[BCNnet] Thatcher Woods
Robbie Hunsinger
redstart1@earthlink.net
Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:59:41 -0600
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3151213182_496112
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
This is an interesting thread and I wanted to add just two cents.
These migratory birds are Federally Protected. Wouldn=B9t that add any weight
to an attempt to protect and/or set aside habitat for them?
I know that only endangered species are protected from =B3harassment=B2 and
other non-fatal injuries, but all of them are protected.
It may not apply here but surely with their national legal standing ,these
birds should get as much weight and consideration as golfing and dog areas
from the FP. =20
I think it would be good to post this thread on IBET if it hasn=B9t been
posted yet- we could at least get some specific input from people that
frequent Thatcher and know the birds and their likely areas.
Robbie Hunsinger
PS A far as fences go, I read that they are very effective for controlling
deer damage also.
> Absolutely, Terry.
> =20
> And we have a vehicle to start with: The new Chicago area birding trail =
map
> being developed by the City. It covers the Cook Co. FP (along with the e=
ntire
> metro area).
> =20
> BCN can ask that all of the areas identified in the map be made off-limit=
s to
> dogs. Unfortunately the FP can't afford to put up the fences even if the=
y
> wanted to.
> =20
> And, unfortunately, Thatcher Woods is not on the map. (Dunno why except =
that
> the map is really a booklet and, thus, not everything could be listed.) =
But
> that should not stop us.
> =20
> But since Thatcher Woods is not on the map, we still need the locals to
> identify the vital areas to be protected. "Everything" won't be a reason=
ed
> solution.
> =20
> Randi Doeker
> Chicago
> =20
> =20
> =20
> In a message dated 11/9/2003 12:51:42 AM Central Standard Time,
> tsrecord@ripco.com writes:
>> 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. ;-)
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Terry Schilling
>=20
--B_3151213182_496112
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [BCNnet] Thatcher Woods</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Palatino">This is an interesting thread and I wanted to add jus=
t two cents.<BR>
These migratory birds are Federally Protected. Wouldn’t that add any =
weight to an attempt to protect and/or set aside habitat for them?<BR>
<BR>
I know that only endangered species are protected from “harassment=
221; and other non-fatal injuries, but all of them are protected. <BR>
<BR>
It may not apply here but surely with their national legal standing ,these =
birds should get as much weight and consideration as golfing and dog areas f=
rom the FP. <BR>
<BR>
I think it would be good to post this thread on IBET if it hasn’t bee=
n posted yet- we could at least get some specific input from people that fre=
quent Thatcher and know the birds and their likely areas.<BR>
<BR>
Robbie Hunsinger<BR>
<BR>
PS A far as fences go, I read that they are very effective for contro=
lling deer damage also.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Palatino">Absolutely, Terry.<BR>
<BR>
And we have a vehicle to start with: The new Chicago area birding tra=
il map being developed by the City. It covers the Cook Co. FP (along w=
ith the entire metro area).<BR>
<BR>
BCN can ask that all of the areas identified in the map be made off-limits =
to dogs. Unfortunately the FP can't afford to put up the fences even i=
f they wanted to.<BR>
<BR>
And, unfortunately, Thatcher Woods is not on the map. (Dunno why exce=
pt that the map is really a booklet and, thus, not everything could be liste=
d.) But that should not stop us. <BR>
<BR>
But since Thatcher Woods is not on the map, we still need the locals to ide=
ntify the vital areas to be protected. "Everything" won't be=
a reasoned solution.<BR>
<BR>
Randi Doeker<BR>
Chicago<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/9/2003 12:51:42 AM Central Standard Time, tsrecord@ri=
pco.com writes:<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">It seems to me the best defense is a =
good offense. If dog owners can get <BR>
areas set aside for dog-only use, and golfers can get hundreds of acres <BR=
>
set aside for golf-only use, why can't we get areas set aside for <BR>
birder-only use? A thousand acres here, five hundred acres there, and in <B=
R>
no time at all we'd get some real protection for the FPs. And if a fence <B=
R>
is the only way to keep horses, dogs and ATVs out, so be it. They just <BR>
need to be longer fences than the dog areas use. This could also have <BR>
the salubrious effect of keeping the deer out. ;-)<BR>
<BR>
At the least this might make the commissioners more sensitive to <BR>
appropriate use of certain areas that have value as habitat, because <BR>
apparently the DOGs don't.<BR>
<BR>
Terry Schilling<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Palatino"><BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Palatino"><BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3151213182_496112--