Joe: Our memories differ. I have never been against the culling of trees. I supported all tree removal efforts that exposed more air and light to the course. These projects were mostly performed under the auspices of Jim Nagle, a talented and experienced architect.
What I have objected to is the recent deforestation performed under the auspices of a superintendent and a member with zero input from an experienced architect. What we now have is a course with beautiful vistas and open spaces (great before and after pictures), but a course where one can literally hit a tee shot pretty much anywhere with no risk of penalty. Picture the after picture of Sleepy Hollow above, but with no trees at all. Pretty much the only trees left at RG are those that define doglegs. Yes, the before and after pictures are striking. But there is more to good golf architecture than pretty pictures. What worked at Oakmont won’t work everywhere.
If this work were performed under the auspices of a Gil Hanse or Jim Nagle, I would defer to their expertise and experience. However, I seriously doubt an experienced architect would have been so draconian. Indeed, rumor has it that Hanse, now hired, will be planting some trees. My objection has been to changing the architecture of a great golf course without the input of an experienced architect.
I kid you not.