[BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)
judymellin
judymellin@netzero.net
Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:11:27 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C3DA7E.6418FEC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are so many points to refute here that I hardly know where to =
begin. Let me start, though, by urging EVERYONE to treat the dog =
supporters with respect. It is important that we recognize the efforts =
they have put in, even though many of us feel those efforts are =
misdirected. It is also important to recognize that this is a public =
listserv and, as such, is linked directly to a goggle.com search. Type =
in Beck Lake Dogs and you'll see a link that leads right back to all the =
discussions we have held on this list. I would be very sure that what I =
posted did not add fuel to the fire.
Now let those of us who understand the total picture be very clear on =
OUR message: the dog runs are not the focus of our discussion. We are =
concerned about the use of public land for any private group. We also =
disagree that the dog runs are a "done deal" as Chris And Randy seem to =
feel. I also think Jill Anderson's post was misinterpreted even though =
I think her feelings were very clear on this matter. When this =
discussion started in November, thanks to Alan Anderson, Randy kept =
insisting that "the train has left the station." Well, we have found =
out that, far from that, tickets are still being sold and there is a =
great deal of room for those of us who want to make our feelings known =
to the PECK and the County Commissioners.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the statement that, "First, COS is NOT =
in support of dog areas." Gee, I have read and reread the position =
paper and maybe I did not get a complete transmission of it because =
those words certainly never appeared in the copy that I received. I =
will be happy to go back one more time but I seriously doubt that I will =
find it. What COS and every other group need to oppose, in my opinion, =
are ANY fences for ANY use on ANY PECK land.=20
I feel that a great deal of time and effort is being wasted by arguing =
over what the dog supporters should and should not have. Yes, we have =
been discussing the dog runs because this is the topic that brought all =
of this to the fore but it should not be our focus. The focus needs to =
be on the PECK mission statement "to acquire . and hold lands . for the =
purpose of protecting and preserving the flora, fauna, and scenic =
beauties within such district, and to restore, restock, protect and =
preserve the natural forests and such lands together with their =
flora and fauna, as nearly as may be, in their natural state and =
condition, for the purpose of the education, pleasure, and recreation of =
the public."=20
Yes, there are fences on PECK land right now but does that mean that =
others should be added? If we had been around when those fences went =
up, do you not feel we would have opposed them? If the dog supporters =
are given what they want, who's next? These are the questions that need =
to be addressed, not how many dog runs there will be.
Those of us who are supporting the mission of the PECK will stay on =
message. It would be nice if the vocal few who are ready to throw in =
the towel would join us.
Judy Mellin=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Birdchris@aol.com=20
To: Rbdoeker@aol.com ; bcnnet@ece.iit.edu=20
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)
I agree with both Randi and Jill here.=20
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.=20
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.=20
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.=20
COS's position is being misinterpreted. Maybe the document I posted up =
here is unclear. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, of course.=20
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:=20
- 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.=20
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.=20
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.=20
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.=20
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.
------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C3DA7E.6418FEC0
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 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>There are so many points to =
refute here=20
that I hardly know where to begin. Let me start, though, by urging =
EVERYONE to treat the dog supporters with respect. It is important =
that we=20
recognize the efforts they have put in, even though many of us feel =
those=20
efforts are misdirected. It is also important to recognize that =
this is a=20
public listserv and, as such, is linked directly to a goggle.com =
search. =20
Type in Beck Lake Dogs and you'll see a link that leads right back to =
all the=20
discussions we have held on this list. I would be very sure that =
what I=20
posted did not add fuel to the fire.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>Now let those of us who =
understand the=20
total picture be very clear on OUR message: the dog runs are =
not the=20
focus of our discussion. We are concerned about the use of public =
land for=20
any private group. We also disagree that the dog runs are a "done =
deal" as=20
Chris And Randy seem to feel. I also think Jill Anderson's post =
was=20
misinterpreted even though I think her feelings were very clear on this =
matter.=20
</FONT><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>When this discussion started =
in=20
November, thanks to Alan Anderson, Randy kept insisting that "the train =
has left=20
the station." Well, we have found out that, far from that, tickets =
are=20
still being sold and there is a great deal of room for those of us who =
want to=20
make our feelings known to the PECK and the County =
Commissioners.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>I am absolutely flabbergasted =
by the=20
statement that, "First, COS is NOT in support of dog areas." Gee, =
I have=20
read and reread the position paper and maybe I did not get a complete=20
transmission of it because those words certainly never appeared in the =
copy that=20
I received. I will be happy to go back one more time but I =
seriously doubt=20
that I will find it. What COS and every other group need to =
oppose, in my=20
opinion, are ANY fences for ANY use on ANY PECK land. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>I feel that a great deal of =
time and=20
effort is being wasted by arguing over what the dog supporters should =
and should=20
not have. Yes, we have been discussing the dog runs because this =
is the=20
topic that brought all of this to the fore but it should not be our =
focus. The=20
focus needs to be on the PECK mission statement =93to<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>acquire =85 and hold lands =85 =
for the=20
purpose of protecting and preserving the flora, fauna, and<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>scenic<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>beauties<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>within<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>such<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>district,<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>and to restore, restock, =
protect and=20
preserve the natural forests and such<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes"> =20
</SPAN>lands<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> =
</SPAN>together<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>with their<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>flora<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>and fauna, as nearly as may =
be, in their=20
natural state and condition, for the purpose of the education, pleasure, =
and=20
recreation of the public<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier =
New'">.=94</SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>Yes, there are fences on PECK =
land right=20
now but does that mean that others should be added? If we had been =
around=20
when those fences went up, do you not feel we would have opposed =
them? If=20
the dog supporters are given what they want, who's next? These are =
the=20
questions that need to be addressed, not how many dog runs there will=20
be.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>Those of us who =
are supporting the=20
mission of the PECK will stay on message. It would be nice if the =
vocal=20
few who are ready to throw in the towel would join us.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>Judy Mellin</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DBirdchris@aol.com=20
href=3D"mailto:Birdchris@aol.com">Birdchris@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3DRbdoeker@aol.com =
href=3D"mailto:Rbdoeker@aol.com">Rbdoeker@aol.com</A> ; <A=20
title=3Dbcnnet@ece.iit.edu=20
href=3D"mailto:bcnnet@ece.iit.edu">bcnnet@ece.iit.edu</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 13, 2004 =
8:48=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [BCNnet] FPDCC =
Public Land=20
Use (incl. DFAs)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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=20
overhaul all of its land use practices and regulations and come into =
the 21st=20
century. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Randi is right in that the CCFPD just doesn't seem to see the =
need to do=20
this and will continue to develop its policies in reaction rather than =
from an=20
overarching statement of purpose which is then translated into =
concrete=20
regulations, practices and working methods.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>The solution is to try to influence the CCFPD on the first point, =
but not=20
to lose the battles while you are waiting to win the war. Taking the =
high=20
ground on this one likely cause us to lose the battle about dog parks =
and=20
probably, the war itself. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hate the idea of dog parks on public land, but they are coming =
and=20
unless we insist and convince the CCFPD that it must develop =
appropriate=20
practices and regulations to govern if, when and where dog areas are =
approved,=20
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><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>First, COS is NOT in support of dog areas. Rather, if they are =
going to=20
happen (and it seems they will), our recommendations are that:=20
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Commissioners come up with a fair way of evaluating =
applications=20
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=20
proposals;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- that the CCFPD come up with a map of places where dog areas can =
and=20
can'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=20
areas. This would include all designated natural areas and their =
buffers,=20
anything with water, anywhere endangered species are present (if they =
come in,=20
the area gets closed to off-leash dogs), anywhere significant =
restoration is=20
planned. It is assumed that the YES areas for dog parks will be small =
once all=20
the restrictions we suggest are considered. ALL that's left as a YES =
are going=20
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=20
acreage is controlled. If the CCFPD has said in its land management =
practices=20
doc that not more than 12% of its properties can be developed, then =
our=20
suggested tiny % of total acreage will put a lid on the total amount =
of dog=20
parks. 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 are=20
NOT private use areas in COS's proposal. They would be areas where =
dogs are=20
permitted off-leash, but there would be NO restriction on other users =
at=20
all;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- there is precedent in the CCFPD for specialized use land =
designations,=20
contrary to what some are alleging. Model airplane fields, tobaggon =
slides,=20
pools, fishing areas, etc. I don't agree with these uses, either, =
but=20
they all are MORE restrictive to general use (because you have to pay =
to use=20
them in most cases) than the dog areas which under COS's proposal =
would be=20
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.=20
That cannot be construed as SUPPORT. We've written the recs so =
restrictively=20
that as Walter Marcisz astutely pointed out, they actually will =
act as a=20
deterrent to establishment of these dog areas. We want the CCFPD =
commissioners=20
to adopt these proposals because we think the public process for=20
decision-making, the strict siting restrictions, and the absolute need =
for=20
enforcement and monitoring (which the CCFPD can't afford, anyway), =
will be a=20
deterrent. And if a dog group is determined enough to get past all =
these=20
barriers and THEN has to jump through a lot of hoops for many years to =
keep=20
their small dog area viable, it is extremely unlikely that their dog =
park will=20
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=20
previous paragraph OUT LOUD in the recommendations we will ask the =
CCFPD to=20
adopt. OF COURSE the CCFPD commissioners would balk if we said in =
the=20
receommendations: "Here, adopt these principles because we KNOW they =
will be=20
so restrictive that the dog people will GO AWAY FOR GOOD!" The dog =
people=20
would go nuts. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But if you sit back and think about it (and I have, at great =
length both=20
before my 16 hours in the car on a recent journey to Duluth and=20
back), the bird groups will get what they need (as opposed, =
perhaps, to what they want) if the CCFPD Commissioners were to =
adopt=20
these proposals - few if any dog parks will be proposed at all; the =
chance to=20
defeat them if they are proposed; the ability to get shut =
down of=20
dog parks that are approved and then don't work =
out; the recognition=20
by the CCFPD that birders are thoughtful, logical and forward-thinking =
users=20
of the preserves. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If bird groups take a position of blanket opposition to dog =
groups, I=20
think we'll lose. And then will have to deal with a bigger mess as =
these damn=20
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 to=20
stop and that it's sometimes better to take the offensive by =
recommending a=20
really logical way to deal with what seems like an inevitable =
trend that=20
actually will discourage it from happening and if it does, will make =
sure the=20
process is fairer and the outcome better for birds.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px =
solid">
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML=
>
------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C3DA7E.6418FEC0--