New Washington/Oregon Course Possible

[Reniger]

From Reddit;

http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jan/13/duo-tee-off-on-plans-for-disc-golf-course/

Might need some volunteers or funding...

 

[jeffmonty]

From Reddit;

http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jan/13/duo-tee-off-on-plans-for-disc-golf-course/

Might need some volunteers or funding...

Good news, but the city says they won't have $15,000 for a few years to get the project started? That city is 165,000 people. Seems like the least they could do is match the local club's fundraising. Good on the local club/players for making it happen.

 

[ohtobediscing]

It'd be nice if it would draw a bit of the Pier crowd off, but if Blue Lake couldn't do it, neither will Frenchman's. Though, of course, if its good, we'll visit it every now and then---so far the only draw on the WA side for us is North Bonneville.

 

[@iDiscGolf]

That article is getting trolled pretty hard.

 

[ru4por]

The comments on this article are indeed ridiculous. Some NIMBY has gone off on disc golf.

I have read and heard the concerns regarding ecologic impact surrounding disc golf. Apparently Cpb Hasher here is going to keep shouting about it from the top of his personal agenda mountain. I would simply like to point out that any and all permanent impact caused by disc golf is nearly identical the impact of a mountain bike trail, hiking trail, zip line course, bird watching stations, 3 D archery course, dog park, tennis court, soccer fields, ball diamonds, parking lots or the host of other options. If the area is going to be used by humans, there is going to be perceived negative impact to the flora. His thinly veiled attempts to convince someone that disc golfers are a bad element, is simply irresponsible. Good luck to those spending the ton of time, sweat and money to move such an endeavor forward. The true benefactors will be the community this course would serve.

This was my rant.......damn you facebook. Not a member of that society, so unable to post my comment. Sooo...thought I would rant to y'all.

 

[SpandrewPErry]

Thank You

The comments on this article are indeed ridiculous. Some NIMBY has gone off on disc golf.

I have read and heard the concerns regarding ecologic impact surrounding disc golf. Apparently Cpb Hasher here is going to keep shouting about it from the top of his personal agenda mountain. I would simply like to point out that any and all permanent impact caused by disc golf is nearly identical the impact of a mountain bike trail, hiking trail, zip line course, bird watching stations, 3 D archery course, dog park, tennis court, soccer fields, ball diamonds, parking lots or the host of other options. If the area is going to be used by humans, there is going to be perceived negative impact to the flora. His thinly veiled attempts to convince someone that disc golfers are a bad element, is simply irresponsible. Good luck to those spending the ton of time, sweat and money to move such an endeavor forward. The true benefactors will be the community this course would serve.

This was my rant.......damn you facebook. Not a member of that society, so unable to post my comment. Sooo...thought I would rant to y'all.

Your rant was much appreciated! I find people's unwillingness to support new courses so odd sometimes. Here at home a friend and I proposed a new course to the city, and after much planning and organizing, we were shot down. Wishing this new course the best of luck!

 

[KGroff25]

Your rant was much appreciated! I find people's unwillingness to support new courses so odd sometimes. Here at home a friend and I proposed a new course to the city, and after much planning and organizing, we were shot down. Wishing this new course the best of luck!

Every tax payer believes their desired use for the land is more important than the rest of the tax payers desired use for the land. Disc golfers are guilty of this as well if I'm being honest.

 

[KGroff25]

Good news, but the city says they won't have $15,000 for a few years to get the project started? That city is 165,000 people. Seems like the least they could do is match the local club's fundraising. Good on the local club/players for making it happen.

Vancouver is rather politically conservative and also stingy with their public funds. There's a reason they don't have an 18 hole course yet despite being in an area booming with new courses.

 

[ohtobediscing]

Every tax payer believes their desired use for the land is more important than the rest of the tax payers desired use for the land. Disc golfers are guilty of this as well if I'm being honest.

Yep.

Vancouver is rather politically conservative and also stingy with their public funds. There's a reason they don't have an 18 hole course yet despite being in an area booming with new courses.

Yep again.

 

[ru4por]

Every tax payer believes their desired use for the land is more important than the rest of the tax payers desired use for the land. Disc golfers are guilty of this as well if I'm being honest.

Agree as well. But, in many cases the land is not being competed for by other groups and activities. This case, it seems the oppositions is a guy who is championing for the rights of plants. I love a tree as much as the next guy, but should all undeveloped land be held for observation from afar?

 

[Matt B.]

The comments on this article are indeed ridiculous. Some NIMBY has gone off on disc golf.

I have read and heard the concerns regarding ecologic impact surrounding disc golf. Apparently Cpb Hasher here is going to keep shouting about it from the top of his personal agenda mountain. I would simply like to point out that any and all permanent impact caused by disc golf is nearly identical the impact of a mountain bike trail, hiking trail, zip line course, bird watching stations, 3 D archery course, dog park, tennis court, soccer fields, ball diamonds, parking lots or the host of other options. If the area is going to be used by humans, there is going to be perceived negative impact to the flora. His thinly veiled attempts to convince someone that disc golfers are a bad element, is simply irresponsible. Good luck to those spending the ton of time, sweat and money to move such an endeavor forward. The true benefactors will be the community this course would serve.

This was my rant.......damn you facebook. Not a member of that society, so unable to post my comment. Sooo...thought I would rant to y'all.

I'm an Oregon disc golfer, and I want this course to be installed and I'll probably play it at least once a year. The NIMBY guy in the comments is obviously waging an anti-dg campaign. That being said, we don't do ourselves or our arguments any favor if we pretend that disc golf has no more impact than bird watching or "bird watching stations" or pretend that it has no impact. It's an easily dismissed piece of rhetoric.

We need to address environmental impact every time we discuss new courses. The impacts are well known and well documented. And they can be addressed in a practical way, and built into the installation of every course. And THEN you've got a solid rebuttal for people like this anti-dg activist. Tree protection, erosion control, compaction control. It's pretty straight forward, easy to do, and makes our courses more sustainable in the long run. We've been collectively pretending for way too long, and it only hurts the effort.

Not trying to target you here ru4por, I totally get what you are saying. I see this kind of defense against anti-dg arguments often. I see things like "I've never seen a tree die from disc golf" - which may be true for that person but when somebody can go out and take pictures of dozens of very obviously damaged trees from disc golf, it doesn't mean much. We are obviously damaging trees. It really doesn't matter that a tennis court is worse, it just doesn't when you are faced with an angry neighbor with too much time on their hands.

Address the impacts at the beginning as part of the plan, and be ready to show how you are being proactive about mitigating the impacts. That's all we need to do to counter the environmental impact argument.

 

[lyleoross]

Your rant was much appreciated! I find people's unwillingness to support new courses so odd sometimes. Here at home a friend and I proposed a new course to the city, and after much planning and organizing, we were shot down. Wishing this new course the best of luck!

As with many things, the public doesn't take the time to truly understand. Above someone typed out a list of sports saying they all impact nature, truthfully, disc golf is one of the very lowest impact sports, along with hiking and mountain biking. Soccer is devastating, and I play, coach and referee. All the trees come down, non-native grass goes in, and that's before fertilizer, and reams of water go into the pitch. Almost all team sports are the same.

Disc golf, even with the hit trees and worn paths, has a very small footprint. Add to that, I've never seen a city anywhere that doesn't have a set of dedicated "course maintenance" players who pump way more time and energy into courses than any soccer parent ever has.

 

[lyleoross]

I'm an Oregon disc golfer, and I want this course to be installed and I'll probably play it at least once a year. The NIMBY guy in the comments is obviously waging an anti-dg campaign. That being said, we don't do ourselves or our arguments any favor if we pretend that disc golf has no more impact than bird watching or "bird watching stations" or pretend that it has no impact. It's an easily dismissed piece of rhetoric.

We need to address environmental impact every time we discuss new courses. The impacts are well known and well documented. And they can be addressed in a practical way, and built into the installation of every course. And THEN you've got a solid rebuttal for people like this anti-dg activist. Tree protection, erosion control, compaction control. It's pretty straight forward, easy to do, and makes our courses more sustainable in the long run. We've been collectively pretending for way too long, and it only hurts the effort.

Not trying to target you here ru4por, I totally get what you are saying. I see this kind of defense against anti-dg arguments often. I see things like "I've never seen a tree die from disc golf" - which may be true for that person but when somebody can go out and take pictures of dozens of very obviously damaged trees from disc golf, it doesn't mean much. We are obviously damaging trees. It really doesn't matter that a tennis court is worse, it just doesn't when you are faced with an angry neighbor with too much time on their hands.

Address the impacts at the beginning as part of the plan, and be ready to show how you are being proactive about mitigating the impacts. That's all we need to do to counter the environmental impact argument.

I will point out that while you are correct, we are being held to a higher standard. Honestly, I've seen way more disc golf courses with tree protection devices than I've seen mountain bike trails with any kind of environmental protection devices. I realize that public isn't fair, and it seems like a PDGA data base with cases of environmental actions taken to protect courses might be a great project. They could even make it user driven so that the PDGA doesn't have to actively maintain it.

 

[Matt B.]

I will point out that while you are correct, we are being held to a higher standard. Honestly, I've seen way more disc golf courses with tree protection devices than I've seen mountain bike trails with any kind of environmental protection devices. I realize that public isn't fair, and it seems like a PDGA data base with cases of environmental actions taken to protect courses might be a great project. They could even make it user driven so that the PDGA doesn't have to actively maintain it.

I agree, it's not really fair and we're being held to a higher standard. But that comes along with putting something new into someone's favorite park, walking trail, etc. The only people who see the mtn. bike trail are the riders, and no one blinks an eye at a tennis court or a soccer field. I'm just saying that if we start the argument with "disc golf has an impact, all developed recreation has an impact, here is how we are going to address the known ways that disc golf impacts the land" we'll be better off than pretending that we aren't damaging trees.

And while some courses have tree protection and erosion control, etc, I think that the great majority don't. Let's make it a part of every planning process and install instead of denying it or trying to catch up with addressing the damage after the heat is on from people trying to get courses removed.

 

[ODRB]

Blue Lake hasn't pulled too much of the Pier crowd in large pert because it clocks in at over 10,000 feet - making it the 4th longest 18 hole course in the country. The course most-recently proposed for Frenchman's will clock in at 11,000 feet, sliding it into the #2 spot for longest in the country and bumping Blue Lake to 5th. I love Blue Lake and play there nowadays as often as I play Pier (I live in North Portland), if not more often just to avoid the Pier crowds. I'd love to play another challenging course, but with the 87 acres available at Frenchman's, I'd love to see a 27 hole course go in there with less 1000 foot bomber holes. Now THAT would take some of the pressure off Pier (and Leverich). And I just don't see the need for 2 of the 5 longest 18-hole courses in the country to be 15 minutes apart (and all three less than 15 minutes from my house).

That said, I'll volunteer to help put whatever goes in in. And I will gladly play another nearly-empty 10,000+ foot championship caliber course, although I will miss Pier (but not the Pier crowds).

Here is a link to the original approved proposal, for anyone who is interested. I've been told that some of the proposed holes have been changed to avoid some environmentally sensitive wetland areas.

https://www.clark.wa.gov/sites/defa...3frenchmansbardiscgolfcourse_18_hole_rev4.pdf

 

[ru4por]

I'm an Oregon disc golfer, and I want this course to be installed and I'll probably play it at least once a year. The NIMBY guy in the comments is obviously waging an anti-dg campaign. That being said, we don't do ourselves or our arguments any favor if we pretend that disc golf has no more impact than bird watching or "bird watching stations" or pretend that it has no impact. It's an easily dismissed piece of rhetoric.

We need to address environmental impact every time we discuss new courses. The impacts are well known and well documented. And they can be addressed in a practical way, and built into the installation of every course. And THEN you've got a solid rebuttal for people like this anti-dg activist. Tree protection, erosion control, compaction control. It's pretty straight forward, easy to do, and makes our courses more sustainable in the long run. We've been collectively pretending for way too long, and it only hurts the effort.

Not trying to target you here ru4por, I totally get what you are saying. I see this kind of defense against anti-dg arguments often. I see things like "I've never seen a tree die from disc golf" - which may be true for that person but when somebody can go out and take pictures of dozens of very obviously damaged trees from disc golf, it doesn't mean much. We are obviously damaging trees. It really doesn't matter that a tennis court is worse, it just doesn't when you are faced with an angry neighbor with too much time on their hands.

Address the impacts at the beginning as part of the plan, and be ready to show how you are being proactive about mitigating the impacts. That's all we need to do to counter the environmental impact argument.

You left no impression you are targeting me. You are correct, and bird watching station should have likely been left off my list. But, my point was really erosion. Disc golf is hard on trees and we would be wise to encourage and assist clubs in land management to promote reforestation. It is done here in at least one of the park systems. But, erosion is an issue with any activity placed into a portion of a park or land that disc golf is being considered for, and I would argue that it would be in fairly equal proportions. I also agree that careful responses and proactive plans will go a long way in supporting new course development. Good post, man.

 

[jeffmonty]

I think what a lot of people don't take into account is how resilient nature is.

Arguing this point with someone that sees any type of impact made by a popular activity on park land, and DG does have an impact, is probably not going to get far. They really just want no impact at all. But I think this may not be as true in more arid environments. Here in the Pac NW, with all the rain and the longer growing season, nature bounces back very quickly. I'm fairly sure if you took a well-established course here, and closed it down to all play, within a year or two you would be hard pressed to be able to tell that a course even existed there (excluding the concrete, if any).

If i'm not mistaken, the Seatac course in Seattle was at one time a housing development, but with the exception of the graffiti wall, and a few odd concrete foundations that are nearly invisible, you would never know.

By no means am I saying that we don't make an impact, and we have to manage those, and design courses with that in mind, but I think our impact is relatively small from an environmental recovery standpoint. Of course, no one wants to see a course closure play out to prove this point. As I said, this may not be as true in dryer areas of the country, though.

 

[Royal Hill]

You left no impression you are targeting me. You are correct, and bird watching station should have likely been left off my list.

man… I hate to say it, but let's talk bird watching stations. Just for fun. I mean it, just for fun. Not making too much of a point. again, just for fun.

I know what I'll type will likely sound like crazy talk… but…

That bird watching station - would likely be sited in a vegetative area, likely near wet areas… and irregular graded lands - we'll call them wetlands. That's where the wildlife is…. in the most sensitive areas.

And it will be important and a strong push that there is "access" to all. That means a viewing platform… in a "sensitive" wetlands that has to accommodate all access. And the cars for said access, and where those cars park, including disability sized spots. The accessway from said parking to the platform will have to be within grade guidelines and solid surface or equivalent. Or maybe certified pervious pavement surface. (with drainage) and This sensitive area is wet, so the platform needs to be raised. And railings, lots of railings. So a deck platform. Maybe covered with a roof or not (ok, a cover - why not, bird watchers as a group like nice things)

And garbage service, at least one general trash can, and a recycle container. It's got to be a fancy one so the ever present wildlife can't get into it and ruin their food chain. Maybe like some of our local solar powered self compacting ones that break frequently. And if there are accessibility parking spots nearby there might need to be a restroom…

So the deck needs (x) pilings, tons of pressure treated lumber, (z) yards of concrete pour etc… and set posts to hold the bird identifier placards (those are important). It will be built with the aid of an excavator and a pour truck.

Don't worry, our friend Grant will pay for it. By the time its done it will only have used up (XX) thousand dollars. And about 2k in yearly service and maintenance requirement equivalency….

and it would be nice. Even have an opening ceremony and get a nice write up in the paper and online and Facebook. People will love it.

That is if it were built around here. Which is close to jeffmonty….

I've sat in on some of those master planning type situations and this cascade of happenings is real.

 

[jeffmonty]

How people see park users:

Bird Watchers= your grandparents

Disc Golfers= shirtless bros lugging one disc and a 6 pack of tallboys

This is also what we're working against.

 

[Matt B.]

I'm a birder, not a senior citizen or a bro dog. Birding is an excellent lifelong outdoor activity just like disc golf. I bird when I golf, every single time. Not a fan of bird blinds really, but they have their uses.

We should be aligning with people who care about the environment and wildlife, not setting up as opposing forces. Cause I'll tell you man, we will lose that public perception battle every single time.