I know my Butler commentary brought on this thread so let me try to defend my comments and add some comments from one who thinks Oakmontation is sometime a good thing.
In my opinion, it takes a very specific piece of property and layout for Oakmontation to make sense. Medinah, Olympia Fields and Spyglass for instance cannot be Oakmonted as the trees play a vital role in the playability of the course, the ambiance and the course defense. On the other hand, courses like Butler and Oakmont, don't need trees to satisfy any of the aforementioned purposes. (Since I haven't played Oakmont I can't comment on the playability)
For instance, Butler's greens and bunkering act as the primary defense. The trees that are there are of little aestethic value (both positively and negatively) and the playability is seldom altered by the presence of trees. Obviously, those trees that do impact the playability will and should remain when considering Oakmontation.
And the comment about the trees being hazards has some merit but on a course like Butler, more often than not, the trees that are there merely stand in the way of another hazard. Those that are a "hazard" will remain. How many pivotal hazard trees were removed at Oakmont?
For better or for worse, from an architectural perspective, the trees were always and continue to be the primary hazard at Medinah, Olympia, etc. So Oakmonting there is a non-starter. But at other facilities where this isn't the case....chop away!
Why do we have to have trees for the sake of having trees? What do trees way outside the playing lines and in and around other hazards accomplish?