Ian Butler: A Good Habitat Spoiled

I love golf.  The brightly colored balls, the sweet smell of cotton candy wafting through the air, the satisfaction of dropping a putt into the mouth of a giant clown. Of course that’s miniature golf; the full-size version is another story.

I played that only once, and since I did so as a lefty borrowing right-handed clubs, saved some time by rounding up my scorecard to infinity. But I understand that a lot of people using the correct-handed clubs find it quite enjoyable, and would never wish to impose upon their recreational choices – unless those choices happen to threaten an endangered species or two.

For instance, if they enjoyed clubbing baby seals with nine irons, or using golf balls made from panda testicles, I would strongly encourage they take up a new hobby. In the case of Sharp Park Golf Course, it was built on the habitat of the red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake, back when nature was still considered to be an eyesore and in need of mowing. This forced the critters to move to the nearest remaining habitat: Pescadero marsh. Unfortunately, animals are poor map-readers, and most got lost en route, causing the stragglers to be protected by the federal government.

It all began when famous golf architect Alister MacKenzie, inspired by the success of the Ocean Shore Railroad, decided to emulate its winning formula by building a golf course on a coastal sand dune. After several delays, the course finally opened on April Fool’s Day in 1932, ushering in the park’s “golden era,” which lasted six whole years, until a storm washed away seven holes, ushering in the park’s “underwater era,” which lasts to this day.

In an attempt to salvage what was left, a berm was illegally built in the 1980s to keep the water back. Unfortunately, it kept the water back in the wrong direction, causing the course to flood all the way to the clubhouse. Because the protected frogs laid eggs in the ensuing lake, the course was forced to leave it, and instead supplied golfers with specially designed floating clubs, putting snorkels, and amphibious golf carts. As a result, the course has had to be subsidized by taxpayer money every year, but that’s okay because it’s San Francisco taxpayers. Suckers.

Now an organization called the “Center for Biological Diversity,” representing a narrow special-interest group known as “life on Earth,” hopes to turn the troubled course into an endangered-species habitat. San Francisco Supervisor Russ Mirkarimi has introduced legislation to consider the idea*. This has led to a contentious debate, which so far the golfers have been winning handily, since the snakes and frogs have proven incapable of even the most rudimentary language. Therefore I will humbly attempt to speak on their behalf, assuming they are history buffs capable of reading a financial spreadsheet.

Golfers: The golf course was created by Alister MacKenzie, a famous architect, in the 30s.
Snakes and Frogs: Oh yeah? We were created by God, an omniscient being, in the Permian era.

Golfers: Restoring Sharp Park would lead to more mosquitoes and West Nile Virus.
Frogs: Our extinction would allow mosquitoes to run rampant over the earth, leaving death and destruction in their evil wake. Although they are quite delicious.

Golfers: Sharp Park is on track to make a profit this year.
Snakes and Frogs: Only if you ignore the huge subsidy it receives from the San Francisco general fund, and a $250,000 repair of the berm. With that kind of math, even GM could look profitable.

Golfers: If it weren’t for the berm, there would be no habitat for the endangered species.
Snakes and Frogs: We’ve been here for millions of years. The berm wasn’t even invented until the Neolithic Revolution, about 10,000 years ago. We can manage without it.

Golfers: We can reconstruct MacKenzie’s historic original design.
Snakes and frogs: The one that was partially below sea level and lost seven holes to the sea after six years? And that was before global warming kicked in. You might as well reconstruct Atlantis.

Golfers: We like animals, and would never want to hurt them.
Snakes and Frogs: It’s not that you’re malicious, it’s that you’re golfing on what used to be our habitat. Have you ever tried to breed on a golf course? It can be a real buzz kill when the sprinklers come on.

Golfers: Some of us have been golfing there for 20 years and we’ve never seen a San Francisco garter snake.
Snakes: Our numbers are in the tens. We rarely even see ourselves anymore.

As you can see, the little critters do have a point. But don’t despair. It is possible that the area can be restored as habitat, while still keeping a smaller nine-hole golf course. Or better yet, miniature golf.

Ian Butler is host of Laugh Locally on PCT26. You can reach him at ianbutler@netzero.net. Learn more at RESTORE SHARP PARK
 
*Mikarimi's other legislation is for San Francisco to run pot dispensaries, so it’s possible that he plans to grow weed at Sharp Park.

Comments

[Butch Larroche]

Could not agree more, Steve, well said!!!!!!!!!

[Steve Sinai]

Todd beat me to the point. Scientific studies are supposed to be objective, but the Center for Biological Diversity is an advocacy group, which by definition means they aren't objective.

Summer's belief that she has science on her side reminds me of the way creation scientists and intelligent design advocates claimed they had science on their side. Wildlife biology is a very inexact science, and when I was taking those types of classes in college, I remember being taught that sometimes being within an order of magnitude of reality when it comes to population estimates is considered a success. That nobody seems to know how many snakes are out there, or exactly where they live, illustrates that uncertainty. No one should be too sure of themselves when spouting out "facts" relating to the SF garter snake habitat and populations. Those who think they do know are examples of the adage - "the less you know, the more convinced you are you know it."

[todd bray]

Summer wrote: "In doubt as to population density and breeding population health of the San Francisco Garter Snake? Contact the Center for Biological Diversity. Let's leave the biology expertise to the biologists."

The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit advocacy group. They have not studied the SFGS or CRLF in either the quarry or SPGC. You need a permit to do that and the Center for Biological Diversity doesn't have the expertise to qualify for one.

So Summer, you would be serving Riptide readers better if you refer folks to the Swaim report titled "Status of the San Francisco Garter Snake at Pacifica Quarry San Mateo California." It has among other things a detailed history of the SFGS in Pacifica.

Summer, If you don't have a copy of the Swaim report, I'll give you one. You have my number.

[Summer Rhodes]

"...Have you ever tried to breed on a golf course?"
um, that's on a need to know basis.

[Summer Rhodes]

In doubt as to population density and breeding population health of the San Francisco Garter Snake? Contact the Center for Biological Diversity. Let's leave the biology expertise to the biologists and the real estate sales to the real estate agents. I'll trust you with the latter--and the CfBD with the former, thank you.

Video of April 30, 2009 City and County of San Francisco Recreation and Park Dept. meeting re Sharp Park:
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=7733

[Butch Larroche]

Well, what a surprise. The S F Supes meeting was just a predetermined waste of time. Mar and Maxwell supported Ross Mirkarimi's proposal without so much as batting an eyelash. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the full board will realize that the cost of losing this business, and that is what Sharp Park is, and replacing it with a blackhole of a zero revenue generating parkland is not an option.

One point that was brought up over & over and ignored by all is that the marsh, if returned to its original state, is a saltwater marsh. Frogs and snakes will not survive there if it is saltwater. Tear down the so-called illegally built seawall and watch the frogs and snakes perish forever. The only reason they are there now is because of the golf course, not in spite of it.

[Steve Sinai]

I got my SF garter snake habitat info from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_garter_snake

The 4 managed areas Linty mentioned are places where sightings have occurred, but that doesn't mean those are the only places that the snakes exist. I'm not sure what the difference between a managed and unmanaged area is, so it could be that managed areas only make up a small percentage of available habitat. Or it could simply be that not much effort has gone into counting sf garter snakes, so not many have been counted.

My original point was to refute what Summer's claim that the snakes were only to be found near SFO and the golf course. Even Linty's 4 managed areas, which stretch to the south end of San Mateo County, demonstrate she was wrong.

[Linty Marr]

Mr. Sinai's statement is incorrect, by omission of one word -- "historical"-- as he describes the historical range. The current range is limited to small areas within the historical range, although in 1990 a single snake was captured near Davenport in Santa Cruz County. They are found in four managed areas, all within San Mateo County: Pescadero Marsh, Ano Nuevo Reserve, Laguna Salada, and the San Francisco State Fish and Game Refuge.

[Steve Sinai]

You're wrong, Summer. The SF Garter Snake ranges from the hills and coast of northern San Mateo County, down the coast of San Mateo County, and into northern Santa Cruz County. The golf course is a teeny-tiny percentage of the snake's habitat.
It makes much more sense to preserve the snake's habitat in the less-populated areas of the county, rather than destroying a business and recreational asset.

[Summer Rhodes]

This is the last stand for the snake: it is the largest viable population of the San Francisco Garter Snake. There are a few snakes near SFO, then it's NOWHERE ELSE ON EARTH. Sharp Park Golf Course is home to a healthy population of the California red-legged frog. Both populations can also expand to contiguous land where they have been found as well.

The golf course is used by at most two to four percent of the population. A park managed by the GGNRA is in trust for all people: it doesn't cost to get in and it will be a source of enjoyment of our Wild America for generations to come.

Reducing this to some petty argument is losing sight of the big picture: we are talking about EXTERMINATION OF WILDLIFE. NOT JUST SOME. BUT FOREVER.

There's a reason we have an Amphibian Ark.

http://www.restoresharppark.org/sfgs.html
http://www.restoresharppark.org/crlf.html

http://www.amphibianark.org/

PBS series on Extinction:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/index.html

[Jim Wagner]

There are other historical aspects inherent at Sharp Park. The Archery Club has operated at the east end of the park for over 60 years and kept that area clean and safe and an area providing recreation and exercise for hundreds of families. In addition, the whole east end of the park is of national historical interest. From 1942 to 1946, the United States government operated an internment camp (see report in Riptide archives). Any discussion on the disposition of this property needs to include other aspects of the site besides the golf portion.

[Butch Larroche]

"Parklands and natural areas increase adjacent property values by as much as 20%. Let's boost our real estate values - restore Sharp Park!"

Can you prove this number?

Does that hold if this parkland turns into a homeless camp? This may happen if Sharp Park is turned into a park. At least now, the course is policed by us golfers and marshals who ensure that no one who does not belong there is asked to leave. Golfers are the best custodians of this property that the frogs can have.
Keep the course open and let's not run another business out of town!!!!!! Remember that Sharp Park employs a staff of mostly Pacificans. Close to 85% of all workers there live here in town. That is a fact. I know, my son works there.

[Linty Marr]

Parklands and natural areas increase adjacent property values by as much as 20%. Let's boost our real estate values - restore Sharp Park!

[Alyssa Byrd]

Under historical (i.e. "pre-golf course") landscape, the frogs would migrate upland when the laguna would get too salty. No way to migrate through the golf course now though, so that natural cyclical upland migration option is thwarted. Likewise, as sea levels continue to rise and saltwater intrusion occurs, there is no natural outlet remaining.

Here is a great link about climate change and the local effects that a friend shared with me recently:
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/index.htm

[Steve Sinai]

There was a golf course management company that made an offer to manage Sharp Park Golf Course 2 or 3 years ago. They felt the course was poorly managed, and their plan was to turn it into a St. Andrews, Scotland-type of course. If I remember right, they wanted to keep the price low for Pacificans and San Franciscans, and raise the fees for anyone from outside of those two cities.

http://tinyurl.com/dyukot

Peebles had talked about doing the same thing at one point - fixing-up and managing the golf course as a way to attract people to his Quarry hotel.

[Butch Larroche]

Scotty, you are so right. Golfers do not go into these areas on the course. Hikers and the public will. What will that do to the frogs and snakes? How much money does Pacifica gain from the Mori Point hikers? We may not gain much from the golf course, but turning it into a ZERO profit potential entity makes no sense whatsoever. Learn the facts, not the falsehoods, at:

http://sharppark.savegolf.net/

[Jeffrey Simons]

ahhh if only some wealthy developer had offered to manage and promote the golf course and take it off both the city's hands and San Francisco's hands. that would have been awesome.

Butler's column is filled with so many inaccuracies, misstatements, and hyperbole I'm not sure where to start debunking it. Its like watching a novice golfer stuck in a sand trap trying to hit his ball out with a flat-iron.

[Linty Marr]

What part of "fiscal crisis" does Mayor Lancelle and the rest of the council not understand? SF would love to off-load the golf course on Pacifica as 75% of the those that play there are SF residents, they would love to pay a nominal green fee and not have any financial burden - like the sweetheart deal Pacifica golfers now have. As for the argument that fees and membership pay for the operating costs, I say "show me the numbers" and don't forget to add in the capital costs (like keeping the ocean off the fairways) and soon we'll be voting for a newer, brighter sales tax - and guess who will be first in line to say no to that.

Some may argue that that the money would be well spent, that the golf course is an economic engine for Pacifica, really? Take a walk near Lincoln Park golf course; within a few steps are shops, restaurants, public transportation and access for hikers. We've got a 7-11. The future of Sharp Park golf course is not an environmental vs. "recreational opportunity" issue - it boils down to who pays to keep and maintain it and the future horrific capital costs. Our fair City can't afford it, so run the numbers and figure out what the membership/green fees should be without subsidies, then let's see who wants to pony up those kind of dollars to play on a third-rate muni golf course in a region with world-class courses.

[Scotty]

You contradict yourself, Ian. You can't say that because of the berm "protected frogs laid eggs in the ensuing lake" and then turn around and try to argue that the berm doesn't contribute to their habitat.

It sounds to me like the golf course is already contributing to the well-being of the froggies, so you guys should go try to take away something from someone else that you don't happen to enjoy.