Post a New Topic
Butterflies and Edgewood Park
Original post made
on Apr 29, 2013
Bill Korbholz is an Edgewood Park volunteer who leads tours and works to advance the survival prospects of the endangered Bay Checkerspot butterfly, which used to thrive up and down the Peninsula. ==I Photo by Michelle Le/The Almanac.==
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Monday, April 29, 2013, 7:33 AM
Posted by park user
a resident of another community
on May 16, 2013 at 11:22 am
And yes, I do mean EVERYONE can enjoy Edgewood. You complain on behalf of pet owners, cyclists, and golfers... ALL of them are in fact welcome at the park... just not with their pets, bicycles, or golf gear. And how is that different, really, from any number of OTHER public facilities out there? Consider things like museums, train systems, ball parks, and more... all have their particular use restrictions in order to protect their intended purpose in order to make it available to all, and this is no different. Some people ARE dog walkers, cyclists, golfers... but they don't do those things EVERYWHERE... really now, this isn't a new concept. And let's not forget that all those activities are in fact available locally:
- Dogs are allowed at Pulgas Ridge Open Space, practically across the street from Edgewood
- Bicycles are allowed at a variety of open spaces in the region, including Waterdog Lake in Belmont
- There's a golf course IN Emerald Hills itself already
Ok, so, you don't have your very own bike path lined, dog friendly golf course right outside your own back door... hmmm... how many others don't either?... and how many people would LOVE to have something like Edgewood Park outside their door rather than the unending sprawl that blankets so much of the Bay Area? If you don't like what's outside your door, and want to live by a golf course instead... well... people do move for such reasons... just a thought... But no, your response instead is to complain about a "taking" from the public and lament the golf course that might have been. Yet let's look at the Emerald Hills course as an example... on a typical day they offer a dozen tee time slots, up to 4 people per slot... hmmmm... that comes to a whopping *48* people per day who get to use that facility... say a course at Edgewood DOUBLED that... 100 people per day... for a SINGLE type of activity... golf. How EVER could one think that wouldn't be a more fair and balanced use of Edgewood?!
On the flip side, how many people use Edgewood Park on an average day? WAY more than 100, that's for sure! And they're doing all KINDS of things... jogging, birding, picnicking, viewing wildflowers, volunteering in a variety of groups and activities, learning about nature on docent walks, and more. Heck, they bring bus loads of school kids out to see the place and learn from it ... hmmm... how often do you see class nature trips to the local golf course? But your idea of a good tradeoff would be to take (yes TAKE) 97% of the park for 100 golfers/day, and squeeze everyone else and their activities into the remaining 3%, along with the butterflies that you say could still be protected. And that's not to even mention the dozen or more OTHER rare, threatened, or endangered species that occur at the park and which conveniently receive no acknowledgement in your arguments. No, it's easier to just keep carping about "taking, Taking, TAKING"... never mind that the proposed alternatives for the site would take away from the ability of OTHERS to use the site. I for one don't want to go to Edgewood and deal with the noise, disturbance, and animal waste caused by other's pets (think that's just a minor issue?... go somewhere where pets are allowed and find out for real!). Nor do I want to deal with the dust and torn up trails caused by bicycles, or have to dive off trail to save my life as they go whizzing by, let alone look at the damage of wildcat bike trails that so often accompany bike access (again, go where they're allowed and see the reality of it). And I certainly don't want to have to dodge golf carts and duck under errant slices off the 4th tee while trying to find whatever barest scraps of Edgewood's beauty might be left after wiping out 97% of it for a golf course.
And could those scraps REALLY support the rare species as you and others claim? Hmmm, I'd have to say that scientific believability is one thing not well engendered in the anti-park arguments presented here. Take the Nitrogen issue... much like the climate science debate, the arguments presented here against the ecological impacts of Nitrogen from car exhaust amount to "gee, we don't like the outcome, so we're just gonna say it isn't so." Maybe you ought to look up what "disingenuous" actually means before attributing it to someone else! For his part, Dr Weiss has spent many years on this, has done the research, and has published the results... you disagree with the findings?... fine, go do your own research and publish YOUR results and let's see how they stack up... until then, simply saying "well, that doesn't sound right" is no argument at all.
But no, I guess it's easier to read an article about really dedicated people doing really great things on a unique and irreplaceable landscape, and in response try to tear that down for the sake of one's own interests. And even easier to do so in the supposed name of the "public". Yet let's not forget that the decision to establish Edgewood as a park was a PUBLIC decision after very extensive debate... and that the decision was subsequently reinforced by a later decision to designate Edgewood not just as a park but as a Natural Preserve (the ONLY such unit in the whole County park system)... and then reinforced yet again with the recent approval and construction of the Education Center there (built, by the way, with DONATED funds from the supposedly disenfranchised "public"). So these are in fact PUBLIC policies... if you don't like them, by all means, go get yourself elected and change the policies... oh wait, you've tried that... hasn't worked... could it have anything to do with the fact that the policies you stand for may not resonate as broadly as you'd like with the "public" you claim to be speaking for?