[BCNnet] Re: fencing FP areas; why not us?

[Terry Schilling]

It seems to me the best defense is a good offense. If dog owners can get 
areas set aside for dog-only use, and golfers can get hundreds of acres 
set aside for golf-only use, why can't we get areas set aside for 
birder-only use? A thousand acres here, five hundred acres there, and in 
no time at all we'd get some real protection for the FPs. And if a fence 
is the only way to keep horses, dogs and ATVs out, so be it. They just 
need to be longer fences than the dog areas use. This could also have 
the salubrious effect of keeping the deer out. ;-)

At the least this might make the commissioners more sensitive to 
appropriate use of certain areas that have value as habitat, because 
apparently the DOGs don't.

Terry Schilling

Rbdoeker@aol.com wrote:

>  
> (1) 
> Golf
> Horse Riding
> Tennis
> Swimming Pools
> Model Airplanes
> and even Picnic Areas...............just some of the dedicated uses that 
> have long existed on FP land.   A dog area is no different.   And all 
> activities are readily available to any citizen who wants to follow the 
> rules designated for the specific area. 
>  
> (As I mentioned earlier, this differs from the private use of some FP 
> land by the Boy Scouts since the only people allowed were those the 
> Scouts approved. The commissioners did stop this but just this year.)
>  
> Thus, the concerns about precedents being set may not be understood by 
> any commissioners.  That train left the station before most of us were born.
>  
>  
> (2)  Please consider that no person ran for office to be a commissioner 
> of the Cook County Forest Preserve.  It's just something they have to 
> do.  And the only commissioner who really cares about the environment is 
> Quigley -- the same one quoted in the Pioneer article encourging the 
> Thatcher Dog group.   There are a handful of others considered to be 
> 'good' by the Sierra Club but even those commissioners cast what they 
> call pragmatic votes -- like building a parking lot on FP land for the 
> new Jewish museum in Skokie.
>  
> And to make things even more special, the commissioner for the Thatcher 
> Woods area is a full time politician -- his day job is to be village 
> president of nearby Elmwood Park.
>  
> Hey - I don't like dogs in FP either.  (I'm already trying to figure out 
> how to get them out of City nature areas.)  But not one commissioner is 
> going to vote against a dog area just on principle.
>  
> Thus, it is my opinion that our best bet is to work with the FP staff to 
> make sure they know where the important bird areas in Thatcher Woods 
> are.  The superintendent of the FP is new. The volunteer land stewards 
> seem very happy with the way he is reacting to the longtime problems.  I 
> think he and his staff will be receptive to our input but we first need 
> to get some from the people who know Thatcher Woods best.
>  
> Randi Doeker
> Chicago
>  
>  
>  
>  
> In a message dated 11/8/2003 5:55:04 PM Central Standard Time, 
> WJMarcisz@aol.com writes:
> 
>     I think that Alan A & Judy M make very valid & important points.
>     Randi, you said "the train has already left the station."
>     Has it really? That is, has this issue already been voted on and
>     passed?
>     If not, maybe it is too early to accept the Thatcher dog park as
>     inevitable.
>     I can't help but think of this as a dangerous, precedent-setting
>     land-grab by a special interest group.
> 
>     Walter Marcisz, Chicago, Cook Co.
>     WJMarcisz@aol.com 
>