Jerry,
Keeping in mind that the most important elements of golf course design are the routing and the design of the greens and surrounds, opinions on removing a bunker (or leaving it) are very subjective. In my experience recommending the removal of bunkers, one committee member will 'get it' while another is adamantly against filling them in. Who's right, who's wrong?
As a golf course designer, and consultant to a number of clubs, I like to think the reasons I give for filling in a bunker make sense; but, still, some people just don't buy into it. In any case, I've come to think of bunkers - no matter where they're located - as hazards (that's what they are, after all); they're holes in the ground, filled with sand throughout a golf course that should be avoided by golfers. It's a simple concept. And, no matter where bunkers are someone's going to hit into them, at some time. In fact, some of the most boring courses are those bunkered to 'trap' the best players.
I visit too many courses that have way too many bunkers. I have a renovation project starting this spring where we're removing almost half of the existing bunkers from the course (this took a lot of convincing, over several years). I think the course will be better for it, in terms of playability, aesthetics, construction and future maintenance costs. These are all good things, and yet there's a group at this club who are strongly opposed to my recommendations.
Frankly, bunkers are over-rated. One of my biggest pet peeves is seeing a club spend a million dollars on a bunker renovation project without any architectural advice. (I've seen this recently.) In many cases it could have been a $500k project once all of those bunkers that don't make any sense were filled in.
Not sure this answered your question, but... take it for whatever it's worth
