin, who was in the midst of a 48 year tenure as Superintendent at Briarwood CC, published an article in the Greens' Section Record and gave a talk to the superintendents association entitle Over Grooming Is Overspending. PV suggested that maintaining out of the way areas was unnecessary and costly. He also suggested that significant benefits relating to beauty and the environment would follow. If you look at the article, the dollars involved compared to today are laughably small.
PV's talk did not result in a rush to naturalizing golf courses but over time the sheer logic of his position has taken hold. Certainly there are instances where the practice is taken to the extreme. I concede that significant forced carries over impenetrable gunk should be avoided. There is also a level of skill, often developed via trial and error, in developing the appropriate density of naturalized areas. At Briarwood we learned that in planting fescue, we needed to use less seed per square foot than was recommended to achieve the desired look and feel. But I suggest that when properly done, naturalized areas provide the benefits that Paul Voykin touted more than 50 years ago. They save significant amounts of money. They add beauty to the course and make it appear less artificial. They create a better habitat for wildlife. As we have added natural areas, more small animals have a place to live. This attracts other animals and birds so that,for example, we now have nesting Hawks living on our grounds. . I concede that there are a few more delays looking for potentially lost balls, although not nearly to the degree suggested by Jeff. But I suggest that, properly placed, these areas add far more than they take away through occasional delays caused by extremely errant shots. I know that our membership feels the same.
Shelly, (if I may call you that!)
First, a personal Paul Voykin story. Dick Nugent once sent a 25 year old me over to BW in his stead, unannounced, which displeased them. Dick would deduct and hour from his fee for a good country club lunch, so we toured the course and then had lunch. The committee ordered some wonderful sounding stuff, but when the waiter got around to me, Paul said, "The grilled cheese is good here." I proceeded to order the grilled cheese, LOL>
I remember that article, and when I first started my business in TX, found a few master plans, where the property had the room to take turf out of play. Few ever did, from memory. It is more in vogue now.
As to how many balls get lost, there is more info out there now as to shot dispersion, and I will stand by my stats. I have played my own courses, often with triple row irrigation, and about 70 yard wide play corridors and find at least one member of the group (and these are B players, not D players) finds the junk at that width on every full length tee shot hole......and I mean every hole. I started interpolating shot dispersion data to guess what it would take to half and quarter that.
Obviously, a private club with more A and B vs. C and D players can trend to the narrower without as much concern as to speed of play, even though I not all clubs are made up of better players. On a public course, better to err on the turf side vs. the native side when in doubt. For almost any course, to "hit it, find it, and hit it again" requires about 75-80 yards between the trees/natives about 150-225 off the tee, narrower at the tee and flaring out to that width. Even then, I have been taken to task by Ken Moun here repeatedly as not providing enough width.
In the field, even if using that data as a guideline, every hole is a unique retrofit project, considering place in round, hole length and features, topo, wind direction, ground features, existing sprinkler system and ease of expansion if needed, etc.