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

[judymellin]

Hi Terry- thanks for you "tongue in cheek" comments!  This was a very funny
illustration of what happens when ANY special interest group decides that
it's needs outweigh those of the general public.  I'd gladly pay $50 a year
to turn the 600 acre restoration site at Poplar Creek private.  Who cares
about the hundreds of folks who would be paying taxes but who would be
denied usage?  They're the "little people" and they don't count!

Now, on to a more serious note, I think Walter is correct in saying that the
fencing at Thatcher Woods is not a "done deal."  Even if it appears to be, I
heard on the radio this AM that the Friends of (the late) Meigs Field still
haven't given up!  If they are still working on the remains of the runways,
then nothing is cast in stone.

Now, I understand that, despite the article that Alan posted where the
proponents are talking about the "few acres" they want set aside, there is
nothing "few" about them.  The Beck Lake is over 20 acres and the proposal
at Thatcher Woods is in excess of 60 acres.  That's 1/10 of our entire
restoration site at Poplar Creek!

And what will keep the dog owners from using the rest of Thatcher Woods as
they do now since there will be no enforcement?  I would imagine that dogs
run free there just as they do in all of our forest preserves and will
continue to do so.

This serves no purpose.

Judy Mellin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Schilling" <tsrecord@ripco.com>
To: <BCNnet@ece.iit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 12:52 AM
Subject: [BCNnet] Re: fencing FP areas; why not us?


> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> bcnnet mailing list
> bcnnet@ece.iit.edu
> http://www.ece.iit.edu/mailman/listinfo/bcnnet
>