[Jason Topp]

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?

Mowed rough would look terrible. I am not sure of a better solution at my course.

[/size] From a playing perspective, I like it best when it just has been burned.  You find your ball (as long as you can pick it out of all of the melted balls from the prior year) but have a challenging recovery shot on which you have to judge whether your lie is bare or the beginning shoots of bluestem which will turn a brilliant red in autumn but grow to nipple height.[size=78%]

[Thomas Dai]

Would it be correct to assume that once upon a time all golf was played on native terrain with the native playing surface eaten by native animals with clubs made with native wooden heads, native wooden shafts and native animal skin grips and balls made of native animal skins stuffed with feathers from native birds?
atb

[ward peyronnin]

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. Gorse serves that purpose admirable but is far more problematical.

Burning will control overgrowth. But I like the goat notion; could they possible be trained to carry golf bags which is all I mostly expect of a caddie nowadays

[Jason Topp]

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.

Ward:


This has nothing to do with fairness.  On the courses I am thinking about, I cannot think of a single instance where the use of native areas reasonably could be considered unfair.  In most cases, there are at least 50 yards available to the player to avoid such areas. 


My question is whether golf courses would be better without native areas.  For courses located on less than ideal soil, I believe the answer is usually yes for the reasons described above.

[Jason Topp]

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.

Ward - I am not familiar with Morraine.  But I am interested in your "appreciate the flow" and "frame and separate playing corridors" ideas. 


I am not sure what you mean by "appreciate the flow."  How does that appreciation increase because of native areas?


I also do not think I buy the "frame and separate playing corridors."  The Old Course features holes that are not separated at all.  Nor are they framed.  For the most part you cannot see them.  Augusta National seems like a perfectly fine golf course, one that was considered even better when there was no rough at all.  It does not need native areas for either purpose. 

[Mark Pearce]

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.

Tom,


I'm surprised.  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.

[Pete_Pittock]

Somewhat related to this topic are road median strips and shoulder runoffs. Here in Oregon those areas are mowed with little regard for the detritus. While driving to Minnesota and back I marveled at all the circular hay bales. We cut, they harvest.


Just need more farmers to occasionally harvest the  high rough no-mow areas.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

It's been about ten years (?) since I saw De Pan.  I don't believe they had any goats back then.


Do they pen them up in one area at a time and then move them around every few days?


At Cape Kidnappers there are still animals grazing around the course, but they are fenced off from the playing areas, and that generally means there's a rumble strip of unmanageable grass between the fairways and the grazed areas.  It was precisely the droppings that made them put up all the fences.

[Thomas Dai]

Goats are excellent strippers of vegetation and will gobble up all sorts of scrub, ivy etc etc. They are also people friendly and sociable. They like to have other goats around and (small) sheds to shelter in. They can be free-range or fenced/penned or wear collars and be chained to posts and trees etc (always in such a manner as not to become twisted up) and detached and moved to another nearby location easily. Some collars can be fitted such that a small electric pulse occurs if they attempt to wonder beyond a certain set of pulse beacons. Be aware that they can also climb very well and not just slopes either.
They can make a significant difference to course maintenance so long as there are no other animals around that are likely to attack or eat them. As they prefer eating scrub and rougher types of grass they tend not to cause hassle on the greens.
There are specialist goat farms around so if you’re interested in how they could help maintain your course get in touch with one.
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,


an interesting idea with the collars have you seen it in practice? Or have any info about where they are produced?


Tom,


goats or sheep are perfect for such grazing and can be contained through temporary fences (maybe at Thomas suggests with collars though I have never seen this) but in general they do not tarry on the short stuff so the amount of droppings in the playing areas will be negligible. Of course if you are charging $100s then this might be an issue but you can't have it all.




Jon

[Mark Pearce]

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?

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.

[Sean_A]

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".

Mark

I recall Walton Heath trialed the sheep deal in fenced off areas of rough only a few years ago.  It failed miserably.  Why...dogs!  People taking their dogs for unleashed walks and wham, dead sheep.  By the time it would take to train walkers to keep dogs on leads, all the sheep would be dead.  A ton of courses have footpaths nearby or through courses. I reckon the idea could work very well in the US as private property is private property.  The issue is really more about

1. are there sheep farmers nearby

2. how will it "look"? Some folks couldn't handle the concept and think it would look like peasantville

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

For goodness sakes Jason don’t bring up Augusta National or you will lose any credibility!  The over maintenance of that golf course has caused superintendents and architects and golf in general more problems than you could ever imagine!!! 


The average golfer has zero idea what it costs to maintain Augusta like that but still wants their course to look just like it. We are only starting in the last several years to get golfers/members educated that Augusta is dreamland and artificially maintained and is not what other courses like theirs should strive to look like. 


Native areas/lower maintenance areas
when properly placed and maintained are good for the game!!

[SL_Solow]

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.

[Jason Topp]

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.

Thanks for the history Shelly. It would be interesting to read the article.


How far offline do you keep such areas at Briarwood? How often does a group of 15 handicappers wind up searching through the native?  I assume you have relatively rich soil in your area.  Has it been possible to keep the areas relatively thin/  The only course I have seen that seems to have it right in the Twin Cities is Olympic Hills but they sand-capped the entire course to do so. 

[A.G._Crockett]

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.  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.
In a tournament at perhaps the ultimate no-mow golf course, Tobacco Road, last week, I missed three fairways all day and never found any of the three balls; took a double on two of the holes, and a triple on the third.  But each case, I had a landing area that was 75 yards wide area to land my ball; I just took a bad line or the wrong club, and then added a bad swing.  None of that is the fault of mowing; it's the guy in the mirror at my house that did all of it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Which reminds me: I wonder how many of the hundreds of thousands of posts on here have as their genesis our unwillingness to 'play the course as we find it'?  I assume most of us always 'play the ball as it lies'; but whether we're complaining about an 80s Nicklaus course or prattling on about ponds and trees or rating/ranking the Dark Ages or suggesting to supers how they should/shouldn't maintain the green surrounds, we seem incapable of making/embracing the distinction between 'this doesn't work' and 'I don't like this' -- i.e. between the course *as it is* and the course as we *wish* it to be. Every single golf course in the world is different, its own unique puzzle of pieces arranged in this one-off way sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity, and sometimes accidentally. But there it is - it exists, and we're 'meant' to play it as we find it. I wonder how many new threads we'd have on this site if we approached every round of golf in terms of figuring out how best to play *this* particular course instead of comparing it to *that* one and then wishing away the differences. (I've been a chief 'offender' in this regard, both on here and out on the golf course(s)...and I've come to think that I've been missing the mark all along.) 
P       

[Jonathan Mallard]

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.

So, why not set the agreement up to include the maintenance of the droppings as part of an overall performance plan?
I'm assuming that the economics would still work out.

[Joe Hellrung]

Really interesting discussion here Jason.  I'd echo the balance argument.  No mow areas save money, add color, and save water.  They also speed up play if golfers know enough not to go into waist high grass to find a golf ball.  All that being said, they shouldn't stand between a golfer and his green.  Some of the forced carries I've seen over no mow areas are too difficult for the average or elderly golfer - Brasstown Valley comes to mind. 

[Jason Topp]

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.


The difference between no mow areas and trees and water goes back to the Mackenzie's principle that the game should be free from the annoyance of searching for lost balls.  No search is necessary with water.  Searches are much more straightforward with trees if the ground underneath is bare, covered in pine needles or mowed. 


[/size][size=78%]  [/size]

[Kalen Braley]

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.


Even if its marginal, spend a minute looking and move on.  This goes hand in hand with the provisional ball, which I wish more golfers would use.   99% of the time, you usually know if you're ball is going to be difficult to find, hit a provisional and play on.

[Edward Glidewell]

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.

This is exactly what I said earlier in the thread when I mentioned no mow does not equal no maintenance. I'm sure it depends on the area/climate, but in a lot of the southeast US, no mow areas turn into weed jungles very quickly if they aren't maintained.


I know of a course that was supposed to have something similar to wispy fescue (not sure if it was actually fescue), but they were unable to make that work in the climate (too expensive/too much manpower to maintain) and it turned into deep, high weeds very quickly. Some of it is right off the fairway where it is very easy to hit into and lose balls.


I recall Tom Doak once saying on this site that you'd be amazed how much effort/money it takes to keep "natural" areas looking "natural" on courses like Pinehurst #2. That doesn't mean they are bad (I like those natural areas!) but it also doesn't mean that no mow is automatically a cost saving measure.

[Edward Glidewell]

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.

[Kalen Braley]

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.

Edward,


Fully agreed.  And my response to that is, if I'm struggling with left-right military golf, the last course I'm going to be dropping my dosh on is a difficult beast with lots of hazards, OB, and gunch-a-plenty.  Go down to your local faux-links wide open style course, and knock it around till you figure it out.


Or as JK would say "Don't be a cheap bastard. Support your local pro and buy a few tune-up sessions'

[SL_Solow]

Jason,  You can find the article if you google Over Grooming is Overspending.  Our fairways average about 35 yards wide and the native areas are generally about 50 yards off the center line, some further and a few a little closer.  We have a few instances each day where players are looking for balls but its not that prevalent.  We have found that after a few years of proper maintenance the fescue thins out and we can find and even play most balls.  Of course we have had a few years of trial and error.  as for cost savings, we have about 12 acres left unmaintained and we save approximately $70,000 to $85,000 annually.  We have our own well so we don't pay for water.  Those paying for irrigation water would save additional sums.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()