[BCNnet] Fenced Dog Areas
Joe Suchecki
issuesman50@yahoo.com
Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:54:39 -0800 (PST)
--0-1414109732-1068429279=:26494
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Here's my two cents worth on the dog issue.
First of all, I do not think that creating areas for off-leash dogs is a private use of the Forest Preserve. Dog-owners are the public, just like birders. They may be considered a special interest group, but it is incorrect to call this a private use.
At Springbrook Prairie in Naperville, DuPage County, off-leash dogs have been a problem, but with increased enforcement by the District and some public outreach, there has been a slight improvement. Springbrook has had an off-leash, unfenced area for over ten years - an area of the preserve I generally avoid. However, the District is constructing a new larger and fenced area for dogs which will improve the situation greatly at Springbrook. Having a fenced area will greatly reduce the dogs who currently roam. One difference in DuPage is that (currently) there is no registration or fee and people without dogs can use the area if they want to.
It would be great if there were no other uses for the Forest Preserves and that they could all be natural areas - no trails, do dog areas, no airplane fields, no picnic areas, no nature centers, no parking lots, but this is not going to happen. Those of us interested in birds or plants or butterflies have to share the open land with others and hopefully educate them on the value of nature in the process. Even though Springbrook is a great place for birds and many people bird there, there are many more dog walkers than birders, and there is an incredible public demand for areas for people to enjoy with their family pets. I hate to say this, but if it came down to numbers of voters and dedication to a cause, I think that the dog owners would win on both counts. Being practical, I do not think that demanding an end to off-leash areas is winnable.
Having said that, I think that it would be better to work with the dog interests and Districts to place those fenced areas in places that they will do the least harm. Perhaps Thatcher woods does not have enough room for a dog area, or the proposed location needs to be changed. Maybe a smaller area at Poplar Creek that is an old field with no significant grassland bird populations and few native plants can be found. As is generally true of all situations, a logical compromise can generally be worked out.
At Springbrook, they are building about a 40 acre fenced dog field to replace the very overcrowded and more ecologically sensitive habitat of the present dog field. It has some disadvantages, but it is in about the best location on the site that will also minimize impacts to nearby residents. This is going to work out fine to protect the ecology of the most of the preserve and still have a place for the literally hundreds of people who want to let their dogs run free every weekend as well. There's still nearly 1600 acres at Springbrook for us birders and nature enthusiasts to enjoy.
Now, I will fight any additional proposed "special uses" ( such as a shooting range, offroad SUV area, concert hall, ballpark, golf course) at Springbrook that would significantly reduce the available habitat any further. The dog area, trails, model airplane field is enough for one site. Each preserve needs its proper balance, with the very large majority of habitat being preserved in a natural state.
Lastly, I don't think we should go down the path of special birding areas. We might get what we ask for. I'm not interested in paying $50 or $100 per year to go birding in the Forest Preserves.
My advice, don't automatically oppose fenced dog areas. Work to ensure that they are properly sited and appropriate for the area where they will be located on a case-by-case situation.
Joe Suchecki
Site Steward and Bird Monitor
Springbrook Prairie.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
--0-1414109732-1068429279=:26494
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>Here's my two cents worth on the dog issue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First of all, I do not think that creating areas for off-leash dogs is a private use of the Forest Preserve. Dog-owners are the public, just like birders. They may be considered a special interest group, but it is incorrect to call this a private use.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At Springbrook Prairie in Naperville, DuPage County, off-leash dogs have been a problem, but with increased enforcement by the District and some public outreach, there has been a slight improvement. Springbrook has had an off-leash, unfenced area for over ten years - an area of the preserve I generally avoid. However, the District is constructing a new larger and fenced area for dogs which will improve the situation greatly at Springbrook. Having a fenced area will greatly reduce the dogs who currently roam. One difference in DuPage is that (currently) there is no registration or fee and people without dogs can use the area if they want to.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would be great if there were no other uses for the Forest Preserves and that they could all be natural areas - no trails, do dog areas, no airplane fields, no picnic areas, no nature centers, no parking lots, but this is not going to happen. Those of us interested in birds or plants or butterflies have to share the open land with others and hopefully educate them on the value of nature in the process. Even though Springbrook is a great place for birds and many people bird there, there are many more dog walkers than birders, and there is an incredible public demand for areas for people to enjoy with their family pets. I hate to say this, but if it came down to numbers of voters and dedication to a cause, I think that the dog owners would win on both counts. Being practical, I do not think that demanding an end to off-leash areas is winnable.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Having said that, I think that it would be better to work with the dog interests and Districts to place those fenced areas in places that they will do the least harm. Perhaps Thatcher woods does not have enough room for a dog area, or the proposed location needs to be changed. Maybe a smaller area at Poplar Creek that is an old field with no significant grassland bird populations and few native plants can be found. As is generally true of all situations, a logical compromise can generally be worked out. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At Springbrook, they are building about a 40 acre fenced dog field to replace the very overcrowded and more ecologically sensitive habitat of the present dog field. It has some disadvantages, but it is in about the best location on the site that will also minimize impacts to nearby residents. This is going to work out fine to protect the ecology of the most of the preserve and still have a place for the literally hundreds of people who want to let their dogs run free every weekend as well. There's still nearly 1600 acres at Springbrook for us birders and nature enthusiasts to enjoy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, I will fight any additional proposed "special uses" ( such as a shooting range, offroad SUV area, concert hall, ballpark, golf course) at Springbrook that would significantly reduce the available habitat any further. The dog area, trails, model airplane field is enough for one site. Each preserve needs its proper balance, with the very large majority of habitat being preserved in a natural state.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lastly, I don't think we should go down the path of special birding areas. We might get what we ask for. I'm not interested in paying $50 or $100 per year to go birding in the Forest Preserves.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My advice, don't automatically oppose fenced dog areas. Work to ensure that they are properly sited and appropriate for the area where they will be located on a case-by-case situation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joe Suchecki</DIV>
<DIV>Site Steward and Bird Monitor</DIV>
<DIV>Springbrook Prairie. </DIV></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree">Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard</a>
--0-1414109732-1068429279=:26494--