[BCNnet] Re: [vsn-stewards] Fenced Dog Areas
John & Jane Balaban
balx2@comcast.net
Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:15:42 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0207_01C3A706.A1F164E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The big difference between off leash dogs and birders is that only one =
of the groups will use the forest preserves without destroying them. =
That is a major difference! They are not at all equivalent uses. If =
people need to have dogs, and if they need to have their dogs run free, =
then fence off both ends of their street and let the dogs run there. If =
your response is that would be inappropriate, then I say it is just as =
inappropriate for the forest preserves. 99% of the natural land in =
Illinois has already been destroyed. I don't feel that I have to =
"compromise" on the last one percent. If a group of citizens want to =
buy some neglected farmland and turn it into a dog run, fine. But don't =
ask me to pay taxes for natural lands and then fence it off and tell me =
I can't enter without a license while you tear it apart and turn it into =
a mudhole.
When does the compromising end? A business wants five feet of the =
length of a nature preserve so they can dump the snow from their parking =
lot in winter. A museum wants tens of thousands of square feet for a =
parking lot. Another group wants to grade a piece of forest preserve so =
they can have a free place to play soccer every day. A mayor may want =
to build a bigger parking lot for his convention center. A construction =
company might want a road through the middle of a preserve so they can =
reduce their shipping costs and times. Maybe a school district wants to =
build a new environmental science magnet school. Or a university wants =
to reconfigure its parking area and would like a new private driveway =
through the forest preserve next door. Or possibly the fire station in =
town is now inadequate for the growing population. Why do all these =
needs have to met out of the forest preserves? Do I need to compromise =
for these too? When will we knock down some houses for these uses, or =
tear up a street?
Or as in your example, maybe a large constituency decides it does want =
an off-road SUV area. On what grounds do you say it is ok to fence off =
an area for the private use of fee paying dog owners but it is not ok to =
fence off an area for the private use of fee paying ORV owners? What is =
the guiding principal which will allow us to make such decisions? If =
the mission of the forest preserve is, as it is in Cook County, to =
preserve the land for the people of the county in as natural a state as =
it can be, then all uses have to be judged against that guiding rule.=20
I don't think people are being unreasonable when they ask that the =
forest preserves be used as the founding documents declared they should =
be used. We need not to be so quick to compromise what little natural =
land is left or we'll compromise them right out of existence. The =
hundred acre Thatcher preserve cannot support a 60 acre dog run and =
survive. Let's have a hundred acres of nature there instead to visited =
by and enjoyed by any of the residents of the county with their children =
and their friends and their binoculars and their field guides and their =
pet dogs on a leash, and even with their horses and/or bicycles as long =
as they stay on the trails. The preserves can support those uses and =
still remain in as natural a state as they can be.
John Balaban
North Branch Restoration Project
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Joe Suchecki=20
To: VSN Stewards ; BCN=20
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 7:54 PM
Subject: [vsn-stewards] Fenced Dog Areas
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. =20
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.
------=_NextPart_000_0207_01C3A706.A1F164E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The big difference between off leash dogs and =
birders is that=20
only one of the groups will use the forest preserves without destroying=20
them. That is a major difference! They are not at all =
equivalent=20
uses. If people need to have dogs, and if they need to have their =
dogs run=20
free, then fence off both ends of their street and let the dogs run =
there. =20
If your response is that would be inappropriate, then I say it is just =
as=20
inappropriate for the forest preserves. 99% of the natural =
land in=20
Illinois has already been destroyed. I don't feel that I have to=20
"compromise" on the last one percent. If a group of citizens want =
to buy=20
some neglected farmland and turn it into a dog run, fine. But =
don't ask me=20
to pay taxes for natural lands and then fence it off and tell me I can't =
enter=20
without a license while you tear it apart and turn it into a=20
mudhole.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>When does the compromising end? A business =
wants five=20
feet of the length of a nature preserve so they can dump the snow from =
their=20
parking lot in winter. A museum wants tens of thousands of =
square=20
feet for a parking lot. Another group wants to grade a piece of =
forest=20
preserve so they can have a free place to play soccer every day. A =
mayor=20
may want to build a bigger parking lot for his convention center. =
A=20
construction company might want a road through the middle of a preserve =
so they=20
can reduce their shipping costs and times. Maybe a school district =
wants=20
to build a new environmental science magnet school. Or a =
university wants=20
to reconfigure its parking area and would like a new private driveway =
through=20
the forest preserve next door. Or possibly the fire station in =
town is now=20
inadequate for the growing population. Why do all these needs have =
to met=20
out of the forest preserves? Do I need to compromise for these =
too? =20
</FONT><FONT size=3D2>When will we knock down some houses for these =
uses, or tear=20
up a street?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Or as in your example, maybe a large constituency =
decides it=20
does want an off-road SUV area. On what grounds do you say it is =
ok to=20
fence off an area for the private use of fee paying dog owners but it is =
not ok=20
to fence off an area for the private use of fee paying ORV owners? =
What is=20
the guiding principal which will allow us to make such decisions? =20
</FONT><FONT size=3D2>If the mission of the forest preserve is, as it is =
in Cook=20
County, to preserve the land for the people of the county in as natural =
a state=20
as it can be, then all uses have to be judged against that guiding=20
rule. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I don't think people are being unreasonable when =
they ask that=20
the forest preserves be used as the founding documents declared they =
should be=20
used. We need not to be so quick to compromise what little natural =
land is=20
left or we'll compromise them right out of existence. The hundred =
acre=20
Thatcher preserve cannot support a 60 acre dog run and survive. =
Let's have=20
a hundred acres of nature there instead to visited by and enjoyed by any =
of the=20
residents of the county with their children and their friends and their=20
binoculars and their field guides and their pet dogs on a leash, =
and even=20
with their horses and/or bicycles as long as they stay on the =
trails. The=20
preserves can support those uses and still remain in as natural a state =
as they=20
can be.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>John Balaban</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>North Branch Restoration Project</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dissuesman50@yahoo.com =
href=3D"mailto:issuesman50@yahoo.com">Joe=20
Suchecki</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dvsn-stewards@yahoogroups.com=20
href=3D"mailto:vsn-stewards@yahoogroups.com">VSN Stewards</A> ; <A=20
title=3Dbcnnet@ece.iit.edu href=3D"mailto:bcnnet@ece.iit.edu">BCN</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 09, 2003 =
7:54=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [vsn-stewards] Fenced =
Dog=20
Areas</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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=20
is a private use of the Forest Preserve. Dog-owners are the =
public,=20
just like birders. They may be considered a special interest =
group, but=20
it is incorrect to call this a private use.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At Springbrook Prairie in Naperville, DuPage County, off-leash =
dogs have=20
been a problem, but with increased enforcement by the District and =
some public=20
outreach, there has been a slight improvement. Springbrook =
has had=20
an off-leash, unfenced area for over ten years - an area of the =
preserve I=20
generally avoid. However, the District is constructing a new =
larger and=20
fenced area for dogs which will improve the situation greatly at=20
Springbrook. Having a fenced area will greatly reduce the dogs =
who=20
currently roam. One difference in DuPage is that (currently) =
there is no=20
registration or fee and people without dogs can use the area if they =
want=20
to.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would be great if there were no other uses for the Forest =
Preserves=20
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=20
is not going to happen. Those of us interested in birds or =
plants or=20
butterflies have to share the open land with others and hopefully =
educate them=20
on the value of nature in the process. Even though Springbrook =
is a=20
great place for birds and many people bird there, there are many more =
dog=20
walkers than birders, and there is an incredible public demand for =
areas for=20
people to enjoy with their family pets. I hate to say this, but =
if it=20
came down to numbers of voters and dedication to a cause, I think that =
the dog=20
owners would win on both counts. Being practical, I do not think that=20
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=20
interests and Districts to place those fenced areas in places that =
they will=20
do the least harm. Perhaps Thatcher woods does not have enough =
room for=20
a dog area, or the proposed location needs to be changed. Maybe =
a=20
smaller area at Poplar Creek that is an old field with =
no significant=20
grassland bird populations and few native plants can be found. =
As is=20
generally true of all situations, a logical compromise can generally =
be worked=20
out. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At Springbrook, they are building about a 40 acre fenced dog =
field=20
to replace the very overcrowded and more ecologically sensitive =
habitat of the=20
present dog field. It has some disadvantages, but it is in about =
the=20
best location on the site that will also minimize impacts to nearby=20
residents. This is going to work out fine to protect the ecology =
of the=20
most of the preserve and still have a place for the literally hundreds =
of=20
people who want to let their dogs run free every weekend as =
well. =20
There's still nearly 1600 acres at Springbrook for us birders and =
nature=20
enthusiasts to enjoy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, I will fight any additional proposed "special uses" ( such =
as a=20
shooting range, offroad SUV area, concert hall, ballpark, golf course) =
at=20
Springbrook that would significantly reduce the available habitat any=20
further. The dog area, trails, model airplane field is enough =
for one=20
site. Each preserve needs its proper balance, with the very large =
majority of=20
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=20
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=20
ensure that they are properly sited and appropriate for the area where =
they=20
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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0207_01C3A706.A1F164E0--