[BCNnet] Judy Mellin essay Re: Thatcher Woods Dog Park

Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:10:59 EST

--part1_130.283bd55e.2cf17133_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The following essay, written by Judy Mellin regarding the proposed Thatcher=20
Woods Dog Park, was recently published in 5 or more Pioneer Press editions.

Walter Marcisz, Chicago, Cook Co.
WJMarcisz@aol.com =20

>=20
> >>=20
>> >>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Dog parks are not good for preserves=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> =20
>>> Palatine resident Judy Mellin is the volunteer bird monitor for the Popl=
ar=20
>>> Creek Forest Preserve District stewards in Hoffman Estates.
>>>=20
>>> =20
>>> By Judy Mellin=20
>>>=20
>>> =20
>>> In the Images section of the Nov.  6 issue, Pioneer Press ran an article=
=20
>>> titled =B3Dogs have their day at forest preserves.=B2 I have to say how=20
>>> surprised I am that our already overtaxed forest preserves are being div=
ided up=20
>>> into special interest areas by fences and fees.
>>>=20
>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>=20
>>> GUEST ESSAY=20
>>>=20
>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>=20
>>> This issue raises many questions including these: As taxpayers, how can=20=
we=20
>>> be excluded from public land?  What is the environmental threat to water=
=20
>>> tables?  Who is responsible for any problems such as dog fights that wou=
ld=20
>>> arise?  Every question raises only more.
>>>=20
>>> How much land are we talking about here?  I think taxpayers should look=20
>>> beyond the information in this story, which states, =B3All (Gia) Heybroc=
k=B9s=20
>>> group wanted was a fence around a few acres of land at the side of a pon=
d with=20
>>> access to a parking lot so their dogs could run off-leash.=B2 Would it c=
ause=20
>>> anyone concern to know that these =B3few acres=B2 at Beck Lake are actua=
lly 22=20
>>> acres (according to www.becklakedogs.org/tour.htm) and the proposal for=20
>>> Thatcher Woods is for as much as 60 acres (according to=20
>>> www.thatcherdog.com/news.htm)?  The land at Beck Lake is now off-limits=20=
to the general public or=20
>>> to those with dogs who cannot afford the $50 fee.
>>>=20
>>> Now Heybrock is =B3working on ...  easing limits to the number of dogs=20
>>> allowed=B2 and =B3expanding the area.=B2 How large will these areas grow=
 and how many=20
>>> of them will be set up?  Who is dispensing these permits?  Are they open=
 to=20
>>> anyone or only to those that the committee feels should have them?
>>>=20
>>> How much will this cost and can the Cook County Forest Preserve District=
=20
>>> afford it?  The second part of that question is very easy to answer, and=
 it=20
>>> is a resounding =B3no.=B2 If 500 permits are issued at $50 each, that wo=
uld=20
>>> raise $25,000.  I am no contractor, but it would seem that this would no=
t=20
>>> begin to cover the cost of the initial fencing of a 22-acre area.
>>>=20
>>> The cost would be higher for the proposed area at Thatcher Woods because=
=20
>>> of its larger size.  Who will police the area and maintain the fence?  I=
f=20
>>> vandals tear the fencing down, would there be a special assessment of th=
e=20
>>> license holders to put it back up?
>>>=20
>>> If the area encompasses a pond, is the entire pond fenced, keeping out=20
>>> people who want to fish?  Will these areas stop the problem of unleashed=
 dogs=20
>>> in our forest preserves?
>>>=20
>>> I would fear that it would only exacerbate this problem.  Forest preserv=
es=20
>>> could come to be viewed as totally =B3dog friendly=B2 and more people co=
uld be=20
>>> out with unleashed animals.
>>>=20
>>> I was charged by two Rottweilers at the Poplar Creek Forest Preserve in=20
>>> Hoffman Estates while the owner stood by.  I cannot imagine that he woul=
d pay=20
>>> $50 a year when he has open access to an entire preserve.
>>>=20
>>> The district does not have the personnel to enforce existing leash laws,=
=20
>>> and dog parks would do nothing to stop the problem of loose dogs.
>>>=20
>>> Several years ago, I saw three men training attack dogs in the picnic ar=
ea=20
>>> of a preserve.  Will those people be issued a permit for the dog run are=
a=20
>>> to keep them away from the general public?
>>>=20
>>> But, beyond the issue of dog parks, I see this as a very bad precedent.
>>>=20
>>> Yes, folks will say that forest preserves house golf courses and tennis=20
>>> courts that are fee-based, but the fact remains that anyone can pay the=20=
fee=20
>>> and use the property.  What will happen when skeet shooters or bocce pla=
yers=20
>>> decide that they deserve =B3their share=B2 of forest preserve land, with=
=20
>>> fences and exclusive use?  How much can the preserves < and the public <=
=20
>>> tolerate?
>>>=20
>>> The dog runs are a very different situation in that, if I don=B9t have a=
=20
>>> permit, I cannot enter the area.  I feel that this is private use of pub=
lic=20
>>> land and should not be permitted.
>>>=20
>>> In my mind, the most important question is this: Does this action furthe=
r=20
>>> the core mission of the district to =B3preserve, protect and restore the=
=20
>>> natural land?=B2 I truly cannot see where it does any of those things.
>>> The article concludes by saying, =B3Park districts=B9 inability to provi=
de dog=20
>>> parks is why dog enthusiasts turn to forest preserve districts.=B2 I say=
 our=20
>>> preserves have been dumped on enough without this.  I hope the Cook Coun=
ty=20
>>> Board will take a hard look at all of these issues before any other dog=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20

--part1_130.283bd55e.2cf17133_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>The following essay, writ=
ten by Judy Mellin regarding the proposed Thatcher Woods Dog Park, was recen=
tly published in 5 or more Pioneer Press editions.
 
 Walter Marcisz, Chicago, Cook Co.
 WJMarcisz@aol.com &nbsp;
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px so=
lid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
 
 Dog parks are not good for preserves </=
FONT>
 
 
 
 
 
 =20
 Palatine resident Judy Mellin is the volunteer bird monitor for the Popl=
ar Creek Forest Preserve District stewards in Hoffman Estates.
 
 =20
 By Judy Mellin=20
 
 =20
 In the Images section of the Nov. &nbsp;6 issue, Pioneer Press ran an ar=
ticle titled =B3Dogs have their day at forest preserves.=B2 I have to say ho=
w surprised I am that our already overtaxed forest preserves are being divid=
ed up into special interest areas by fences and fees.
 
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 
 GUEST ESSAY=20
 
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 
 This issue raises many questions including these: As taxpayers, how can=20=
we be excluded from public land? &nbsp;What is the environmental threat to w=
ater tables? &nbsp;Who is responsible for any problems such as dog fights th=
at would arise? &nbsp;Every question raises only more.
 
 How much land are we talking about here? &nbsp;I think taxpayers should=20=
look beyond the information in this story, which states, =B3All (Gia) Heybro=
ck=B9s group wanted was a fence around a few acres of land at the side of a=20=
pond with access to a parking lot so their dogs could run off-leash.=B2 Woul=
d it cause anyone concern to know that these =B3few acres=B2 at Beck Lake ar=
e actually 22 acres (according to www.becklakedogs.org/tour.htm) and the pro=
posal for Thatcher Woods is for as much as 60 acres (according to www.thatch=
erdog.com/news.htm)? &nbsp;The land at Beck Lake is now off-limits to the ge=
neral public or to those with dogs who cannot afford the $50 fee.
 
 Now Heybrock is =B3working on ... &nbsp;easing limits to the number of d=
ogs allowed=B2 and =B3expanding the area.=B2 How large will these areas grow=
 and how many of them will be set up? &nbsp;Who is dispensing these permits?=
 &nbsp;Are they open to anyone or only to those that the committee feels sho=
uld have them?
 
 How much will this cost and can the Cook County Forest Preserve District=
 afford it? &nbsp;The second part of that question is very easy to answer, a=
nd it is a resounding =B3no.=B2 If 500 permits are issued at $50 each, that=20=
would raise $25,000. &nbsp;I am no contractor, but it would seem that this w=
ould not begin to cover the cost of the initial fencing of a 22-acre area.
 
 The cost would be higher for the proposed area at Thatcher Woods because=
 of its larger size. &nbsp;Who will police the area and maintain the fence?=20=
&nbsp;If vandals tear the fencing down, would there be a special assessment=20=
of the license holders to put it back up?
 
 If the area encompasses a pond, is the entire pond fenced, keeping out p=
eople who want to fish? &nbsp;Will these areas stop the problem of unleashed=
 dogs in our forest preserves?
 
 I would fear that it would only exacerbate this problem. &nbsp;Forest pr=
eserves could come to be viewed as totally =B3dog friendly=B2 and more peopl=
e could be out with unleashed animals.
 
 I was charged by two Rottweilers at the Poplar Creek Forest Preserve in=20=
Hoffman Estates while the owner stood by. &nbsp;I cannot imagine that he wou=
ld pay $50 a year when he has open access to an entire preserve.
 
 The district does not have the personnel to enforce existing leash laws,=
 and dog parks would do nothing to stop the problem of loose dogs.
 
 Several years ago, I saw three men training attack dogs in the picnic ar=
ea of a preserve. &nbsp;Will those people be issued a permit for the dog run=
 area to keep them away from the general public?
 
 But, beyond the issue of dog parks, I see this as a very bad precedent.
 
 Yes, folks will say that forest preserves house golf courses and tennis=20=
courts that are fee-based, but the fact remains that anyone can pay the fee=20=
and use the property. &nbsp;What will happen when skeet shooters or bocce pl=
ayers decide that they deserve =B3their share=B2 of forest preserve land, wi=
th fences and exclusive use? &nbsp;How much can the preserves &lt; and the p=
ublic &lt; tolerate?
 
 The dog runs are a very different situation in that, if I don=B9t have a=
 permit, I cannot enter the area. &nbsp;I feel that this is private use of p=
ublic land and should not be permitted.
 
 In my mind, the most important question is this: Does this action furthe=
r the core mission of the district to =B3preserve, protect and restore the n=
atural land?=B2 I truly cannot see where it does any of those things.
 The article concludes by saying, =B3Park districts=B9 inability to provi=
de dog parks is why dog enthusiasts turn to forest preserve districts.=B2 I=20=
say our preserves have been dumped on enough without this. &nbsp;I hope the=20=
Cook County Board will take a hard look at all of these issues before any ot=
her dog runs are approved.</BLOCKQUOTE>
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 </HTML>

--part1_130.283bd55e.2cf17133_boundary--