There seem to be two camps on the issue of the new disc golf course: Those who want to share the park with others and those who do not. Mr. Schuster makes it known what side he has taken. But, as is clearly apparent in the parks master plan he cites, the designations recreation and reserve zone do not mean what he implies they mean.

As can be seen in plans illustrations, the reserve zone of Chestnut Ridge includes nearly the entire park, with the exception of the ball fields, picnic groves, sledding hills and similarly developed areas. Activities allowed in the reserve areas have included not just hiking, but snowshoeing, cross-country running and skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and, for the past 10 years, disc golf. These sports all require little in terms of park maintenance, and can be done without any extensive modifications of the existing land. Indeed the term reserve may imply un-landscaped, but it certainly has never meant off-limits.

The disc golf course just completed was over two years in the making; it will be welcomed by many. I extend a special thank-you to the countless volunteers and donors who helped make this new course a reality. I am also grateful to the county for continuing to open the undeveloped areas of the parks to disc golfers, skiers, horse riders and others in addition to walkers.

Well, only a selective reading of the master plan devoted to Chestnut Ridge would ignore that plan's recommendation of "a 'Corporate Sponsorship' program which encourages local businesses and organizations to get more involved with the Park." NRDG's following this recommendation--and investing thousands of donated dollars and hundreds of volunteer man-hours in making this recreational asset a reality--should be cause for recognition and appreciation. One wonders how those offended by having to share the park with these other users would feel about another unmentioned recommendation from the plan: "Consider offering new campsites...in the lower western section of the park, which is currently 'little-used' by the general public. This could also be an attraction for horseback riders who would like to enjoy a weekend in the park."

And no, Mr. Shuster, the Erie County Legislature was not consulted--anymore than it would have been consulted for improvements at any one of the dozens of other Erie County Parks. It appears the decision at Chestnut Ridge was delegated to Parks personnel with the professional training and expertise to make a decision: the commissioner, the deputy commissioner, and a parks forester. And no, public hearings were not held, as this was clearly a SEQRA Type II action that would have no significant impact on the environment and could thereby proceed without the lengthy and costly--and fully taxpayer-funded--environmental impact statement process.

The simple truth is that Chestnut Ridge Park is a public venue that exists to meet the recreational needs of ALL Erie County citizens. That some who use the park resent the fact that they may have to share this public venue with others is unfortunate.

For those interested in the document to which Mr. Schuster refers in his second paragraph, it can be found at http://www.erie.gov/environment/planning_ecdev/parks/pdfs/2.2PSR-Chestnut.pdf.