With all the recent talk about disc wings and discs that can be thrown faster and longer, I began to wonder how many courses out there are on property that is used solely for disc golf.

For me, I won't design or build a course unless it is understood that this is to be the case. In our neck of the woods, we have one course that the rangers will keep others from using if they stray into it, but you have to call them out there to remove the people. At other times, they close the course for parking space for a large event (I did not build this course).

On the other hand, we also have a course where the land is not used for any other purpose, with the exception of the occasional history buff who wants to see Civil War earthworks out by Hole #15! We are blessed with a staff and administration that supports and enforces this.

The golf-only situation should be the standard, but I suspect it is the exception. How many golf-only public facilities do you know of? This is going to become more of an issue as discs get faster and more dangerous to be hit by.

From a safety and liability standpoint, it makes no sense at all to install a course where others will be using the same exact space from time to time. Additionally, if a fee is charged for the use of the course, there should not be any others using the same space for free.

This would be ideal but, if we held to this standard, we'd have far fewer courses.

I've played a number of coures in state parks which were essentially in disc-golf-only areas. I've played many others configured where non-disc-golf usage was light, and tolerable. On the other hand, my local courses have heavy non-disc-golf activity near, and sometimes in, the fairways. (If we told the parks department we need an exclusive area, they'd probably tell us that they don't need disc golf at all!)

Maybe there is a way to designate on the course directory if a course has to share space with other property users? That way, travelers can choose more easily which course suits their wishes.

Nonetheless, I think it is a standard that we are going to have to adopt.

I have never understood the "more courses is better" mindset. So many awful courses have been built solely for the sake of having a course. I understand that there was a time when any offer to put in a course was taken, but I feel we are past that point in our growth. We now need to be more selective. I feel that the sport would be greatly advanced by having better quality courses than a high quantity of courses. High quality courses will impress those outside of the disc golf community and perhaps lead to a course installation. If they only see low quality courses, then they are not likely to take the sport seriously.

I like the idea of a note on the directory page for a course indicating whether or not the course shares space with other uses. I also like the idea of tightening up the course design standards to require a golf-only space. I think it's time we take that plunge.

All that being said, I find myself less and less interested in building public courses unless they are golf-only areas. I think private courses provide the opportunity for growth in this sport with regard to course design evolution.

Johnson St. park in High Point, NC comes to mind.


The course just put in in my neck-of-the-woods has to share space with these (http://lee.org/journal/journal%20040103-053103/DSCN1922%20Lawn%20Mower%20Pull.jpg) folks. How many other courses can claim such diversity?

Mike, I think "more courses is better" depends on where you are. I'm in a place with plenty of courses, and agree that we should have higher standards for any new courses. But if I lived with no courses within an hour's drive, I'd be more willing to compromise.

There might be a point that a disc golf course in a multi-use park exposes the sport to more non-players who might give it a try. I've even seen a few pitch-&-putt courses installed next to schools; lots of drawbacks but it does introduce the sport to the next generation.

As a private course owner, I hope you're right about that part. We certainly have no backups, never have to ask the general public to move, don't risk injuring anyone but ourselves, and don't have to lock our cars.

Do you have to keep it between the fences on one hole? :D

I don't have any problem with a pitch and putt next to a school; I see the value in that. But that's an exceptional situation. It's the public parks I'm more concerned with. We don't need any more disc golf courses in public parks where golfers are expected to encounter people aimlessly walking through a fairway with no knowledge of disc golf. That just does not work for me especially if I'm paying for the right to play there. I also think it portrays the sport as something not to be taken seriously.

I can't think of any other sports that allow people to walk through the playing area during the game. No ball golf course would allow it; nor should we.

True enough.

On the other hand, had this standard been applied in the past, I can think of some great courses and great events I would have never played. We host the Earlewood Classic, popular enough to have filled (90) in 4 days this year, on a course where we'll never get permission to keep the public out, even during our event. I just returned from the Charleston Classic, a great event on a fabulous temporary course, where nevertheless there were many instances of players having to stop and ask pedestrians to move (or, in my case, one homeless sleeper in the middle of the fairway). It was still better than not having the course at all.

Nonetheless, I agree with your premise, and for many areas, your notion that we don't need more courses as much as we need better ones. It should be a design standard to separate disc golf from other activities as much as possible, and a tournament standard to have exclusive use of the property during the tournament---if at all possible.

In the meantime, support your local private course, a step in the right direction.

It may not be a matter of choice. One of my governmental-type clients has this rule on the books:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any potentially dangerous games involving thrown or propelled objects such as baseballs, horseshoes or similar objects, except in areas specifically designated for such use."

Which I see as a positive. While it doesn't mention disc golf specifically, it does practically force the client to designate an area specifically for disc golf.

Note, it is not against this rule for non-players to go into designated areas (like baseball fields). But, the practical effect is that no one sets up their picnic blanket in the outfield grass.

Now, how do you make a disc golf course as obvious as a horseshoe pit?

Nonetheless, I think it is a standard that we are going to have to adopt.

I have never understood the "more courses is better" mindset. So many awful courses have been built solely for the sake of having a course. I understand that there was a time when any offer to put in a course was taken, but I feel we are past that point in our growth. We now need to be more selective. I feel that the sport would be greatly advanced by having better quality courses than a high quantity of courses. High quality courses will impress those outside of the disc golf community and perhaps lead to a course installation. If they only see low quality courses, then they are not likely to take the sport seriously.

I like the idea of a note on the directory page for a course indicating whether or not the course shares space with other uses. I also like the idea of tightening up the course design standards to require a golf-only space. I think it's time we take that plunge.

All that being said, I find myself less and less interested in building public courses unless they are golf-only areas. I think private courses provide the opportunity for growth in this sport with regard to course design evolution.


Great points, Mike!!! :D

True enough.

On the other hand, had this standard been applied in the past, I can think of some great courses and great events I would have never played. We host the Earlewood Classic, popular enough to have filled (90) in 4 days this year, on a course where we'll never get permission to keep the public out, even during our event. I just returned from the Charleston Classic, a great event on a fabulous temporary course, where nevertheless there were many instances of players having to stop and ask pedestrians to move (or, in my case, one homeless sleeper in the middle of the fairway). It was still better than not having the course at all.

Nonetheless, I agree with your premise, and for many areas, your notion that we don't need more courses as much as we need better ones. It should be a design standard to separate disc golf from other activities as much as possible, and a tournament standard to have exclusive use of the property during the tournament---if at all possible.

In the meantime, support your local private course, a step in the right direction.



I have played at Earlewood! It is on a really nice piece of land. And at the time that course was installed, I think the mindset was to take what's offered to you and make it work. However I don't think that mindset serves us well in 2007.

It's a real shame that they won't let you exclude the public for one day. At New Quarter, the course is closed until after the last tournament round for the day.

As far as dealing with non-golf activities during a tournament, I guess that's a personal preference call. What's acceptable for one may not be so for another. For me, it's not acceptable at all. Same goes for whether or not having the event under those conditions is better than not having it at all.

I find myself playing 5 courses here in Virginia on a regular basis. Of those, 4 are private, one of them being in my 5-acre backyard (9-hole criss-cross course). Private courses offer not only the freedom from clueless pedestrians and sleeping homeless citizens, but also the freedom to explore design options that the local governments would perhaps reject for various reasons.

Sadly, when using public parks the local government seldom offers a choice between having exclusive land, or sharing with other park users. I've played 95 courses in 21 states, and almost all of the courses in urban parks must co-exist with other users. Where courses are built in new suburbs, choices are a little better.

There are degrees of use conflict, too. In Columbia, we have Earlewood, built about 1991, and Owens Field, built about 1999, both in town and with lots of overlap with general public. Next nearest courses are Crooked Creek (about 1998), which is basically off by itself in the woods but has a half-dozen holes that cross walking/bike trails (generally in the first 50 feet off the tee, so it's easy to look out for pedestrians), and Edisto Gardens in Orangeburg, which pretty much has the section of park to itself. Our next project may co-exist with walking trails, but no other uses and in a park that has no walk-through traffic from the neighborhood. So far we've been unable to secure access to a chunk of public land for exclusive disc golf use. But you're right that our standards should be changed from 10-15 years ago, when any course was good, and likely to get light disc golf usage, anyway.

As mentioned above, I also own a private course (18 holes, soon to be 27, Pro/Advanced level), so I certainly agree with the benefits you cite. Hopefully we'll see more private courses as the sport grows; I envy you for having so many available in your area.

Another avenue for exclusive disc-golf areas is state parks, which have plenty enough land to build such a course. This has caught on in some states. Unfortunately, not here.

Finally, the situation may vary by region. Where it's possible to get exclusive areas for disc golf, it should be done. But in areas with no courses, where the only option is a shared-use urban park, for the people living there any course is better than no course at all.

I always try to delicately mention that these discs can hurt people as a means of trying to secure a golf-only parcel. In the alternative, signs warning the general public of the flying discs can help achieve the goal of reducing interference from other park users. I understand that this could go either way with the locality, i.e., it may encourage them to make it golf-only, or cause them to lose interest in the project due to liability concerns. I guess it depends on how interested or determined they are to having a disc golf course. In the case of New Quarter, they approached me about doing the course and I gave them my advice on how it should be done, and they took my advice.

You were fortunate though at NQ that there weren't any paved or gravel trails thru the current golf course area to avoid, if I recall?

There is a historic dirt road that goes through #2, #7, and #18, but it does not carry enough traffic to be a problem.

The fortunate part of that project was that walking trails and bike trails had already been established in other areas of the 535-acre park and there was plenty of undeveloped land for the disc golf course. But that's the whole point; I found an area in the park that could be set aside exclusively for disc golf. They relied on me to choose the right area instead of showing me where they wanted to put the course.

If they had shown me an area with picnic tables and walking trails all through it, I would have said "this will be a problem".

How about courses on National Forest land? Many ski areas utilize NF land to put up their baskets in Spring, Summer, and Fall to help generate revenue during slack times. I'm pretty sure clubs or tournaments are not allowed to close the area to non-golfers. To be fair, there generally are not many other NF land users in the immediate vicinity of the course, but there is the potential to have a hiker or cyclist wander through the event.

The "disc golf only" strategy for course development is fine in areas with ample parkland and numerous established courses to play, but it won't work everywhere.

Example: San Diego County in California has 3 million residents, but only three disc golf courses all of which are pay-to-play. Morley Field is essentially disc-golf only, in a city park with a daily use fee of $2.50. Sun Valley in La Mesa (9 holes) and Emerald Isle in Oceanside (18 holes) are ball golf/disc golf hybrids with higher greens fees and concurrent use by ball golfers. There are no other courses. Morley Field sees so many players that there are waits on nearly every hole on weekdays, and waits of 5-10 minutes per hole on weekends. There aren't enough places for disc golfers to play.

I am working to install new courses in my part of the county (San Marcos in the north end of the county), but with the high cost of land and low availability of available parkland, getting a course installed is difficult. San Marcos will be installing a 9-hole course in January in a mixed-use park, with two more courses expected in the next 2-3 years. If I were to tell the Parks Department that we needed "disc golf-only" land for installation these courses wouldn't happen.

I started playing disc golf back in the late 1970's when there were fewer than 100 courses in the entire U.S. (maybe fewer). Back then we dreamed of the day when there would be courses distributed across the country for more people to enjoy. The only way we got to where we are now was to put courses into mixed-use parks, in order to build a player base that would warrant more courses. I would rather have these courses in mixed-use parks than very few or no courses at all.

My understanding of the use of ski areas is that it's during the off season when there is no snow. Additionally, it would seem that in a National Forrest there would be land available to build a course that doesn't rely on the previously cleared ski routes.

I realize it won't work everywhere. The challenge is to find the places where it will work and install courses in those places.

In my opinion, courses installed where they will conflict with other uses are detrimental to the growth of the sport. The people who have been using that part of the park for years are only going to get PO'd when disc golfers start competing for the same space. Bad PR.

The Twin Parks Country Club in Texas is an example of a private facility developed into an income-producing property with disc golf, paintball, and mountain biking. Not that it wouldn't be a formidable challenge to line up investors to purchase and develop such a property, but this is how private country clubs and yacht clubs came into being. I see this as the future of our sport and I feel that now is the time to start thinking along those lines rather than accepting each and every bone thrown our way.

I'm not advocating that we place a too much effort on lining up investors for private facilities at this point in our evolution. But disc-golf-only facilities is one way to express to the public that we are serious about this sport and intend to take it to the next level.

Mike, I was trying to show that several very good courses use ski areas during the "off season" (Spring, Summer, and Fall). The people that live in these areas rely on any kind of tourism they can get, and most of these people are forced to wear many different hats in order to make a living. If they couldn't operate a disc golf course and pro shop because the National Forest Service won't grant them "exclusive" use of the area where the course is located, they would have to find another way to generate some revenue. Now I realize that there isn't a whole lot of interaction between disc golfers and other National Forest land users, the potential is there. The ski hill courses I've played don't stay strictly on the ski runs, they meander through the forest on other trails that hikers and bike riders use. In Sipapu, New Mexico, motorcycle riders are all over the place, as it is a well known area for trials events. Disc golfers usually don't play tournaments the same time as trials events, but sometimes trials riders are around getting in practice time. Limiting the forest to just disc golf or just motorcycles would financially hurt the local economy.

This is America. There is plenty of land. Granted, it usually won't be in a formally designated, already developed, park.

Get on Google Earth and look at all those areas that don't have roads - the canyons, and hills just outside of town. All that "useless" land is the kind that makes the most interesting courses.

Why not put 27 holes in Daley Ranch?

You're right, there is plenty of land. Historically, disc golf courses have been installed in established parks. And that was great for the sport in the early days not only to cut down on construction costs, but to expose the public to the game. And I'm not advocating going back to those courses and retroactively making them golf-only. They can stay as they are.

But if a new park is going to be established, or an existing park expanded, that's the time to get in a proposal for a course that will only be used for disc golf. Make it a pay to play course and that can be a selling point to make it golf-only, in addition to the safety factor.

Well of course if the NFS says you can only put a course in where the ski trails and bike and motorcycle trails are, then that's that. I would pass on that and continue my search. On the other hand, if you're okay with that, that's cool too. But that's no reason not to push for a course where other uses are excluded.

Do people mill about on the playing field during a football game? Does Tiger have to wait for motocross riders to clear before he can make an upshot? The answer to both is no and we deserve the same accommodation. But we will have to push for it.

It seems as though some have already determined that this is an unreasonable goal, but I'm not buying that. At present, it's more difficult to get such a course installed, but it's not unreasonable, nor is it impossible.

Mike, I understand what you're coming from. I've spent years playing this game and dodging non-golfers. Maybe eventually we'll have the luxury of designing courses where we want them to go, with enough funding to make them truley exciting and challenging. I was fortunate when I found the area of the park where our course in Amarillo is located. We have very limited interaction with non-golfers because none of the course deals with picnic areas. Occasionaly a group will reserve a larger portion of the park than normal and get closer to the course than usual, but not often so we get the joy (and relative saftey factor) of having the area all to ourselves.

I guess most long time players have grown accustomed to having to share space with the rest of the community, look at Roosevelt Park in Albuquerque. Lots of sharing there :), some good and fun, some not so good. But the game goes on.

Is a poorly designed course in a disc golf exclusive area better than a well designed course in a shared space area? How do you deal with a land-owner that will not agree they don't have the skill to design a course on their property, but insist on doing it because they own the land and their ego won't let them see the bigger picture.

For example: You have a very well designed course in a mountainous area (ski hill course) and a local recreational golfer comes into some big money. He really enjoys playing the game so much he decides to buy some property and install his own pay-to-play course just down the road. He does all the work himself to get the course in with top quality baskets, tee signs, and nice tee pads. However, instead of hiring a top level designer or local high level players, he decides to cram 18 holes into a space suited for only 12. No one can convince the land-owner that a pay-to-play recreational level course that is designed for the lowest level of players will not stand the test of time. In my experience, most players will play the private course once or twice for the novelty of it, but most local action will take place on the more challenging, better designed course up the road, even if the course shares space with other users.

Exclusive use isn't always better.

The market will handle the clueless dolt with tons of money that builds a poorly designed DG course. As you said, a few will play it to see what it's all about, then revert to playing elsewhere when they see it's no good. At that point, the pay-to-play aspect fails. In that scenario, I would agree that exclusive is not better. But I see that situation as an exception to the norm, at least the norm here in Virginia.

There will always be exceptions. Comparing an exclusive property with a bad course to a multi-use property with a great course is not a fair comparison in my opinion. There has to be a constant. In your example, I too would favour the great course on the multi-use property. But if the courses are of comparable quality, the course on the exclusive property is infinitely more desireable.

Perhaps my outlook on this is a bit spoiled since I have regular access to some great private courses. But I would predict that there will be a time when disc golf is popular enough that there will be no need to consider installing a course unless the area will be exclusively for golf.

Safety is another reason to consider. Though golf discs are not as dangerous as arrows or bullets, all three should have their own space for safety's sake.

When I put together my usual design team for a project, one of the first questions we ask is whether or not the course will have to share with other uses. It is high on our checklist and it's something we need to know before proceeding.

my favorite course shares the land with cows


Maybe I'll be there to shake your hand
Maybe I'll be there to share the land
That they'll be giving away
When we all live together.

Yes, we all love Hawk Hollow. Good thing the cows are smarter than people who don't know about disc golf and usually stay out of the way!

Have you been around?
Have you done your share a-coming down?
Burton Cummings

I wonder how this plays out on the permanence of courses?

In my experience private courses have been notoriously short-lived. 3 of my 5 all-time favorites have been private courses, 2 of which no longer exist (though there is a chance Gran Canyon will be resurrected). Maintenance gets to be too much, or the property changes hands, or whatever, and great courses are gone.

In shared-use areas, I've seen parks departments change their plans on other activities, dictating changes that are sometimes detrimental to the disc golf course.

I wonder if courses in disc-golf-only areas of public parks are most immune to forced changes or removal? What has been the experience in other areas of the country on this?

If so, it would be yet another reason to push hard for disc golf courses to be in exclusive areas rather than shared-use areas, whenever possible.

That's a very interesting question.

Here in Virginia, I can't recall any private courses that no longer exist. There's Ace Run Ranch in Suffolk that I don't play anymore, but I understand it still exists. The Grange is also Mike Trapasso's home so that's not going anywhere. Hawk Hollow is on Biscoe Family land so that's safe. Rockahock is also on family land. Scuffleton west of Richmond is on a golf-only parcel. It has a small membership, but the owner is very dedicated to keeping it as a disc golf course.

I suppose it depends on factors such as the owner's ability to maintain the course, their continued interest in disc golf, stuff like that. But the thing about private courses is that usually only one or two people are involved in making the decisions. With public property, you have the citizens of the locality as a whole to consider in deciding how to use the property, in addition to an entire Parks department making reccomendations and decisions based on input from those citizens.

As to the relationship between permanence and exclusivity of use on public property, I don't have any data on that at all. My guess is that it would depend on the relationship between the golfers and the Parks department as well as the popularity of the course and perhaps even how much income the course brings in for the park. At New Quarter Park, no fees are charged for any other use except the disc golf course. So disc golf brings income to that park not only through greens fees but disc sales as well. Without disc golf, the park would not bring in any income at all. Additionally, the course is very popular regionally. Parks is very pleased with the way things have turned out there, so I think the course is safe.

Another case of different situations in different regions, I guess.

The only private course I knew of in South Carolina, prior to my own, was Still Waters Farm. Owned by a non-disc-golfer, it is now closed; as I understand it, the disc golfer who was behind the project left, and the property owners couldn't keep it up and were divided as to whether to have it at all.

Of the other private courses I've played, Gran Canyon in Florida closed when the non-disc-golfer owner sold the property. I've heard that Merriweather Farm in Georgia closed when the property was sold. Stonhenge in Tennessee closed (rumored lost in a divorce settlement, though I don't know for a fact). I think there are some private courses in North Carolina that have lasted longer, though Boylan Farm came and went before I had a chance to play it. My course has better odds, because it is owned by two long-time disc golfers who bought the property, in part, specifically to build a course, but the course is unlikely to outlast us.

My experience with shared-use parks is that the parks department built an amphitheatre in the middle of Earlewood; we thought we might lose two holes but they just had tolerable modifications, and the theatre has only been used once in two years so it hasn't been that big a deal. Owens Field, the other course in Columbia, recently lost 2 holes to a decision to build a high school running track.

So my guess is that a disc golf course in a separate area of a public property (local or state park) would be most likely to remain for the long haul, and have the least pressure from expansion of other park facilities.

Just guessing, though.

This is America. There is plenty of land. Granted, it usually won't be in a formally designated, already developed, park.

Get on Google Earth and look at all those areas that don't have roads - the canyons, and hills just outside of town. All that "useless" land is the kind that makes the most interesting courses.

Why not put 27 holes in Daley Ranch?



We're working on it, but the Ranch is seen by many as a untouchable nature preserve and "historic ranch" site. The idea of metal baskets and discs flying through the air conflicts a bit with their "old timer" vision.

Yet we continue to try...

Alan, Do you know what happened to the course in San Dimas (I think that is the name of the town)? I was in that area in 1989 and went to play it as it was near the town I was living in. It was in a large park that has a lake where they race drag boats. When I tried to play it, there were only a few baskets left, but it looked like it could have been a fun course. I've always wondered what happened to that one, and why it wasn't relocated if there were other problems.

Johnson St. park in High Point, NC comes to mind.


The course just put in in my neck-of-the-woods has to share space with these (http://lee.org/journal/journal%20040103-053103/DSCN1922%20Lawn%20Mower%20Pull.jpg) folks. How many other courses can claim such diversity?



Sadly those folks have more spectators than we do right now. :D

So my guess is that a disc golf course in a separate area of a public property (local or state park) would be most likely to remain for the long haul, and have the least pressure from expansion of other park facilities.

Just guessing, though.



I would say that's a good guess. It certainly can't hurt. But I think there are other factors involved, such as convincing the parks dept. that disc golf needs to be taken seriously and keeping the unseemly characters off the property as much as possible.

Alan, Do you know what happened to the course in San Dimas (I think that is the name of the town)? I was in that area in 1989 and went to play it as it was near the town I was living in. It was in a large park that has a lake where they race drag boats. When I tried to play it, there were only a few baskets left, but it looked like it could have been a fun course. I've always wondered what happened to that one, and why it wasn't relocated if there were other problems.



The park was Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park in San Dimas, an L.A. County Park. I don't know what happened to it - I moved out here in August of 1990 and it was already gone by that time. Cliff Towne probably knows - he's in charge of the course directory and he lives in the L.A. area. Interesting side note - in the FAQ's of the L.A. County web site there is a question: "where can I go to play disc golf?". The answers are: La Mirada Regional Park in La Mirada and Veteran's Memorial Park in Sylmar.

I think the water park went in, is what happened to it.

Raging Waters grew and grew (much of Bonelli park has fee-based concessions) and some of the key people instrumental in the course moved on. Not likely that disc golf could have competed with a huge water park, water boats, hot tub pavilions for public rental and the like anyhow, as far as revenue necessities were concerned.

Have caught up with this thread. Good on you folks who have the land to install and maintain large disc golf-only facilities; you can help drive the sport forward in many ways. We don't have such opportunity in SoCal. (Anyone who wins a Powerball feel free to contact some of us and we'd be glad to help you direct it for the disc golf commonweal - that's pretty much what it would take to have a disc golf-only property on most of the coastal West Coast.)

Ergo, it's all about steady relationship with under-utilized public and private (read: ball golf courses, possibly camps) management that we might get courses installed and maintained. We share and that's how it's probably going to be from here on out. Allen has done a lot to promote and lay the groundwork for courses in his community, and several of us have done variations on the same. What has been striking to me about the state of development in SoCal is that growth is happening on the periphery of our metroplexs. There is so much demand for in-fill land that only the most patient and thorough groups has succeeded on those terms, as with the cases of Chavez Ridge near Dodger Stadium and Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

So we have to be responsible neighbors, defer to the picnickers on the fairways, work with local governing agencies. What you speak of in regards to accessible land and ease of specific properties for disc golf gives me a moment of envy. But the task of more courses and more fun is always radically local in application, and that means we out here will have to share.

Best of,
Bill Maury-Holmes

Well said Bill!!

Bill and Rhett have been here (in SoCal) longer than I, so I defer to them. :D

Though we are blessed with private courses and at least one public course that has an area used exclusively for disc golf, I still have to drive quite a bit to get to these courses. I can understand that Southern California is close to being built out and that there may not be any opportunity for new parks to be built where a disc golf course area could be part of the master plan, much less a private parcel of land.

I have to drive one hour from home to get to the public course. The next nearest private course other than the one at my house is 1.25 hours. The other courses I play regularly are 2 hours and 2.5 hours away. I will always choose driving to these courses over playing at the multi-use course on public land.

Perhaps there are opportunities east of the built-out metropolis.

east of the built out metropolis in socal=desert.

Yeah but there's cliffs and dunes and joshua trees to work with, right? :D

Blanket statements about what is "best" for disc golf rarely make sense when applied to our many diverse communities.

Thanks. I'll make a note of that.

I think it has more to do with diverse ways of thinking and diverse standards than diverse communities. I see us all as one disc golf community.

Courses are still being built with crossing fairways. I'm not sure how that could be the best situation for any community/locality, regardless how desperate they might be for another disc golf course.

Public land & disc only? We've got one here in the Denver-Metro area. 24 holes and multiple pin positions. Kudos to John Bird, Mile High DGC, and the city of Arvada for this one:

Bird's Nest sign (http://www.milehighdiscgolf.org/random_photo.php?photoID=898)


nanook

Ozark Mountain is not on public land, but most of it is only used for Disc Golf.

Some of the holes onthese 2 courses can give players/course designers, inspiration for hole and course design!

We are just about to release a dvd from the 2008 Ozark Mountain Open.

Below is a link to some trailers on You Tube,,, ENJOY!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr6sV92ZgHc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCZ-hVuR1t8

Ain't nothin like a Mark Martin Turbo!

Nice vids. Good putt there Dave.