We have the same basic thing at my course. I dislike it there and here. Seems like a double whammy to me. A long bunker shot that has to contend with a tree? Chainsaw time.
Hit an explosion shot to the left or right and allow the rest of your mediocre to poor golf expose your weaknesses free from the hazard.
Yikes, since when did an opinion indicate a handicap or skill level?
The only reason to contend with the tree is if you feel you've the ability to make the shot.
"A long bunker shot that contends with a tree? Chainsaw time."
Both of which are, it would seem, in plain view. If one can't avoid that obvious hazard then that is indeed an indictment of skill level - either physical because of a missed shot, or tactical because of a poor choice.
I don't buy the idea that this is too much of a penalty similar to the case that I don't buy the idea that a hazard could offer too little of a penalty. The skill is in solving the problem, either from the bunker or before playing the approach near the bunker. Either way, the more skillful player will solve it, and the less skillful player will not. In this case, you seem to propose solving the problem with a chainsaw in lieu of skilled golf.
And therein lay the crux of the question, in my opinion. For some, the tree negates some near-miraculous recovery. I would suspect that those same are the ones that are a little too reliant on luck for their score and a lot less reliant on skill. The skillful player will see this hazard and plan accordingly.