[BCNnet] Re: [vsn-stewards] Fenced Dog Areas

[stephen packard]

I totally agree with the John Balaban's wise and inspiring words. I think we
can get there, perhaps soon.

But I also find Joe Suchecki's words compelling, for example:

"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."

What's especially significant about Joe's analysis is that he has for years
been negotiating, speaking at Board meetings, and trying to focus on the
priorities that will make the biggest difference at Springbrook. He has a
lot of gains to protect. He doesn't want to alienate a powerful constituency
if he doesn't have to.

DuPage County is doing a better job on enforcement because people who are
the core FPD constituency are pushing for it. The DuPage stewards and
birders have a long history of being active and effective with the FPD board
members, and the new board there gives them great opportunities to show what
can (and can't) be done with publicly owned forest preserves.

In Cook County currently, dog owners are regular attendees at FPD board
meetings and are otherwise hard at work to win over the Commissioners. So
far there's been very little public comment from anybody opposing dog areas.
We have to remember that listserv discussions don't translate into impact on
Commissioners (and may even have the counterproductive effect of taking the
place of writing a note or calling a Commissioner).

But the listserv is great as part of the process of exploring ideas and
building consensus among ourselves.

I believe that a huge majority of voters more or less supports maintaining
healthy natural ecosystems in the forest preserves. Our challenge is to
reach out to that majority while building an effective activist base of
forest preserve supporters. Joe Scheck and John Balaban have both put a lot
of noble work into that cause. Of course, we can't stop everything else to
work on dog issues. We still have to work on deer control, the budget,
mosquito pesticiding, controlled burns, and many others. And we need, as
much as possible, the support of others.

In Cook County, the Friends of the Forest Preserves have been working
recently mostly on the land management guidelines, controlled burns, the
budget and some model projects (Bartel, Orland, and Spring Creek). The
Friends haven't taken up the dog issue specifically, and we should. We (the
Friends activists, which include good numbers of stewards and birders) have
given some thought to the strategic implications of our relationships with
the mountain bikers, trail bikers, equestrians, fisherfolk, and some other
groups. I (like Alan Anderson) wish the Friends were ready to provide some
leadership on the fenced dog areas. But we need more participants to do more
things.

The Friends work is organized by (sometimes overlapping) campaigns. Jane
Balaban and Barbara Hill have done most of the organizational work for the
"Habitat Restoration Campaign" of the Friends. Judy Pollock has done most of
the organizational work on the "Bird Conservation Campaign." I'm sure they'd
welcome help.

Stephen Packard

(For those who ask that we identify ourselves, I'm active in Audubon,
Friends of the Forest Preserves, North Branch Restoration Project, Bird
Conservation Network, Chicago Wilderness, and others.)


----- Original Message -----
From: "John & Jane Balaban" <balx2@comcast.net>
To: "BCN" <BCNnet@ece.iit.edu>; "VSN Stewards"
<vsn-stewards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 9:15 PM
Subject: [BCNnet] Re: [vsn-stewards] Fenced Dog Areas


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.

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 -----
  From: Joe Suchecki
  To: VSN Stewards ; BCN
  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.

  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.