"Disc Golf Not as Green as it seems"

[TheTennesseeFireman]

-snip-

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

 

[Peterb]

I've known at least the name of Ken and tried to buy Tom Scott a beer (he refused) after the famed 2010 meeting with the surrounding Mclaren community. We all know that Ken, Tom, and the rest of Save McLaren Park feel that a disc golf course doesn't belong in "their" park, and they have some decent reasons to feel so strongly. I don't need to repeat their arguments here. They are well thought out, and Tom and Ken are obviously intelligent people with a vested interest in keeping what they see as a detriment out of "their" park.

The problem is that the park is not theirs. It belongs to the city and county of San Francisco which means that it belongs to the entire city, not just several people who love it and live right by it. In 2005, when we won the right to build a full 18 holes in GGP, we also won the right to put in a course at McLaren. It is not the fault of the SFDGC that the McLaren community was not informed. That is the fault of RPD. Acknowledging this mistake, RPD asked the SFDGC to make a presentation on what we all knew was NOT a done deal and to conduct several meetings, including a course walk through that was well attended, including I believe, by Ken. It was at that point that a bunch of concerned citizens formed SMP and they have done a lot of homework into disc golf and what it is, etc...even down to trolling this forum (welcome gents!).

Critically, they attempt to define 'what' a park is and what it isn't. They do not believe that disc golf belongs in any public park, which is obviously anathema to me and to every disc golfer. Where would disc golf be without public parks? Furthermore, a park is many things, and I believe that Ken and Tom would agree that people do enjoy active recreation. A park, especially in an urban environment isn't just a nature reserve. McLaren already has many uses, though of course there could be one more that would be of huge recreational value to many people...

McLaren is NOT a pristine nature reserve by any stretch. There are many lovely spots, and some not so nice ones. The neighborhood is pretty gritty to the south. Much of the proposed disc golf area would be in a eucalyptus forest that is covered in english ivy...a notably invasive species that has escaped the confines of the backyards neighboring the park. In these places, it is difficult to make the case that a concentrated use like disc golf WOULDN'T be an improvement over what's there currently. Dogs have done a number in McLaren, and though the original layout went into the off leash area (another RPD mistake) the SFDGC listened to the community input and created a different layout completely outside the offleash area.

Last summer McLaren Park burned 24 acres of grassland. That's what happens in nature here yes but at the same time, this is an urban park and it is hard to believe that we should be encouraging burn areas, or that burn areas are an improvement that is actually desirable in an urban setting. Kudos to the group for getting out there and cleaning up all the dumping areas and putting seed balls into the ground. We would be of the same mindset.

To prove the point that SMP doesn't just care about McLaren, it tried to stop San Mateo county from putting in a course 15 miles south in a forgotten park with little, if any, habitat value. That park is called Junipero Serra and it would be lovely for a disc golf stroll. It is rarely used and the county has considered shutting it down due to budget shortfalls. Disc golf could come in an instantly provide a revenue source that is long term and sustainable, but SMP went out of its bounds and issued a CEQA comment, which was so ridiculous (especially since Junipero would take pressure off any future McLaren plan) that it stunned the parks department. If they wanted disc golf, they were required to pony up the money and do an exhaustive environmental study that is usually reserved for major structural changes to the landscape like building housing developments.

A few months ago they actively opposed a new course next to a high school in Soquel, and have put out a study as to why Pinto Lake should be pulled (despite the fact that it was gangland prior to a course being there). There is no mention of the la raza or hellyer courses..probably because the disc golf scene there has eradicated all gang activity there.

In short, these folks believe that there should be no disc golf courses period. It is disheartening only because those of us who know and love the game have seen lives turned around, kids have an amazing time, and supportive, constructive communities built around these courses. All with little or no cost to the governments who own the land. Their model relies upon people enjoying parks only passively, of which we actually have a plethora (san bruno mountain is a great example), and which of course have a place in the larger scheme of things.

 

[Peterb]

In fact, several previous proposals have been made for disc golf courses in San Mateo County. All have been rebuffed due to concern over environmental impact. Most recently, an 18-hole course was proposed for Junipero Serra Park (near the city of San Bruno), but when an environmental review was required by the County, disc golfers lost interest.

We never lost interest and there will be a course in JSP someday. The parks simply didn't have the money to conduct a review...mostly because it is a waste of money. Was there an environmental review of your labrynth? No? The soil compaction along the paths looks bloody awful. Hmm, maybe an environmental review is called for.

 

[onemilemore]

So all of the cities you mentioned are very high violent crime areas, where gang violence happens in the parks, no really, you have a better chance of being shot in the park than hit with a frisbee. Im not even going to get into the demographics of those cities.

Also why is it we need soccer fields???? They seem to be a whole lot worse than a disc golf course based on your own criteria of natures destruction..clearcut area, lots of fertilizer, flying objects, etc..

You've clearly never been to San Diego.

 

[Peterb]

Ken are you offsetting your carbon on your trip to Kentucky?

 

[pmatt1969]

Sounds like Ken and his friends have pretty unfulfilling lives if they need to spend time trying to dictate what other people due with theirs. When people tell the whole story about the situation in the area, Ken will find no sympathy from anyone. I live 1500 miles away. Local people need to get the truth in the media and inform the public. Fight the good fight! :thmbup:

 

[kensanfran]

WOW, PETERB, THAT IS SOME OF THE MOST AMAZING HORSE HOCKEY I HAVE READ SO FAR ON THIS FORUM. AND THAT'S SAYING A LOT.

Sorry for shouting but pretty much everything in your post is wrong, so before you all go putting a noose around my neck lets get quite a few facts straight. I said what I meant and meant what I said when I stated that I think these decisions should be made by local residents but that they should have both sides to the story. And I'm not they only one that feels that way -- our Coordinating Committee has about a dozen members who are the heart of our organization, we work by informal consensus, and we have discussed and agreed to that policy more than once.

WE DO NOT WORK TO ACTIVELY OPPOSE DISC GOLF ANYWHERE OTHER THAN IN THE NATURAL AREAS OF MCLAREN PARK. PERIOD. Even Golden Gate Park. At the same time, we feel strongly that communities should have as much information as possible on these matters (because we didn't) and they're typically not going to get it from the DGers trying to put in a course. So yes, we have been in contact with other groups from time to time to share information and experiences.

What we know about JSP in San Mateo county is that several of us (not including me) went to one meeting as observers only, out of curiosity. We made no contact with any local neighbors of the park, and they did not contact us. I read on the net about some petition going around but have no more knowledge of it. Most of what we know about the matter is from reviewing web forums and your facebook page, which seems to have disappeared so my (perhaps incorrect) assumption was that it was a dead project. The last I read the county wanted a $50,000 environmental review and then poof, your web presence went missing. So if I have the story wrong, I apologize.

And as for "SMP going out of their way to produce a CEQA comment", I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT so put up or shut up, PeterB, I would LOVE to see a copy of such a document posted on this forum for all of us to review.

As for the proposed Soquel course, again, some concerned Santa Cruz locals found our webpage and contacted us, we had a couple of email exchanges and phone conversations but that's entirely the extent of it. EVERYTHING they have done, from their public meetings to their the Pinto Basin reports to their website to their "Birds of Anna Jean Cummings Park" flyer are ENTIRELY the work of "Friends of AJP" volunteers.

We have also been in contact with several other communities around the country over the past couple of years in a similar fashion. We heard from one fellow on the east coast who literally lost an eye from getting hit with a wayward disc, and he even used to be a casual DG player himself. Last we heard he was working on a lawsuit. I could send you some pretty gruesome pictures but I won't.

PeterB, I know you are passionate about this sport but it seems that you have been spinning your own slanted talking points so much that you actually believe them. We have gotten this attitude constantly from SFDGC leadership -- "If someone has problems with the sport or a proposed course it is either because they don't understand it yet or they are crabby old NIMBYs or they are whacko environmentalists who we shouldn't pay attention to anyway". This is completely off the mark, and we resent this attempt at marginalization immensely. We are mostly everyday schlubs who use the park often and love it dearly for it's off-the-beaten-path charms, warts and all. And we are much more numerous than you seem to imagine.

And yes, there are other problems in the park that we also are concerned about. The off-leash Dog Play Area (at 60 acres the largest by far in the City) is seeing significant damage, largely from the professional walkers who bring in large packs that they have no real way of keeping under control. Fortunately, a new law to go in effect in July will limit walkers to 4 dogs per person, or eight with a permit which requires courses in handling dogs. We are hopeful that this will have a positive impact, but it is a serious concern and we have discussed various ways of trying to lesson the impact. And yes, like other City parks we have problems with trash and dumping, which is why we are having another cleanup party in a couple of weeks and will continue to do so. We have issues with motorized dirt bikers on the trails, and the occasional homeless encampment, which we are working with Park Patrol and other City departments to clean up. So yes, we have plenty of problems in McLaren Park, none of which adding a DG course will help.

As for winning the right to a course in McLaren as well as GGP, again PeterB gets the facts pretty much entirely wrong. We had to do a lot of Sunshine Ordinance requests with the City, and lots of other research to finally piece together most of the story, but you can find it all completely documented here in this SF DG Timeline. The story begins way back in 1997, way before I got involved, with the FIRST time SFDGC tried to put a 27-hole course in McLaren. There was overwhelming community opposition even then. So then they tried stealth mode but clearly that didn't work for them either.

By the way, PeterB, the GGP DG course's original 5-year Memorandum of Understanding with the City ran out over a year ago. Whatever happened with that, hmm? Just curious...

Let me say once again, I really do appreciate more than I can say the comments from many of you that these issues are real, and must be dealt with if this sport is to grow and be successful in the future. I have absolutely nothing against the sport per se, just as I have nothing per se against ball golf or soccer or whatever. One of my girls is on a soccer league and uses RPD-built fields for games, and I am happy to see venues for as many sports as possible in our parks. But in a crowded city we have to be very wise about these decisions, and use our limited resources to the maximum, lest we become yet another concrete jungle with absolutely no place to escape the madness now and then.

Which is why I advocate for co-location of ball golf and disc golf courses. This is such a perfect idea to me, I don't understand why more disc golfers aren't banging down the pro shop doors wanting to put in courses. Our municipal courses really are in trouble financially, and there's absolutely no reason why a pay to play course there with higher non-resident fees and free play for youth, this could solve so many of these issues we are discussing. PeterB, the Gleneagles 9-year contract is up for renewal at the end of this year, and other City courses are options as well, if there is the political will to make it happen. How about we all team up together to make that a reality? It's certainly an idea that I would support whole-heartedly.

Ken

 

[zenbot]

Which is why I advocate for co-location of ball golf and disc golf courses. This is such a perfect idea to me, I don't understand why more disc golfers aren't banging down the pro shop doors wanting to put in courses.

Ball golf courses don't make the best disc golf courses.

 

[DeadEye]

How about you stop being close-minded, and work with a disc golf club to make sure both sides are happy?

 

[Matt B.]

WE DO NOT WORK TO ACTIVELY OPPOSE DISC GOLF ANYWHERE OTHER THAN IN THE NATURAL AREAS OF MCLAREN PARK. PERIOD. Even Golden Gate Park.

To be fair Ken, you did write an anti-disc golf op-ed in a newspaper in another community considering a disc golf course. You can spin that action to fit the above statement, but hopefully you can also acknowledge that no matter how you want to phrase it, it's not going to pass the sniff test for many people.

I think you have some decent points, and some blind spots too. The over the top rhetoric in some of your groups propaganda is pretty off-putting, and seems designed to invite conflict. The fact that you are writing op-eds in other communities, while certainly well within your rights, definitely leads people to think that you are on a mission to prevent disc golf courses from being installed.

 

[Peterb]

WOW, PETERB, THAT IS SOME OF THE MOST AMAZING HORSE HOCKEY I HAVE READ SO FAR ON THIS FORUM. AND THAT'S SAYING A LOT.

Coming from you, I take this as a compliment

Sorry for shouting but pretty much everything in your post is wrong, so before you all go putting a noose around my neck lets get quite a few facts straight. I said what I meant and meant what I said when I stated that I think these decisions should be made by local residents but that they should have both sides to the story. And I'm not they only one that feels that way -- our Coordinating Committee has about a dozen members who are the heart of our organization, we work by informal consensus, and we have discussed and agreed to that policy more than once.

WE DO NOT WORK TO ACTIVELY OPPOSE DISC GOLF ANYWHERE OTHER THAN IN THE NATURAL AREAS OF MCLAREN PARK. PERIOD. Even Golden Gate Park. At the same time, we feel strongly that communities should have as much information as possible on these matters (because we didn't) and they're typically not going to get it from the DGers trying to put in a course. So yes, we have been in contact with other groups from time to time to share information and experiences.

Seems like active opposition to me Ken. Your op-ed in the HMB journal seems to provoke the feeling that you are opposing DG in other parks, under the thin guise of 'trying to educate the locals'. Come on Ken...let's be real for a second. We got under your skin, and you have spent a LOT of time the past few years doing research, maintaining a website, heck, even grokking sites like this and online petitions.

What we know about JSP in San Mateo county is that several of us (not including me) went to one meeting as observers only, out of curiosity. We made no contact with any local neighbors of the park, and they did not contact us. I read on the net about some petition going around but have no more knowledge of it. Most of what we know about the matter is from reviewing web forums and your facebook page, which seems to have disappeared so my (perhaps incorrect) assumption was that it was a dead project. The last I read the county wanted a $50,000 environmental review and then poof, your web presence went missing. So if I have the story wrong, I apologize.

You do have it wrong. Several SMP members showed up and distributed anti-DG pamphlets to neighbors. And you're stalking me online.

And as for "SMP going out of their way to produce a CEQA comment", I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT so put up or shut up, PeterB, I would LOVE to see a copy of such a document posted on this forum for all of us to review.

You can view the neg-dec on san mateo county parks website. As in negative declaration. That is what the planners and the head of the parks thought about disc golf after they went to GGP and saw it themselves.

As for the proposed Soquel course, again, some concerned Santa Cruz locals found our webpage and contacted us, we had a couple of email exchanges and phone conversations but that's entirely the extent of it. EVERYTHING they have done, from their public meetings to their the Pinto Basin reports to their website to their "Birds of Anna Jean Cummings Park" flyer are ENTIRELY the work of "Friends of AJP" volunteers.

Sure. I should believe the guy who stalks me on the web...

PeterB, I know you are passionate about this sport but it seems that you have been spinning your own slanted talking points so much that you actually believe them. We have gotten this attitude constantly from SFDGC leadership -- "If someone has problems with the sport or a proposed course it is either because they don't understand it yet or they are crabby old NIMBYs or they are whacko environmentalists who we shouldn't pay attention to anyway". This is completely off the mark, and we resent this attempt at marginalization immensely. We are mostly everyday schlubs who use the park often and love it dearly for it's off-the-beaten-path charms, warts and all. And we are much more numerous than you seem to imagine.

No, we don't underestimate nor marginalize you. We just disagree with your vision for what a park should be. McLaren park, at 317 acres has enough room for a disc golf course and for everyone to enjoy the off-beat 'charm' you enjoy. In the end, it comes down to sharing. You don't believe in it. We do.

And yes, there are other problems in the park that we also are concerned about. The off-leash Dog Play Area (at 60 acres the largest by far in the City) is seeing significant damage, largely from the professional walkers who bring in large packs that they have no real way of keeping under control. Fortunately, a new law to go in effect in July will limit walkers to 4 dogs per person, or eight with a permit which requires courses in handling dogs. We are hopeful that this will have a positive impact, but it is a serious concern and we have discussed various ways of trying to lesson the impact. And yes, like other City parks we have problems with trash and dumping, which is why we are having another cleanup party in a couple of weeks and will continue to do so. We have issues with motorized dirt bikers on the trails, and the occasional homeless encampment, which we are working with Park Patrol and other City departments to clean up. So yes, we have plenty of problems in McLaren Park, none of which adding a DG course will help.

Disagree. DG is proven to be a constructive and effective way to reduce homeless encampments, hard core drug use, etc.

As for winning the right to a course in McLaren as well as GGP, again PeterB gets the facts pretty much entirely wrong. We had to do a lot of Sunshine Ordinance requests with the City, and lots of other research to finally piece together most of the story, but you can find it all completely documented here in this SF DG Timeline. The story begins way back in 1997, way before I got involved, with the FIRST time SFDGC tried to put a 27-hole course in McLaren. There was overwhelming community opposition even then. So then they tried stealth mode but clearly that didn't work for them either.

Better do more homework Ken. We won in 2005 the right to build a course in McLaren via the park commission. I agree that the McLaren community was insufficiently notified. The overwhelming community opposition you speak of consisted of physical threats of violence against DG proponents. Not exactly something to be proud of.

By the way, PeterB, the GGP DG course's original 5-year Memorandum of Understanding with the City ran out over a year ago. Whatever happened with that, hmm? Just curious...

I don't know. But I do know that you won't rest until you eradicate the plague that DG is on the city and the region. So yes I continue to take your threats seriously.

Let me say once again, I really do appreciate more than I can say the comments from many of you that these issues are real, and must be dealt with if this sport is to grow and be successful in the future. I have absolutely nothing against the sport per se, just as I have nothing per se against ball golf or soccer or whatever. One of my girls is on a soccer league and uses RPD-built fields for games, and I am happy to see venues for as many sports as possible in our parks. But in a crowded city we have to be very wise about these decisions, and use our limited resources to the maximum, lest we become yet another concrete jungle with absolutely no place to escape the madness now and then.

Maybe you should take your daughters to play a round of golf in GGP. I think you'd find the exact same sentiment about escaping the concrete jungle.

Which is why I advocate for co-location of ball golf and disc golf courses. This is such a perfect idea to me, I don't understand why more disc golfers aren't banging down the pro shop doors wanting to put in courses. Our municipal courses really are in trouble financially, and there's absolutely no reason why a pay to play course there with higher non-resident fees and free play for youth, this could solve so many of these issues we are discussing. PeterB, the Gleneagles 9-year contract is up for renewal at the end of this year, and other City courses are options as well, if there is the political will to make it happen. How about we all team up together to make that a reality? It's certainly an idea that I would support whole-heartedly.

Ken

Make it happen Ken. I don't personally mind aligning interests. But you and I both know that it is very far fetched. The golf courses aren't going anywhere. Golfers don't want disc golfers on their courses, which I hope you can understand...just like you don't want a disc golf course in (any?) McLaren park.

BTW, if you went to GGP you'd see some of the native plants I sowed a few years ago coming into beautiful bloom. Yes I wish more could be done on that front, but it is not like we didn't put a concerted effort into it. The bottom line is now that I have a family I don't have the same amount of time to volunteer like I used to (maybe you can read into my lack of web presence). I did spend the day in GGP today and it was glorious. I'm glad my two year old son had a blast with discs and banging chains. I hope he has the opportunity to continue to do so as the years roll by.

 

[Matt B.]

I lost my edit window:

To be fair Ken, you did write an anti-disc golf op-ed in a newspaper in another community considering a disc golf course. You can spin that action to fit the above statement, but hopefully you can also acknowledge that no matter how you want to phrase it, it's not going to pass the sniff test for many people.

I think you have some decent points, and some blind spots too. The over the top rhetoric in some of your groups propaganda is pretty off-putting, and seems designed to invite conflict. The fact that you are writing op-eds in other communities, while certainly well within your rights, definitely leads people to think that you are on a mission to prevent disc golf courses from being installed.

 

[Peterb]

Oh, and Ken, answer my question please: Are you offsetting your carbon on your trip?

 

[texhop58]

50,000 on a land research study. Man I wonder why California is in such serious debt. Oh well I'm sure it's not from always ready to protest protesters. Who cause long legal battles over something as simple as a park vs disc golf course battle and since you say this has Been on going since 1997. I bet there has been a good 250k worth of legal issues and cost of removing and reinstalling parks. Maybe if both groups could just sit down and discuss things. There wouldn't of been so much money and time flushed down the toliet by the city and state. But then you wouldn't have a "good cause" would you

 

[ohtobediscing]

Seems like a sport for the proletariat just doesn't seem fair to Ken---unless you pay lots and lots of money for it, which kinda defeats the purpose.
From statesman to troll in only 4 posts. Thanks for the mini-seminar on the mind of a self-entitled twit.

 

[kensanfran]

To be fair Ken, you did write an anti-disc golf op-ed in a newspaper in another community considering a disc golf course. You can spin that action to fit the above statement, but hopefully you can also acknowledge that no matter how you want to phrase it, it's not going to pass the sniff test for many people.

I think you have some decent points, and some blind spots too. The over the top rhetoric in some of your groups propaganda is pretty off-putting, and seems designed to invite conflict. The fact that you are writing op-eds in other communities, while certainly well within your rights, definitely leads people to think that you are on a mission to prevent disc golf courses from being installed.

Point taken, and writing the op-ed was perhaps a mistake. It is the one and only time any of us have ever done so, and I only did because there was both a news story and an editorial that seemed to give only one side of the story. There was even a suggestion that a DG course be installed at Fitzgerald Marine Reserve! As an occasional visitor there, that seemed so outrageous that I felt I had to speak my mind. Furthermore, the original editorial I sent was much longer with links to supporting information, and the paper shorted it quite a bit and left out the links, missing a lot of context that I intended to convey.

I can tell you now that I'll never do it again. But in the lemons to lemonade category, this whole thread has been enlightening on several fronts, and actually very encouraging to see that there are many disc golfers out there with a more balanced view of the sport.

As for the "propaganda" on our web page, you must understand that when our group formed in 2010, despite PeterB's protestations, it was in every way presented as a done deal, with no public process other than an "informational meeting" to let us know what was going to happen, and with very underhanded dealings from RPD among others (some of which continues to the present). If we hadn't yelled and shouted and screamed, it would have been jammed down our throats with precious little input from the community, no question about it whatsoever. There's plenty of documentation of this in the timeline I linked to.

At the same time, we have tried very hard to present actual hard data to back up our concerns, from our before/after pictures of the GGP course, to real data on the flight characteristics of discs, to the various potential safety impacts of the sport. None of which you will find on the SFDGC or pretty much any other DG club web page. We had to dig pretty hard to find it ourselves, and we think it is important that our community as well as others have access to this information. The tone may sound strident to your average DG player, but we're not just making stuff up. As many of you have noted, these issues are real, though the particular impact of each particular issue will of course vary from location to location.

In the mean time, we are not primarily focused on disc golf now, and our front page reflects this. We have recently worked with other park groups to bring a $6M project to rework the main road through the park (Mansell Street), which will bring sidewalks and bike lanes and perhaps a new linear park to what is now basically a ratty old freeway stub. 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.

So, I'm getting on a plane in the morning to head back to good old SF, and I will be very busy with other projects again, but I am glad for this conversation and will try to check back in when I can to clear up any other issues that have been left dangling.

Ken

 

[BogeyNoMore]

My, hasn't this thread become interesting?

We must appreciate Mr. McGary posting his opinion in a thread, and on a forum that is demonstrably hostile to him and his position.

I am not a hunter, but I long ago recognized those who hunt as some of the most conservation-minded folk. Ken should understand that the disc golfers who undertake, almost entirely by volunteer effort, to design and install DG courses are the most invested in keeping the grounds healthy and enjoyable for the greatest number of people far into the future. The alleged willingness to trash a 'natural' area to install 18 baskets is beyond absurd.

I read Ken's writing as being anti-disc golf, essentially. It's a pity. He is not recognizing who his potential allies down the road are.

^ Let me echo Will's thought and Mr. Harrington's endorsement of this well stated post. I too, appreciate Ken's willingness to participate in this forum. It's not often we actually get to interact with those who see things so differently here.

Regardless of your perspective on the issue, please - let's keep it civil and respectful, and keep this thread from getting locked.

I lost my edit window:

To be fair Ken, you did write an anti-disc golf op-ed in a newspaper in another community considering a disc golf course. You can spin that action to fit the above statement, but hopefully you can also acknowledge that no matter how you want to phrase it, it's not going to pass the sniff test for many people.

I think you have some decent points, and some blind spots too. The over the top rhetoric in some of your groups propaganda is pretty off-putting, and seems designed to invite conflict. The fact that you are writing op-eds in other communities, while certainly well within your rights, definitely leads people to think that you are on a mission to prevent disc golf courses from being installed.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[kensanfran]

Stalking? What the hell are you talking about, PeterB? Is googling a facebook page every few months "stalking"? You said that SMP produced a CEQA statement? That's not a neg dec.

You are delusional.

Ken

 

[Peterb]

Stalking? What the hell are you talking about, PeterB? Is googling a facebook page every few months "stalking"? You said that SMP produced a CEQA statement? That's not a neg dec.

You are delusional.

Ken

My name is on your lists, and you've made mentions of stuff that only true stalkers would know about. Yes that is stalking.

SMP members came to the one and only neighbor metting for JSP. And then some comments were made on the neg-dec (which yes, is part of CEQA) that could have been lifted off your site. Maybe it was. But ad-hominem attacks don't bolster your argument.

So you're not offsetting your trip to Kentucky. Maybe this thread and your op-ed should be called "Ken McGary isn't as green as it seems". It is hard to believe that someone with such strong environmental convictions could consider flying clear across the country as an irrevocable act of earth terror.

I do agree that the Fitzgerald comment was waaaayyyy off base. Not sure where that came from or who even said it but it is obviously so incredibly far from reality that I can't believe you even took it seriously. In my opinion, JSP and Quarry park are the only places worth looking at for disc golf on the peninsula.

 

[nwdiscnoob]

You've clearly never been to San Diego.

Nope, lived in houston and phoenix though.......