My approach is with trees is for their existence on a course to be justified. For instance, blocking out harsh views and noise or they just look good - especially in the classic park setting where a lovely tree stands on its own. Once in a while - if the tree is an exceptional specimen, I even like it to be part of the architectural makeup of the hole. In any case, I want solid reasons (just as I would for the placement of a bunker which I believe many should be eliminated) why the tree(s) are there or else I would rather they go.
Ciao
Sean:
If a course is built through what was previously forest, should the rule be reversed, i.e., for every tree, there has to be a justification for cutting it down?
Carl
Sure, so long as wide corridors (meaning 70-80 yards wide) were cut in the first instance. I like the idea of great trees being saved from the clearing and used as features. Here is a great example of a tree I would never dream of cutting down. Mind you, Kington is blessed with many skyline greens so this aspect isn't so important.
Here are examples of stupid trees that serve no purpose and I have no time for.
Imagine if this lot were cleared out and the one or two best examples were allowed to stand out like the old parks of 100 years ago. Far, far better.
Same as above. In fact, Whittington Heath is a poster child as to why trees can be so useless.
Ciao