Paul,
Whenever I've observed, or been involved in a discussion related to tree removal, and I ask, why do you think that tree should remain, architecturally, agronomically and from the perspective of playability, I've never yet received a pointed,cogent answer.
The response tends to be in general terms having nothing to do with the specifics of the situation.
Recently, "Global Warming" and the need to preserve THAT specific tree has been given as a reason to spare an intrusive tree..
And, when asked when and why the tree in question was introduced to the golf course, the answer has often been, "what difference does that make".
I think golfers, like everyone else, resist change.
But, tree huggers tend to be tree huggers without examining the specifics of each situation, decrying that NO tree should be removed, no matter how harmful it may be to the architecture, agronomy or play.
At a golf course that I'm fairly familiar with, someone planted trees into the side of the footpad of some tees about 30 years ago. Now, the limbs invade directly into the flight path of tee shots. Yet, some members argue that the tree is in a good location since it shades all of the waiting golfers in the heat of summer.
When I heard this, I suggested that we start planting trees into the sides of the greens so that we could shade the golfers while they were putting. Do you know that he stopped to think about that for a while before dismissing the concept.
Now, that's scarey.