To me, the statement and many responses seem to echo the black and white arguments that prevail these days. If you are against trees, you can't be for them, etc.
Many courses are built on naturally wooded sites, the gca should make it reflect the site, not arbitrarily cut them out to make a links course. There is probably a bit more justification for taking a cornfield and trying to add trees for beauty and shade, although we can all name parkland courses that over did that, and that is what the reaction is all about, I think.
Regarding Forrest's forest management (or should that be Forrest management?) the old idea of conservation and management got downplayed in the environmental movement, but it really has some value. All courses should look at (in contrast to Mr. Players "they should figure it out" comment, when in fact, "You can't beat Mother Nature" should be the applicable sound bite) tree management plans.
Short version, removing trees that make agronomy suffer, i.e., shade greens and tees on morning sun, and given they use more water than turf or natives, any future greens committee shouldn't be quite as committed to tree lined golf courses as they were. Designating areas for clumps of trees, watered by underground drip only is probably the middle of the road position that most courses should take.
BTW, Payne's Valley was, I think, built in mountains, which requires a lot of earthmoving to level cross slopes, etc. More trees are naturally removed on those kind of grading intensive sites. If they were going to save the trees, it would be in a nice stack for later use as firewood.....