[BCNnet] fencing FP areas; questions and important article
COszak@aol.com
COszak@aol.com
Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:45:43 EST
-------------------------------1068403543
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 11/8/2003 3:29:39 PM Central Standard Time,
casresearch@comcast.net writes:
1) how far might this go? how many other groups will ask for forest
preserve areas to be set aside (fenced in and only 'those paying' can get in) and
when/where would it end? I certainly believe that this will not end with just
the Beck Lake and Thatcher area dog groups. The Beck Lake group is at its
permit level (3OO or 500?) already so you know that there are many dog owners
who might want a separate set-aside area in the forest preserves, and maybe
additional groups (not dog owners but other groups) that might want a similar
area in the future. And where? the Beck Lake dog area includes a pond, a
creek and adjacent wetlands - will wetlands always be the desired spot?
2) if they want to "co-exist" with others, then why are all others kept out
of this area - a public forest preserve?
3) I doubt it would be good to discuss all of the issues/concerns involved
with them at their Nov. 18th meeting, but would it be ok to suggest that a few
Cook County Commissioners and members of Thatcher Dog get together with reps
from BCN to discuss the issues/concerns in the future?
As Terry pointed out there are already a large number of special use areas in
the FP's. Maybe
I'm surprised that 300-500 people paid $50 for permits at Beck Lake. Are the
permits issued for one site use or any dog area in Cook County? I would want
the dog areas to free of charge, and there should be enough of them located
around the county that there would be no excuse for letting a dog run off leash
in other areas. I think every FP in CC has a huge paved parking lot adjacent
to a huge mowed area. Dog exercise areas could be put up in most of those
spots with no impact on the natural areas.
I don't think it would be a good idea to go to the commissioners and tell
them not to put in dog areas because you want to use the area for birding. Like
someone else said, it's better to use your data and input to make sure the dog
areas are put up where they have the least negative impact on wildlife.
Chris Oszak
-------------------------------1068403543
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUTF-8 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charse=
t=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 11/8/2003 3:29:39 PM Central Standard Time, casresea=
rch@comcast.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1) how far might this go? how m=
any other groups will ask for forest preserve areas to be set aside (fenced=20=
in and only 'those paying' can get in) and when/where would it end? &nb=
sp; I certainly believe that this will not end with just the Beck Lake and T=
hatcher area dog groups. The Beck Lake group is at its per=
mit level (3OO or 500?) already so you know that there are many dog own=
ers who might want a separate set-aside area in the forest preserves,=20=
and maybe additional groups (not dog owners but other groups) that might wan=
t a similar area in the future. And where? the=
Beck Lake dog area includes a pond, a creek and adjacent wetlands - w=
ill wetlands always be the desired spot? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2) if they want to "co-exist" with ot=
hers, then why are all others kept out of this area - a public forest preser=
ve?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3) I doubt it would be good to discus=
s all of the issues/concerns involved with them at their Nov. 18th meeting,=20=
but would it be ok to suggest that a few Cook County Commissioners and membe=
rs of Thatcher Dog get together with reps from BCN to discuss the issues/con=
cerns in the future? </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>As Terry pointed out there are already a large number of special use ar=
eas in the FP's. Maybe </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm surprised that 300-500 people paid $50 for permits at Beck Lake.&nb=
sp; Are the permits issued for one site use or any dog area in Cook County?&=
nbsp; I would want the dog areas to free of charge, and there should be enou=
gh of them located around the county that there would be no excuse for letti=
ng a dog run off leash in other areas. I think every FP in C=
C has a huge paved parking lot adjacent to a huge mowed area. Dog exer=
cise areas could be put up in most of those spots with no impact on the natu=
ral areas.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't think it would be a good idea to go to the commissioners and te=
ll them not to put in dog areas because you want to use the area for birding=
. Like someone else said, it's better to use your data and input to ma=
ke sure the dog areas are put up where they have the least negative impact o=
n wildlife.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10"=
>Chris Oszak</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1068403543--