"Disc Golf Not as Green as it seems"

[timothyasteele]

Peter,

I'm sorry to hear about the constant opposition to everything you've worked on recently, but it's not entirely surprising given the closed-mindedness of so many people in the SF Bay Area.

Having grown up in San Francisco, it was a breath of fresh air when I finally moved out a little ways so I could avoid folks like Ken who are hell bent on their view of the world being the right one for everyone else.

When you have a park like McLaren that is that large, with such a large population already enjoying it in so many ways, thinking that adding a DG course to a portion of it is going to ruin it for everyone else is preposterous.

It seems to me that people like Ken don't want to collaborate for a solution, only blindly follow their own agenda at all costs.

BTW, thanks for your help with the Benicia course a few years ago. It's being played by many people, with lots of new families with kids, East Bay disc golfers, many visits from folks around the county, and the parks department has been so happy with comments from neighbors and park enthusiasts, that they are allowing us to expand it to include 9 long tees.

Now if only I could find the time and energy and volunteers to get them installed...

Tim S.

[pmatt1969]

This park is 317 acres?? I thought it was about 5 acres. Do you have 12,000 dogs show up at the same time?? Why do they need 60 acres? Come on. It is either turf being torn up by dogs using it or wasted use of space. Which one is it?? Ken is just trying to scare people like you see in the media everyday. A few thinking they are smarter and can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves.

[Lewis]

Originally Posted by kensanfran

Again, along with other park groups, we pushed a public campaign to get $12M in park bond money for a whole host of upgrades to the park's infrastructure, the first such funding for the park in well over 20 years. And we are sponsoring a whole host of other exciting public events in the park, which you can read about on our front page.

When I look at your website's front page, I see the content divided about 60-40 into two columns on the screen. The 60% on the left celebrates and welcomes many kinds of activity in the park, from hiking on the park's paved walking trails to gardening to improved park access for "transit and vehicles" on Mansell Street, to breeding pairs of coyotes that your website describes as deadly to dogs and possibly aggressive towards humans at certain times of the year. The 40% on the right side of your front page is dedicated exclusively negative treatment of the one activity that your group considers unwelcome. In contrast to the generally positive and supportive treatment of everyone and everything else, disc golf is described as an "ongoing threat" that literally inspired the creation of your "save the park" group. Do you really think a casual, unbiased web surfer will see your organization as anything other than a group of people determined to "save the community from the threat of disc golf"? Do you think the website's prominently displayed "latest brochure" that pleads with the reader to join the campaign to save the 317 acre multi-use park from the destructive threat of a 30-acre disc golf park seems to do anything other than categorically demonize disc golf with open hostility?

I could be wrong, but I suspect your suggestion that disc golfers should be sent off to live on the ball golf course, where we may not be welcome or even tolerated by the golfers already there, is a lot like Uncle Sam's instinct and ultimate decision to eliminate the hassle of sharing the land with the Cherokees by shipping them off to less valuable land in Oklahoma. I'm not trying to romanticize the plight of the disc golfer as some kind of human tragedy, but I get the feeling your offer of land nobody else is using -- except the golfers already using it -- isn't as innocent asyou'd like us to believe. Again, I could be wrong, in which case the most plausible alternative I can imagine is that y'all are embarrassingly unconscious of the face you're presenting to the world, especially to us disc golfers. The realist in me would also suggest that a group founded to protect the park from disc golf may have you as its most reasonable, respectful, considerate member. I'm doing a lot of speculation here, but when is the last time you looked at your group's public image with an eye for self-criticism? I hope you can see that we disc golfers are doing this within our own community.

[texhop58]

Ok, can't help myself. The snobbiness got to me. You do realize you can make his groups life just as miserable as he has yours. One, dog urine and feces has been known to damage plant life. You may need to suggest a 50,000 dollar land and tree survey to check that out to the city commissioners. 2nd an off lease dog park seems like that could be rather worrisome to the city. What if one of those dogs attacks an unsuspecting park user. I mean I am sure their is a ratio of dog attacks to disc golf injuries that someone could pull up. That sounds like another study may need to be done. While we are suggesting surveys. What about the affects of having walkers constantly using the same trail over and over. Atleast disc golfers spread their walking out over the course. That's three land surveys that might need to be suggested even before he can work on that 12 million dollar infrastructure improvement. Which also seems very expensive for a state that is bankrupt. Where a 15 to 20k disc golf course looks like a steal. And if ran right would actually put money back into the city. Unlike the dog walkers, walkers, and cyclist. And why we are on the subject if cyclist. Maybe there should be a survey done to see the damage that mountain biking has on the environment. These things can go on and on. Both of you need to give in. I read your website. It seemed very anti disc golfing. So yea. I am in general taking this side. That being said. There is always things for disc golfers to do, to make sure the park stays in tip top shape. I dot really want the guy to go out and just be a financial speed bump for a park improvement team, but it sure sounds like ken is doing his best to be and trying to rub it in the face of the disc golfers.

[kensanfran]

Lewis,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As for the website, well, I can't say as we are trying to appeal to disc golfers with our website -- we believe it is a bad fit for the park's natural areas and are compelled to say why. There are a thousand websites that are boosting DG with very little info as to the realistic impacts of the sport, if you are a disc golfer, go there. We are appealing to people who want to enjoy the park's natural areas while leaving them for others to enjoy in the same way -- from our research at the GGP course, DG does not do this.

That said, it is of course true that ball golf has even worse environmental impact, and I don't have to explain to any of you why. The fact is, I have done some amount of research into the idea, and despite a fair amount of resentment over the way the "rec" portion of Rec/Park has tried to steamroller a DG course into McLaren's natural areas, I do think they deserve space to play in the City, if a place can be found where it would represent an actual improvement in the space's environmental impact. Believe it or not.

Sharing with ball golf is one option, and I have to wonder if golfers, who are already flying plastic around, are bothered by DGers on the course, how much worse is it to mix DGers up with hikers and runners and dog-walkers in natural areas? But consider -- the nine-hole golf course already in McLaren (Gleneagles) is about 60 acres (room for a fabulous 18-hole DG course with lots of room left over). An 18-hole course (of which there are several, all losing money hand over fist) has quite a bit more space. With this much room, and proper design, there should be room for a whole host of new recreational opportunities without anyone getting in anyone else's way.

In fact, I have discussed / promoted several versions of these ideas to:
A Rec/Park commissioner, who was astoundingly open to these ideas and even suggested others.
A City supervisor who has studied the golf course problems and who was a main backer of the Sharp Park golf course conversion to federal park land, who was intrigued.
A founder of the Neighborhood Parks Council (now Parks Alliance), who herself had championed converting golf courses to multi-sport uses.
Representatives from Trust for Public Land, who have provided large grants for golf course conversions in other cities.

I have written out various case studies that might include disc golf, bike trails, miniature golf, putting greens, zip lines, youth adventure courses and climbing walls -- even dog play areas with doggie cafes, agility courses, swimming ponds, and so on, which would relieve some of the pressure from other dog play areas. And a whole lot more.

In fact the City itself has done more than one study about what do do with our money-sinkhole golf courses, including options for conversion to multi-sport uses.

So yes, it will be politically very difficult as the golf lobby is VERY powerful in this town, but at the same time, eventually, the City is going to have to do SOMETHING about this situation. The ball golfer demographic is in undeniable and steady decline according to several of the City's own studies, so why not do something spectacularly only-in-SF that would be yet another tourist draw, as well as a real asset to the City's residents?

I'm just one person, and I'm not speaking for SMP on this topic, but I'm serious as a heart attack -- I'd love to see something like this happen and would get behind it 100%.

Ken

[Peterb]

Originally Posted by timothyasteele

Peter,

I'm sorry to hear about the constant opposition to everything you've worked on recently, but it's not entirely surprising given the closed-mindedness of so many people in the SF Bay Area.

Having grown up in San Francisco, it was a breath of fresh air when I finally moved out a little ways so I could avoid folks like Ken who are hell bent on their view of the world being the right one for everyone else.

When you have a park like McLaren that is that large, with such a large population already enjoying it in so many ways, thinking that adding a DG course to a portion of it is going to ruin it for everyone else is preposterous.

It seems to me that people like Ken don't want to collaborate for a solution, only blindly follow their own agenda at all costs.

BTW, thanks for your help with the Benicia course a few years ago. It's being played by many people, with lots of new families with kids, East Bay disc golfers, many visits from folks around the county, and the parks department has been so happy with comments from neighbors and park enthusiasts, that they are allowing us to expand it to include 9 long tees.

Now if only I could find the time and energy and volunteers to get them installed...

Tim glad to hear it brother. Keep on ruining parks for
The future generations!

[joegraham]

Peter B. Thanks for installing the Lake Sonoma park course. I played their bag tag event on 2/23 and was really impressed with how the course flowed around the perimeter and had a lot of challenging shots. Very fun and I won tag #19.

[New013]

Dude for the most part disc golf courses on ball golf courses are boring, we like trees.

[Peterb]

Originally Posted by joegraham

Peter B. Thanks for installing the Lake Sonoma park course. I played their bag tag event on 2/23 and was really impressed with how the course flowed around the perimeter and had a lot of challenging shots. Very fun and I won tag #19.

You bet! Glad you had a good time Joe. We did the best we could with the space we were given. Do me a favor and review it. Sorry I couldn't chat for longer yesterday, was in the middle of crushing a 56 on that layout. Watch out, I am going to cash in the weekly!

[Matt B.]

Originally Posted by kensanfran

I nor no one else in SMP have absolutely any interest in you losing GGP, as that will only put MORE pressure to put a course in McLaren Park.

Ken

If you and SMP don't want GGP to close, you have an odd way of showing it. Try to take a step out of your position and view your group and your website and your actions from the perespective of the people who built GGP and the people (taxpayers) who love playing there. You will not see SMP as a group that wants that course to remain there. You and your group have overstepped your original intent and mission, and you seem to be running an organization that is opposed to all disc golf development. When you see backlash against your group and park, or the closure of other courses leading to more efforts to put one in McLaren, you might finally acknowledge the truth in the situation.

And although in another post you have stated that you are not speaking for SMP (on that specific topic) you must realize that in general you are speaking for SMP here and elsewhere. It's your name on the Op-Ed, and you are representing your organization here.