I'm very glad you've taken the time to respond to us. I figured I'd give my own environmental science perspective on the matter.
I completely understand your concerns of erosion. I've personally experienced it at a number of well-trodden courses, where by overplaying and demand from parents of inexperienced children, a number of important trees were cut down. In addition to cheapening the recreational value of the course, the resulting downcutting in nearby streams presented an environmental hazard. That's not to say it can't be done; while you criticize the woodchip fairways of Golden Gate, they are actually one of the most environmentally sound options for urban courses. Obviously, disc golf players won't constantly stay on these paths, but not only are they themselves permeable and decomposable when properly maintained, the trampling they remove from the rest of the course area is significant. Steep slopes are also a concern especially where clearcutting and your relatively loose sandy loam is present, but sound course design and the keeping of important structural plants can overcome this.
As for wildlife, I feel you underestimate the possibility for coexistence. Many courses around the world have successfully been built and maintained in environmentally sensitive areas; education and signage is often the key. Disc golfers may be many things, but we are not ones to ignore a clear effort to aid and protect local habitats. The hazard of flying discs is also less significant than you might imagine; your 70 MPH figure only applies to professionals at the point of release. Most recreational players couldn't break an old-timey glass window if they tried, let alone put a dent in a healthy tree branch (most of the branches felled by discs are either unhealthy or dead).
I definitely understand your concerns, and am not sure that McLaren Park needs disc golf (it's not like every park in the world is better off for having it). That said, I feel you could better get your message across by working with the SFDGC and shaping their proposals rather than vehemently condemning their sport. Perhaps, if it hasn't been done before, you could suggest a 9 hole course that bypasses the most sensitive areas. There have been many success stories in urban parks, but most of all they require sound environmental planning and a community dedicated towards keeping the course in good shape. It seems to me that you've done the research and have a large enough voice to help play a role in that.
Hope this helps!
-Stephen
Stephen, thanks for your thoughts. As for disc speeds, yes, 70MPH is the top of the range, but from my research, intermediate to pro players commonly achieve 50-60 MPH on long drives. These have the most potential for safety issues on long holes with hidden pins, which are hard to avoid on an 18-hole course.
In the local controversy, DGers like to use the term "frisbee golf" when speaking with the public, as this gives the idea that it's just a couple of college kids bumming around on a sunny afternoon. Public demonstrations typically involve setting up a basket and putting from a few feet away -- what's so horrible about that? Meanwhile, if I called any of you "frisbee golfers" to your face, you would take offense. Do you see what I'm getting at here? I use terms like "discs flying at highway speeds" because it is a) technically accurate, and give a better sense of the real speed, which DGers don't want to fess up to with the general public, and B) because it is much of the source of environmental damage, at least on the GGP course.
When I have been on the DG course, you can tell pretty much every time someone throws, as you hear a zzzziipp and they slice through leaves, and a crack every time it hits a tree or branch. On many fairways, the understory is mostly gone, there are few to no leaves on the lower branches of trees, and of the bark some smaller trees in the line of fire have pretty much been thrashed. You can check out our
before/after pics of several of the fairways on the GGP course, showing these effects after only three years after the course's installation. You can "mitigate" by planting natives or whatever, but those tree leaves are never coming back and how many bird species can you imagine have given up trying to nest and feed in this area?
As for a 9-hole course, this has come up in several public meetings, many neighbors have suggested that this would be an interesting concept to explore. Every time it has come up, DG representatives say it it not a workable answer. The first course in GGP was a 12-hole provisionary course, and after two years of play there was such damage that Rec/Park said enough is enough (more details in the
timeline I linked to previously). They found that no one really plays just nine holes, they play it twice and double the damage. This is not from us, this is what SFDGC reps themselves state. The neighbors have offered this alternative, and SFDGC/Rec/Park say it is not a workable solution.
I hear a lot of you claiming that we are overstating the environmental damage, and you are entitled to your opinion, but from our view, local DG reps are understating the damage at GGP (and the potential damage in McLaren) in a massive way.
Ken
