Ya, I hear you Dave.
I'm always a proponent of keeping trees on steep slopes.
"How much can I cut off without hurting the tree?"
"Zero".
I tell people this all the time. One of my customers always needs to tell me of how she wants to be 'respectful' of the trees.
All I can tell them is the science, and try to judiciously balance the compromise between tree and human (immediate desires, and long-term sustainable desires, such as a solid ground under their house and sustainable pieces of forest and bank/ shore.
It's all pruning tops off of alders, short-lived colonizers of disturbed areas, no removal, as high and small as I can safely climb, with high TIPs behind me in tall doug-firs. Trying to create somewhat of a decurrent shape in an excurrent tree. Compromising between tree and homeowner desires. Trees will slow down rain-splash erosion, as well as holding with roots. Wider will cover more, I hope.
People with waterfront property with mountain/ other views are always in 'funny' states of denial, or double-speak.
Some people clear-cut the less-steep high-bank slopes, because that is easiest/ cheapest, and don't want to wait for saplings to grow up to the point of being a 'real' tree that is climbable and reduce-able as it will block their view in the meantime. I know this sounds weird, but it's maintenance tree work. Pruning smaller tops that are the view-offenders keeps the trees growing overall. With tops pruned, more light gets to lower laterals for growth, there.
Many people are retired, and I bet just hope that the bank lives longer than them. Erosion is inevitable. Mass movements, too. Slowable, but inevitable. Also, easily increased.
I'm always a proponent of keeping trees on steep slopes.