Interesting question that I’m not qualified to answer. Our course is part of a pioneer fruit orchard, literally part of the first settlement in this area. We still have fruit trees to preserve the legacy. However, many fast growing poplars and other non indigenous trees were planted in those days (it was essentially a sagebrush desert in the 1880’s) to “civilize” the country to promote settlement and development, at least that’s my unsubstantiated theory. When our original 9-hole course was designed, specimen trees, mostly poplars, were incorporated into the strategy of the holes. Now, a hundred years later, the poplars are at the end of their shelf life and dying. Once water is applied to a desert, all kinds of volunteer trees appear, mostly invasive, non indigenous, that don’t fit the landscape. My unprofessional take is that Tom is right that solid design should be focused on what’s there and what “native or natural” to the landscape and, in our case, we would be better off now if the golf course had not been designed and maintained around a bunch planted and introduced species, however mature or historic. Our golfers and deer can graze on apples, pears, cherries, peaches, and so on, but I think the course would be better if the design had instead focused on the native environment. Now, of course, we have to manage trees every year because we grow grass in a desert where water was never a reliable element and the trees have taken advantage. I don’t hate trees and golf courses where they belong, shade in the summer is good thing here, but I think we’re a good example of why trees and golf must be a carefully crafted and purposeful composition, thinking very long term about the consequences. In other words, best left to professionals not golfers, consumers, or developers.