[BCNnet] Thatcher Visit,11/9: DFA

[Anderson, Jill]

I've been asked by several subscribers of BCNnet to give input on Thatcher 
Woods as it relates to a proposed dog park, due to my monitoring activities
at that site. I subscribed to BCNnet today in order to reply. Although I
havent had a chance to read everything yet, I'm impressed by how
knowledgeable and informed the posts have become over the weekend, and I
believe most of what I've been asked to clarify has already been clarified.
When I responded to Randi's call for Thatcher birders on IBET last Friday, 
I thought I had adequately answered her questions at that time.
By the looks of the email received at my work address over the weekend, it 
appears this is not the case. It also appears that, at least early on, there
was confusion over what a proposed dog park was and what it would mean to
the CC FP and its visitors.
Alan Anderson did a good job of explaining the situation at Beck Lake, 
which is the model upon which Thatcher Woods Dog Park is based. The only
additional point I'll make is that this, indeed, is an arrangement 
for "private" use.
In a BCNnet post, Randi said, "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."
This is, sadly, not true. The Beck Lake Dog Group has claimed land for the 
sole use of a small group, which is RESTRICTED. At Beck Lake, 500 permits
were sold. Other dog owners wished to join, but were denied because the
maximal permits had been sold. The "have nots" can't sign on to a waiting
list, because there presently is no waiting list and the "haves" have no
intention of surrendering their permits. So these activities are NOT 
"readily available to any citizen wanting to follow the rules" . Instead, 
500 people have 22 acres (with a proposal to increase the size of the 
park) for their sole and exclusive use.
Some might conclude that this suggests more dog parks be created, at more
sites, to meet the demand. This is precisely my concern.
The Thatcher Dog Park proposes to fence in 60 acres of land - almost 3 X the
size of the Beck Lake Dog Park, and make it keycard accessible to those with
permits. I can only hope that this is a negotiation strategy: By asking for
an entire preserve (to me, 60 acres is the equivalent of an 
entire site) they can perhaps bargain for, and possibly obtain, an area 
within that preserve. I have no idea how the Group came up with the 
proposed 40-60 acres, but when I hear the plan discussed, it is always 
referred to as "60 acres". I dont believe that, because the Dog Group 
asked for 60 acres, it should be ceded to them, so commissioners can 
say "yes" to something that makes money.
I also doubt I'd be able to purchase a permit at Thatcher, given that I do
not own a dog and the permit distributors will be the Thatcher Dog Group.
Although I cannot support any site in Thatcher Woods for the proposed Dog 
Park, I CAN speak to the conditions at each site.
Because I am least familiar with the Fullerton site, I went to visit there
(and at the other proposed sites) to obtain more information on Sunday.

here is a commentary on the 3 sites I visited:

There are 3 FP sites listed on the ThatcherDog website as potential Dog 
Park Areas: 1) "Thatcher Woods" North of Chicago Ave, River Forest, 2) 
Evans Field, Elmwood Park and 3) Fullerton Woods East, River Grove.
I am most familiar with the Southern-most site in River Forest, North of 
Chicago Ave. This area, and the area South of Chicago Ave (around 
Trailside Museum), is what is commonly referred to as "Thatcher Woods". 
Organized bird walks at "Thatcher" cover this area. I began monitoring at 
this site for BCN in 2001, although my birding here goes back to childhood.
Evans Field is best known as an alleged burial grounds for the Mafia. Law 
enforcement officials dug around in this preserve a few years back, on a 
tip, but found nothing. I bird this site only a few times a year, but I 
have visited and birded here regularly, since the 1960's.
I am least familiar with Fullerton Woods East. I attended birthday parties 
and picnics here as a child, but never birded this site until this weekend.

I visited each site on Sunday morning, 11/9. I went with the focus of 
counting and recording visitor activity at each site, so I chose to start 
later in the morning. I started at 11 AM. Birding was commensurate at all 
3 sites, and I stayed 20"-30" at each site. I did not count myself at any
site.

I started at Fullerton Woods East. When I arrived I saw 4 adults in 3 cars 
(reading the paper, conversing, and ?). I walked the area, found 2 fresh 
piles of dog feces, and observed recent human boot prints and large dog 
paw-prints in mud along the trail. As I returned to the car, I saw a man 
with an unleashed dog. Both were friendly.

At Evans Field, I saw 1 man reading the paper in his car, and 1 man 
walking in the field. This man kept looking towards the parking lot, until 
another man drove up and went to join him. The trash cans here were full 
of evident remnants of a party - pizza boxes, discarded wrapping paper and 
ribbons, etc.

Thatcher Woods N of Chicago Ave had the most activity. I saw 21 adults, 4 
teens, 5 children, and 8 dogs.  3 dogs were leashed, 4 were unleashed, and 
1 was leaving in a car (owner driven) as I arrived. Activities included 
reading the paper in the car, eating lunch, hiking, jogging, walking,
playing with children, exercising dogs, socializing, and casual birding.
This last activity was performed by a woman walking a leashed dog, who
recognized me, gave me a verbal account of birds seen, and asked me a bird
ID question. Trash cans were overflowing with the remains of 1 very large,
or several smaller, picnics.

 From an activity standpoint: Evans Field was the least utilized area on 
 Sunday around 11:30 AM. This is, of course, one point of data, and means 
 little. Obviously, a lot of pizza was eaten there on Saturday.
 From a "degradation of the environment" standpoint, the Fullerton site 
 had the most ho-hum habitat. Evans Field has wetlands, a field and a
savannah, in addition to deciduous woods. The River Forest site has the
closest access to the river, wetlands, a field, and deciduous woods.
Fullerton Woods has a field and deciduous woods, with dry culverts that
likely fill with runoff during Spring. 
An important caveat, however, is that a path in Fullerton Woods leads UNDER
First Avenue, to higher quality woodland on the West side of First Ave.  I
know of no place to park off of First Avenue to access this area. It is 
therefore important to retain egress to this area, should there be future  
construction of barricades.

It is impossible to consider any site, without considering the size of the 
land parcel. The difference between 22 acres at Beck Lake to 40 to 60 
acres is huge.  It is unrealistic and dangerous to discuss sites without a 
clear sense of what area is involved. (this might be my own confusion,
however. The Thatcher Dog Group may, indeed, be requesting the entire site
at one of any of these preserves. If someone can clarify this for me, I
would appreciate it)
 I'd be willing to return to these sites when I have a clearer sense of what
land parcels are involved, and others are welcome to join me. 
It would be helpful to gather more data on visitor use, as well, as a
primary point in the Thatcher Dog Group's proposal is that "dogwalkers are
the only ones who use the Forest Preserves anyway."
I strongly recommend that anyone with concerns visit the Beck Lake area. 
This is the model upon which the Thatcher Woods Proposal is based, and 
really must be seen to be appreciated.  I have visited Beck Lake several 
times since the installation of the fence. It will give you a smaller 
sense of what is being proposed at Thatcher, and will also provide 
enlightenment on the impact of surrounding areas.

There have been different terms used throughout this discussion. I'd like 
to clarifiy that a Dog Training or Exercise Area is quite different than
what is posited in this proposal, which the dog groups refer to as a "Dog
Friendly Area". 
Training and Exercise Areas are sites dedicated to special use, but are 
open to all. A DFA is a fenced in area accessible only to a select and
limited population.
In my correspondence with commissioners and Richard Newhard, Resource 
Director for the FP, I have discovered that there is a lack of understanding
regarding many of the issues that are being discussed on BCN-net. Mr Newhard
did not even know about the proposal in September, 2003.

I realize that our opinions will always be our own, but by reading some of
the thoughtful and knowledgeable posts on this topic, I hope to attain a
better perspective on this issue.

Thank you,
Jill Anderson
BCN Bird Monitor- Thatcher