[BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)
Birdchris@aol.com
Birdchris@aol.com
Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:48:01 EST
-------------------------------1074055681
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I agree with both Randi and Jill here.
Jill is right that the problem is obviously that the CCFPD needs to overhaul
all of its land use practices and regulations and come into the 21st century.
Randi is right in that the CCFPD just doesn't seem to see the need to do this
and will continue to develop its policies in reaction rather than from an
overarching statement of purpose which is then translated into concrete
regulations, practices and working methods.
The solution is to try to influence the CCFPD on the first point, but not to
lose the battles while you are waiting to win the war. Taking the high ground
on this one likely cause us to lose the battle about dog parks and probably,
the war itself.
I hate the idea of dog parks on public land, but they are coming and unless
we insist and convince the CCFPD that it must develop appropriate practices and
regulations to govern if, when and where dog areas are approved, we will soon
be swamped with these doggie playgrounds.
COS's position is being misinterpreted. Maybe the document I posted up here
is unclear. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, of course.
I boiled down COS's position, below. Hit delete now if you are sick of this
debate as the points aren't short!
Christine Williamson
Chicago/Cook
birdchris@aol.com
COS Dog Area Recommendations (A Boil Down)
First, COS is NOT in support of dog areas. Rather, if they are going to
happen (and it seems they will), our recommendations are that:
- Commissioners come up with a fair way of evaluating applications that
includes opportunity for public input that is HEARD and HEEDED. Right now, there
are NO controls AT ALL. COS is demanding that Commissioners take control and
that the public be allowed to help them evaluate any proposals;
- that the CCFPD come up with a map of places where dog areas can and can't
be located (to eliminate a lot of argument ahead of time). Staff is in the best
position to draw the map of their own environmentally sensitive areas. This
would include all designated natural areas and their buffers, anything with
water, anywhere endangered species are present (if they come in, the area gets
closed to off-leash dogs), anywhere significant restoration is planned. It is
assumed that the YES areas for dog parks will be small once all the restrictions
we suggest are considered. ALL that's left as a YES are going to be ratty old
corn fields, I think;
- that total acreage of any single dog area is small and that overall acreage
is controlled. If the CCFPD has said in its land management practices doc
that not more than 12% of its properties can be developed, then our suggested
tiny % of total acreage will put a lid on the total amount of dog parks. We doubt
the total suggested will be used;
- we demand enforcement and continued monitoring or the areas would be closed
to off-leash use;
- we demand that dog areas be open to everyone, fenced or not. These are NOT
private use areas in COS's proposal. They would be areas where dogs are
permitted off-leash, but there would be NO restriction on other users at all;
- there is precedent in the CCFPD for specialized use land designations,
contrary to what some are alleging. Model airplane fields, tobaggon slides, pools,
fishing areas, etc. I don't agree with these uses, either, but they all are
MORE restrictive to general use (because you have to pay to use them in most
cases) than the dog areas which under COS's proposal would be open to all CCFPD
users.
Basically, all that COS and hopefully BCN is saying that under certain very
restrictive circumstances, we would not oppose the siting of a dog park. That
cannot be construed as SUPPORT. We've written the recs so restrictively that as
Walter Marcisz astutely pointed out, they actually will act as a deterrent to
establishment of these dog areas. We want the CCFPD commissioners to adopt
these proposals because we think the public process for decision-making, the
strict siting restrictions, and the absolute need for enforcement and monitoring
(which the CCFPD can't afford, anyway), will be a deterrent. And if a dog
group is determined enough to get past all these barriers and THEN has to jump
through a lot of hoops for many years to keep their small dog area viable, it is
extremely unlikely that their dog park will negatively impact birds, humans or
the environment.
Maybe these points and the political strategy are too subtle? However, you
obviously can't baldly state much of the strategy I outlined in the previous
paragraph OUT LOUD in the recommendations we will ask the CCFPD to adopt. OF
COURSE the CCFPD commissioners would balk if we said in the receommendations:
"Here, adopt these principles because we KNOW they will be so restrictive that the
dog people will GO AWAY FOR GOOD!" The dog people would go nuts.
But if you sit back and think about it (and I have, at great length both
before my 16 hours in the car on a recent journey to Duluth and back), the bird
groups will get what they need (as opposed, perhaps, to what they want) if the
CCFPD Commissioners were to adopt these proposals - few if any dog parks will
be proposed at all; the chance to defeat them if they are proposed; the
ability to get shut down of dog parks that are approved and then don't work out; the
recognition by the CCFPD that birders are thoughtful, logical and
forward-thinking users of the preserves.
If bird groups take a position of blanket opposition to dog groups, I think
we'll lose. And then will have to deal with a bigger mess as these damn dog
areas get proposed all over the place with no controls and no warning. With
experience, I've learned that there are some things you won't be able to stop and
that it's sometimes better to take the offensive by recommending a really
logical way to deal with what seems like an inevitable trend that actually will
discourage it from happening and if it does, will make sure the process is fairer
and the outcome better for birds.
In a message dated 1/10/2004 9:02:52 AM Central Standard Time,
Rbdoeker@aol.com writes:
Jill
I think the gotcha on this is that the FP commissioners approach issues --or
have them forced on them by citizens-- in a haphazard manner.
They rarely have mission-statement discussions. What they have to vote on
are specific actions. A general position statement about the FP's mission
somehow never translates into 'vote No on dog parks or parking lots for museums or
swimming pools or .....'
Letters about DFAs now are great but we will need them again in May/June. A
letter now does not negate the need for another in the summer when the DFA
proposal comes before the Board.
"The train's left the station' because the Thatcher Dog group is actively
seeking a DFA spot. Based on the experience at Montrose Beach I see nothing that
will cause them to give up. Dog groups get a lot of support and
encouragement for their work. Their success will encourage others, and this cascades to
a growing expectation by dog owners that DFAs should be provided by the FP.
It rapidly is seen as an entitlement.
That's what has happened in Chicago. I can't go to a meeting in my
neighborhood without hearing at least 3 people call for a DFA. The citizens are
completely oblivious to the efforts that the dog owners had to go through to get DFAs
elsewhere. What they see is that others have a dog park and we don't. Right
now the park district requires the dog group to pay for 50% of the DFA
($50+K) but the next Park Superintendent could change.
Thus, I personally believe that the best offense is a good defense: Beat the
dog groups to the FP in terms of designating where DFAs might be. The
environmental community should set the limits -- not the dog groups -- but you can
only do that if you are the first to act.
I understand that this goes against the beliefs of the BCNers who take the
approach of Just Say No. Were the Cook County forest pristine wilderness I,
too, would Just Say No . I'd say No if there was even a chance of getting it
back pure wilderness. The new superintendent, Steve Bylina, will make a big
difference with his emphasis on forest preservation but he can't take out the
swimming pools, golf courses, etc.
The delay in consideration of the DFA concept rolled from March to the summer
is probably a reflection of the FP getting a new boss. The pilot is for 1
year. March is the anniversary of the Board approval. Bylina apparently
clarified that the 12 month pilot meant 12 months of actual operation, which takes
us to the summer.
Randi Doeker
Chicago
In a message dated 1/9/2004 10:29:39 AM Central Standard Time, JA@psy
ch.uic.edu writes:
Chris W has questioned the efficiency of birders debating dogpark issues
that are unrelated to habitat and species protection.
I'd like to take her point further, and question the efficacy of focusing on
dogparks, rather than the underlying issues related to the planned use of
FPDCC land.
The DFA issue is a symptom of a problem, and it's more efficacious to focus
on the problem rather than the symptom. It would be far less contentious, as
well!
We should refrain from reducing this to a "birder vs. dogowner" issue,
despite the fact that a DFA was the lightning rod for the current debate.
The problem has presented itself with different symptoms in the past
(parking lots to gun ranges), and the problem will continue with different
symptoms in the future, without the creation of land use guidelines.
It is my hope that we can influence the creation of these guidelines by
maintaining our focus on the FPDCC's mission to preserve, protect and
restore natural lands.
In November, the FPDCC called for a halt to consideration of additional DFAs
until the Beck Lake project could be evaluated. In November, they felt this
would be accomplished by March. According to Randi's recent post, the time
frame has been extended.
I am distrustful of "political time" because I don't understand it.
When I contacted Richard Newhard, Resource Director for the FPDCC in
September, he assured me he knew of no plans for a DFA in Thatcher. Six
weeks later, I was told "that train had already left the station" and I
should not fight the DFA proposal. A meeting with a commissioner scheduled 2
weeks in advance had to be canceled, but an effort was made to reschedule it
with 1 day's notice. Although it is a different political entity, the IL
Port Authority asked us to wait for public hearings to voice opposition on
their proposed Marina. When efforts were then made to push it through
without public input, an Army Corps of Engineers Project leader screamed at
me for "waiting until the last minute" to voice my concern. So when is a
good time? I certainly don't know and I won't waste energy trying to figure
it out. But I will write letters, now and later!
I hope all of us will contribute as we are able, when we are able, and that
we find common ground to defend. The Forest Preserve is a good place to
start.
While well-written, I believe the COS DFA proposal would better serve the
goals of the birding community if it were reworked to reflect the overall
land use issue, rather than specifically focusing on dog parks.
I have already admitted a lack of comprehension for "political time" so I
won't offer an opinion as to whether COS has enough time to withdraw their
proposal for revision, or if BCN can afford to delay a vote on 1/24.
But as I see it, the issue really isn't about dogs.
Jill Anderson
River Forest
-------------------------------1074055681
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUTF-8 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charse=
t=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>I agree with both Randi and Jill here. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jill is right that the problem is obviously that the CCFPD needs to ove=
rhaul all of its land use practices and regulations and come into the 21st c=
entury. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Randi is right in that the CCFPD just doesn't seem to see the need to d=
o this and will continue to develop its policies in reaction rather than fro=
m an overarching statement of purpose which is then translated into concrete=
regulations, practices and working methods.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The solution is to try to influence the CCFPD on the first point, but n=
ot to lose the battles while you are waiting to win the war. Taking the high=
ground on this one likely cause us to lose the battle about dog parks and p=
robably, the war itself. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hate the idea of dog parks on public land, but they are coming and un=
less we insist and convince the CCFPD that it must develop appropriate pract=
ices and regulations to govern if, when and where dog areas are approved, we=
will soon be swamped with these doggie playgrounds. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>COS's position is being misinterpreted. Maybe the document I posted up=20=
here is unclear. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, of course. </DIV>
<DIV>I boiled down COS's position, below. Hit delete now if you are sick of=20=
this debate as the points aren't short!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Christine Williamson</DIV>
<DIV>Chicago/Cook</DIV>
<DIV><A href=3D"mailto:birdchris@aol.com">birdchris@aol.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>COS Dog Area Recommendations (A Boil Down)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First, COS is NOT in support of dog areas. Rather, if they are going to=
happen (and it seems they will), our recommendations are that:=20
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Commissioners come up with a fair way of evaluating applications=
that includes opportunity for public input that is HEARD and HEEDED. Right=20=
now, there are NO controls AT ALL. COS is demanding that Commissioners take=20=
control and that the public be allowed to help them evaluate any proposals;<=
/DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- that the CCFPD come up with a map of places where dog areas can and c=
an't be located (to eliminate a lot of argument ahead of time). Staff is in=20=
the best position to draw the map of their own environmentally sensitive are=
as. This would include all designated natural areas and their buffers, anyth=
ing with water, anywhere endangered species are present (if they come in, th=
e area gets closed to off-leash dogs), anywhere significant restoration is p=
lanned. It is assumed that the YES areas for dog parks will be small once al=
l the restrictions we suggest are considered. ALL that's left as a YES are g=
oing to be ratty old corn fields, I think;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- that total acreage of any single dog area is small and that overall a=
creage is controlled. If the CCFPD has said in its land management practices=
doc that not more than 12% of its properties can be developed, then our sug=
gested tiny % of total acreage will put a lid on the total amount of dog par=
ks. We doubt the total suggested will be used;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- we demand enforcement and continued monitoring or the areas would be=20=
closed to off-leash use;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- we demand that dog areas be open to everyone, fenced or not. These ar=
e NOT private use areas in COS's proposal. They would be areas where dogs ar=
e permitted off-leash, but there would be NO restriction on other users at a=
ll;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- there is precedent in the CCFPD for specialized use land designations=
, contrary to what some are alleging. Model airplane fields, tobaggon slides=
, pools, fishing areas, etc. I don't agree with these uses, either, but=
they all are MORE restrictive to general use (because you have to pay to us=
e them in most cases) than the dog areas which under COS's proposal would be=
open to all CCFPD users. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Basically, all that COS and hopefully BCN is saying that under certain=20=
very restrictive circumstances, we would not oppose the siting of a dog park=
. That cannot be construed as SUPPORT. We've written the recs so restrictive=
ly that as Walter Marcisz astutely pointed out, they actually will act=20=
as a deterrent to establishment of these dog areas. We want the CCFPD commis=
sioners to adopt these proposals because we think the public process fo=
r decision-making, the strict siting restrictions, and the absolute need for=
enforcement and monitoring (which the CCFPD can't afford, anyway), will be=20=
a deterrent. And if a dog group is determined enough to get past all these b=
arriers and THEN has to jump through a lot of hoops for many years to keep t=
heir small dog area viable, it is extremely unlikely that their dog park wil=
l negatively impact birds, humans or the environment. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Maybe these points and the political strategy are too subtle? However,=20=
you obviously can't baldly state much of the strategy I outlined in the prev=
ious paragraph OUT LOUD in the recommendations we will ask the CCFPD to adop=
t. OF COURSE the CCFPD commissioners would balk if we said in the receo=
mmendations: "Here, adopt these principles because we KNOW they will be so r=
estrictive that the dog people will GO AWAY FOR GOOD!" The dog people would=20=
go nuts. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But if you sit back and think about it (and I have, at great length bot=
h before my 16 hours in the car on a recent journey to Duluth and back),&nbs=
p;the bird groups will get what they need (as opposed, perhaps, to wha=
t they want) if the CCFPD Commissioners were to adopt these proposals -=
few if any dog parks will be proposed at all; the chance to defeat them if=20=
they are proposed; the ability to get shut down of dog parks that=20=
are approved and then don't work out; the recognition by the CCFPD=
that birders are thoughtful, logical and forward-thinking users of the pres=
erves. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If bird groups take a position of blanket opposition to dog groups, I t=
hink we'll lose. And then will have to deal with a bigger mess as these damn=
dog areas get proposed all over the place with no controls and no warning.=20=
With experience, I've learned that there are some things you won't be able t=
o stop and that it's sometimes better to take the offensive by recommending=20=
a really logical way to deal with what seems like an inevitable trend t=
hat actually will discourage it from happening and if it does, will make sur=
e the process is fairer and the outcome better for birds.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/10/2004 9:02:52 AM Central Standard Time, Rbdoeker=
@aol.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jill</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think the gotcha on this is that the FP c=
ommissioners approach issues --or have them forced on them by citizens-- in=20=
a haphazard manner. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>They rarely have mission-statement discussi=
ons. What they have to vote on are specific actions. A general p=
osition statement about the FP's mission somehow never translates into 'vote=
No on dog parks or parking lots for museums or swimming pools or .....=
'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Letters about DFAs now are great but w=
e will need them again in May/June. A letter now does not negate=20=
the need for another in the summer when the DFA proposal comes before the Bo=
ard. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"The train's left the station' because the=20=
Thatcher Dog group is actively seeking a DFA spot. Based on =
the experience at Montrose Beach I see nothing that will cause them to give=20=
up. Dog groups get a lot of support and encouragement for their w=
ork. Their success will encourage others, and this cascades to a=
growing expectation by dog owners that DFAs should be provided by the FP.&n=
bsp; It rapidly is seen as an entitlement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That's what has happened in Chicago. I can'=
t go to a meeting in my neighborhood without hearing at least 3 people call=20=
for a DFA. The citizens are completely oblivious to the efforts that t=
he dog owners had to go through to get DFAs elsewhere. What they see i=
s that others have a dog park and we don't. Right now the park distric=
t requires the dog group to pay for 50% of the DFA ($50+K) but the next Park=
Superintendent could change.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thus, I personally believe that the best of=
fense is a good defense: Beat the dog groups to the FP in terms of des=
ignating where DFAs <U>might</U> be. The environmental community shoul=
d set the limits -- not the dog groups -- but you can only do that if you ar=
e the first to act.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I understand that this goes against the bel=
iefs of the BCNers who take the approach of Just Say No. Were the=
Cook County forest pristine wilderness I, too, would Just Say No . &nb=
sp; I'd say No if there was even a chance of getting it back pure wilderness=
. The new superintendent, Steve Bylina, will make a big differen=
ce with his emphasis on forest preservation but he can't take out the swimmi=
ng pools, golf courses, etc. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The delay in consideration of the DFA conce=
pt rolled from March to the summer is probably a reflection of the FP gettin=
g a new boss. The pilot is for 1 year. March is the anniversary=20=
of the Board approval. Bylina apparently clarified that the 12 month p=
ilot meant 12 months of actual operation, which takes us to the summer.</FON=
T></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Randi Doeker</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chicago</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In a message dated 1/9/2004 10:29:39 AM Cen=
tral Standard Time, JA@psych.uic.edu writes:</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chris W has questioned the efficiency=
of birders debating dogpark issues<BR>that are unrelated to habitat and spe=
cies protection. <BR>I'd like to take her point further, and question the ef=
ficacy of focusing on<BR>dogparks, rather than the underlying issues related=
to the planned use of<BR>FPDCC land. <BR>The DFA issue is a symptom o=
f a problem, and it's more efficacious to focus<BR>on the problem rather tha=
n the symptom. It would be far less contentious, as<BR>well! <BR>We should r=
efrain from reducing this to a "birder vs. dogowner" issue,<BR>despite the f=
act that a DFA was the lightning rod for the current debate.<BR>The problem=20=
has presented itself with different symptoms in the past<BR>(parking lots to=
gun ranges), and the problem will continue with different<BR>symptoms in th=
e future, without the creation of land use guidelines. <BR>It is my hope tha=
t we can influence the creation of these guidelines by<BR>maintaining our fo=
cus on the FPDCC's mission to preserve, protect and<BR>restore natural lands=
. <BR>In November, the FPDCC called for a halt to consideration of additiona=
l DFAs<BR>until the Beck Lake project could be evaluated. In November, they=20=
felt this<BR>would be accomplished by March. According to Randi's recent pos=
t, the time<BR>frame has been extended.<BR>I am distrustful of "political ti=
me" because I don't understand it.<BR>When I contacted Richard Newhard, Reso=
urce Director for the FPDCC in<BR>September, he assured me he knew of no pla=
ns for a DFA in Thatcher. Six<BR>weeks later, I was told "that train had alr=
eady left the station" and I<BR>should not fight the DFA proposal. A meeting=
with a commissioner scheduled 2<BR>weeks in advance had to be canceled, but=
an effort was made to reschedule it<BR>with 1 day's notice. Although it is=20=
a different political entity, the IL<BR>Port Authority asked us to wait for=20=
public hearings to voice opposition on<BR>their proposed Marina. When effort=
s were then made to push it through<BR>without public input, an Army Corps o=
f Engineers Project leader screamed at<BR>me for "waiting until the last min=
ute" to voice my concern. So when is a<BR>good time? I certainly don't=
know and I won't waste energy trying to figure<BR>it out. But I will write=20=
letters, now and later!<BR>I hope all of us will contribute as we are able,=20=
when we are able, and that<BR>we find common ground to defend. The Forest Pr=
eserve is a good place to<BR>start. <BR>While well-written, I believe the CO=
S DFA proposal would better serve the<BR>goals of the birding community if i=
t were reworked to reflect the overall<BR>land use issue, rather than specif=
ically focusing on dog parks. <BR>I have already admitted a lack of comprehe=
nsion for "political time" so I<BR>won't offer an opinion as to whether COS=20=
has enough time to withdraw their<BR>proposal for revision, or if BCN can af=
ford to delay a vote on 1/24. <BR>But as I see it, the issue really is=
n't about dogs.<BR><BR>Jill Anderson<BR>River Forest</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DI=
V></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1074055681--