I really like the work that is done in Wisconsin. I started fishing Wisconsin about 15 years ago, after I moved from PA to IL. What I really hated about the areas I fished in PA was that PA spent, in my opinion, most of their money on stocking and not nearly enough on habitat improvement. When I started fishing the Driftless, I was amazed at how that was completely different. We can debate PA and their processes in another thread.
I've seen improvements in the WI that are so old that they actually look like they were part of the stream forever - of course they're not. But I wouldn't consider it landscaped.
I also like the way that many of the streams and rivers I have fished have a nice balance of improved as well as unimproved, such as this shot here on an "improved stream"
One of my favorite streams in the Driftless:
To me, I don't consider either of these examples as trout golf courses, but rather improvements along a singular river in different sections that provide protection to the habitat that have persevered over a long period of time and foster sustaining trout populations.
Same stream - unimproved.
There are certainly many areas along many different streams like the picture below that are not my favorite. But to me, the benefit I've seen of these is that they address a particular section of a river to provide protection in a particular section that needed it for one reason or another:
This stream has a lot of improvements in many different sections - I enjoy fishing the unimproved sections such as the section below. I'm making a non scientific assumption that the improved sections help this section as well in the long run:
I have seen some rivers and creeks in the Driftless that really are troutscaped. There is a section on the Blue that comes to mind... I'm glad they're there and glad the hard scape provides habitat to protect the fish. But I've seen enough positives in my years there that I welcome the work for long term protection of the fisheries.