Michael,
The excitement with which some embrace the notion of massive clearing is cause for concern. Primarily, clearing should be done to provide the superintendent the optimum conditions for sunlight and air. Next, clearing should be done to improve the strategic design of the course, typically meaning opening up the width of the hole in conjunction with widening the fairways in key areas to provide interesting options for playing the hole off the tee, also opening up new avenues to get to the greens from the edges of the hole corridors. Next, trees that prevent recovery shots more specifically the massive bulk of pines that crowd the edges of holes should be removed. It is far more interesting to make the player think about their options from off the fairway, be it go for the green with a mighty blow, just get back in play, hit a precise layup to have the best angle form which to pitch on the green, I mean those are just three simple options compared to the one and only option a massive grouping of pines give you which is take out your metal driver and putt the ball back onto the fairway. For many courses accomplishing these two goals is a tall order, it may be a 1000 trees or 200 trees.
Other goals would be to eliminate exotic trees, trees that are not natural to the area, and eliminate trees that conceal and damage larger, speciman trees.
A goal of planting would be to introduce trees that are similar to the native hardwood trees on site in a manner that does not violate the above goals, and specifically help connect nodes or patches of woodlands so that you have a contiguous band of woodlands and understory plantings which are much more hospitable to wildlife, and take areas that are out of play out of maintenance. It is surprising how much maintenance goes into areas that hardly would ever be visited by a golf ball. I can identify several locations on my home course.
In my experience with memberships tree clearing takes a lot discussion. It is not something most committee members will accept just because you are the professional. Probably the most knowldgeable person on the planet regarding the detrimental effects of trees on the course is their superintendent and they still do not listen to him. So it takes much education and patience. I have developed a plan that meets the above goals, only depicting the native hardwoods on their course that do not adversely impact maintenance and allow my goals for the strategic improvement of the course to be implemented. That plan is startling because for some clubs there is a lot of open area depicted. There is much gnashing of teeth. Next, a plan, which takes on the guise of a compromise, is presented that shows some of these voids spotted with a tree or two, graphically depicted at their mature width of canopy, spotted in areas where there might have been 15 trees maybe now there is proposed two hardwoods. Again, spotted in a manner that does not violate the aforementioned goals fo the master plan landscaping. That is on tool in the education process. Implementation is then conducted in baby steps often which highlights the merits of all of the plans and discussions that have been going on for years.
Back to your concern about mantras, it seems more relevant to answer with the goals for tree clearing, more sunlight, more air, more enjoyable playing conditions, more strategy, better stewardship of the beautiful trees that exist, than to be flippant and throw out a number to shock.
I lost where I was going early in the discussion. I was somewhat surprised at the zeal with which the tree clearing operation was described to me during our trip to NGLA. It was told to me that all the trees would go, as far as you could see around the course. I saw some maginificent hardwoods, absolute gems, that had no effect on maintenance meaning sunlight, air, roots stealing nutrients, and no impact on play, and inquired if that one was going alos, YES that one too all of them! That to me seemed to cross the line. To remove beautiful old hardwoods because it was not there when CBM built the course just made no sense to me and seemed to me to be a perverse way to interpret an otherwise worthwhile movement to free courses of unneccesary trees. It was like the story about Sandhills, maybe a myth that the owners bought some land nearby because you could see a tree on it from the course and they wanted the tree gone. It was probably a myth, but it was told as if it were true and with much delight. just made no sense to me.
By the way I heard John Fox of the Panthers was asked what he thought of the half time show and he said he would have gone for two!