Pay2Play poll

[Mabuku1]

If all the free courses in public parks around you suddenly turned into payplay, how would it affect you? Assume these courses are on multi use land and open to walkers and any other patrons of the parks(parties, dog walkers, kite flyers, etc.)

 

[JC17393]

If all the free courses in public parks around you suddenly turned into payplay, how would it affect you? Assume these courses are on multi use land and open to walkers and any other patrons of the parks(parties, dog walkers, kite flyers, etc.)

Are the other patrons of the park paying a fee also? If so, it wouldn't affect me in the least. If the fee is just charged to disc golfers, then there better be exclusive access/right-of-way privileges to go along with the fee or I'd probably not play those courses.

I'll stick to the privately owned, pay-to-play, exclusive use facilities that I play 98% of my non-tournament rounds on. Not that I have much choice in the matter unless I'm willing to drive 90 miles.

 

[MindBodyDisc]

would be happy to pay to play if the course maintenance reflected that.

If the courses stayed as is, no thanks.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Many of the parks around here already charge.

 

[T.Hizzle]

There would be anarchy

 

[bradharris]

Pay to play has never bothered me.

 

[Timeetyo]

If all the free courses in public parks around you suddenly turned into payplay, how would it affect you? Assume these courses are on multi use land and open to walkers and any other patrons of the parks(parties, dog walkers, kite flyers, etc.)

Silly question the way you phrased it. Essentially no improvements but all courses are pay 2 play. The ONLY benefit would be less DG traffic - but meh.

For myself - I don't mind P2P if there is a benefit such as a much better course, lower traffic (compared to overcrowded free parks), etc.

 

[Basshunter]

Pay to play, with all of its corresponding pros and cons, is the best way to have high quality, well-maintained courses, and more of them. I'll gladly pay the very inexpensive fees it takes to play disc golf compared to other sports. Give me more, better quality, better maintained courses and let the people good enough to install and run them make a few bucks (and very few, I'm sure, at that) along the way. Be that municipality or private entity.

 

[Halcón]

I'd pay for my home course, but only to keep chuckers away. It's crowded enough as it is during peak hours.

And if I'm paying, they better replace all the tee signs, and put in a badly needed practice basket.

 

[Basshunter]

Pay to play has never bothered me.

We should meet at Maple Hill someday (about equidistant for us), pay the exasperatingly high cost of $10 for the DAY , and play. I suck, but we'd still be playing Maple Hill.

 

[bradharris]

We should meet at Maple Hill someday (about equidistant for us), pay the exasperatingly high cost of $10 for the DAY , and play. I suck, but we'd still be playing Maple Hill.

I love Maple Hill. $10 for a day there is well worth it.

 

[Mabuku1]

The course is already maintained well by the parks dept for everyone free use. Then dg turns to pay but no one else, park still open to everyone, the course is already pretty much kept up with nice pads, signs baskets. Just new pro shop management, with no way to keep non dg out. The only change would be dg traffic, I assume.

 

[Disc Fiend]

I love Maple Hill. $10 for a day there is well worth it.

I would happily pay double that to play, it is that good.

 

[JC17393]

The course is already maintained well by the parks dept for everyone free use. Then dg turns to pay but no one else, park still open to everyone, the course is already pretty much kept up with nice pads, signs baskets. Just new pro shop management, with no way to keep non dg out. The only change would be dg traffic, I assume.

To be honest, I can deal with old signs and less than perfect pads for my fee if it means not having to deal with non-DG traffic. Maybe I've been spoiled by 10 years in private pay-to-play land, but it's the non-DG traffic that is my biggest issue with park courses.

If I'm paying to play, I don't want my round disrupted, disturbed, or otherwise affected by non-paying people.

 

[beereakfast]

To me, pay to play means a better course without pedestrian traffic. This is always a good thing. If the local 9 hole park course went that way and still had barbecuing on the fairways, it would suck.

 

[sisyphus]

The parameters really need defined. My 'home' course is a county park course with a Steady Ed design from way back. The P2P fee is nothing: $10 a year, and I can access all the county parks, including 4 courses at different parks. Never thought twice about it.

Then there are at least five courses nearby where I'd pay two or three times that for an annual 'membership' to each!

The other dozen or so courses in my area, maybe not so much.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think the parameters are fine. It's a hypothetical: what if the free public courses around you starting charging disc golfers to play, with no other changes to the course or other park users? What if the parks department simply saw disc golfers as a revenue source?

If you don't have free courses around you, or don't play them now, then it makes no difference to you.

Of course, everyone's situation is different. Mine is that I'd play those courses a little less often, and a private course a little more. But it also depends greatly on how much would be charged by the parks department.

 

[Mabuku1]

Park dept not charging. Park leases out the pro shop space. New Leasee decides that they are going to charge to play the course. The local club made all the improvements from monthly fees and donations. Pro shop guy just wants more money.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Park dept not charging. Park leases out the pro shop space. New Leasee decides that they are going to charge to play the course. The local club made all the improvements from monthly fees and donations. Pro shop guy just wants more money.

Paying the park rent to sell discs and equipment is one thing. Deciding to charge and pocket fees to play is something else altogether.

I would think the park authority would have an issue with a private entity charging for use of public property.

 

[DavidSauls]

Paying the park rent to sell discs and equipment is one thing. Deciding to charge and pocket fees to play is something else altogether.

I would think the park authority would have an issue with a private entity charging for use of public property.

Isn't that how Morley Field operates?