[BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)(amended)
John & Jane Balaban
balx2@comcast.net
Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:27:39 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C3DA89.09499DA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, it injected a little humor into the issue, anyway! Thanks, Judy, =
for restating once again the fundamental issues -- appropriate use of =
public land and the need for FPD Commissioners to adopt a clear policy =
and fair process for making decisions from now on when such issues =
arise.
jane balaban
----- Original Message -----=20
From: judymellin=20
To: BCNnet@ece.iit.edu=20
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:23 AM
Subject: Fw: [BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)(amended)
I apologize for the automatic change that spellchecker made for some =
obscure reason by substituting PECK for FPDCC. I am always careful to =
use their correct designation and will take spellchecker to the woodshed =
for what it did!
Judy Mellin
----- Original Message -----=20
From: judymellin=20
To: bcnnet@ece.iit.edu=20
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)
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 FPDCC 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 FPDCC 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 FPDCC 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 FPDCC 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 FPDCC 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_0084_01C3DA89.09499DA0
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>
<DIV>Well, it injected a little humor into the issue, anyway! Thanks, =
Judy, for=20
restating once again the fundamental issues -- appropriate use of public =
land and the need for FPD Commissioners to adopt a clear policy and =
fair=20
process for making decisions <U>from now on</U> when such issues=20
arise.</DIV>
<DIV>jane balaban</DIV></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 style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Djudymellin@netzero.net=20
href=3D"mailto:judymellin@netzero.net">judymellin</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
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> Wednesday, January 14, =
2004 11:23=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Fw: [BCNnet] FPDCC =
Public Land=20
Use (incl. DFAs)(amended)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>I =
apologize for=20
the automatic change that spellchecker made for some obscure reason by =
substituting PECK for FPDCC. I am always careful to use their =
correct=20
designation and will take spellchecker to the woodshed for what it=20
did!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" =
size=3D3>Judy=20
Mellin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT"=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
title=3Djudymellin@netzero.net=20
href=3D"mailto:judymellin@netzero.net">judymellin</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=3Dbcnnet@ece.iit.edu=20
href=3D"mailto:bcnnet@ece.iit.edu">bcnnet@ece.iit.edu</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:11 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl.=20
DFAs)</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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=20
EVERYONE to treat the dog supporters with respect. It is =
important that=20
we 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=20
a public listserv and, as such, is linked directly to a goggle.com=20
search. Type in Beck Lake Dogs and you'll see a link that leads =
right=20
back to all the discussions we have held on this list. I would be =
very=20
sure that what I 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=20
the focus of our discussion. We are concerned about the use of =
public=20
land for any private group. We also disagree that the dog runs =
are a=20
"done deal" as Chris And Randy seem to feel. I also think Jill=20
Anderson's post was misinterpreted even though I think her feelings =
were very=20
clear on this matter. </FONT><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>When =
this=20
discussion started in November, thanks to Alan Anderson, Randy kept =
insisting=20
that "the train has left the station." Well, we have found out =
that, far=20
from that, tickets are still being sold and there is a great deal of =
room for=20
those of us who want to make our feelings known to the FPDCC and the =
County=20
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=20
that I received. I will be happy to go back one more time but I=20
seriously doubt that I will find it. What COS and every other =
group need=20
to oppose, in my opinion, are ANY fences for ANY use on ANY FPDCC=20
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=20
should not have. Yes, we have been discussing the dog runs =
because this=20
is the topic that brought all of this to the fore but it should not be =
our=20
focus. The focus needs to be on the FPDCC mission statement =93to<SPAN =
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=20
their natural state and condition, for the purpose of the education, =
pleasure,=20
and 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 =
FPDCC land=20
right now but does that mean that others should be added? If we =
had been=20
around when those fences went up, do you not feel we would have =
opposed=20
them? If the dog supporters are given what they want, who's =
next? These=20
are the 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 FPDCC 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=20
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=20
21st century. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Randi is right in that the CCFPD just doesn't seem to see the =
need to=20
do this and will continue to develop its policies in reaction rather =
than=20
from an overarching statement of purpose which is then translated =
into=20
concrete 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=20
not to lose the battles while you are waiting to win the war. Taking =
the=20
high ground on this one likely cause us to lose the battle about dog =
parks=20
and 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, 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=20
in, the area gets closed to off-leash dogs), anywhere significant=20
restoration is planned. It is assumed that the YES areas for dog =
parks will=20
be small once all the restrictions we suggest are considered. ALL =
that's=20
left as a YES are going 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=20
practices doc that not more than 12% of its properties can be =
developed,=20
then our suggested tiny % of total acreage will put a lid on the =
total=20
amount of dog 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=20
are NOT private use areas in COS's proposal. They would be areas =
where dogs=20
are 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=20
designations, contrary to what some are alleging. Model airplane =
fields,=20
tobaggon slides, pools, fishing areas, etc. I don't agree with =
these=20
uses, either, but they all are MORE restrictive to general use =
(because you=20
have to pay to use them in most cases) than the dog areas which =
under COS's=20
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=20
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=20
want the CCFPD commissioners to adopt these proposals because we =
think=20
the public process for decision-making, the strict siting =
restrictions,=20
and the absolute need for enforcement and monitoring (which the =
CCFPD can't=20
afford, anyway), will be a deterrent. And if a dog group is =
determined=20
enough to get past all these barriers and THEN has to jump through a =
lot of=20
hoops for many years to keep their small dog area viable, it is =
extremely=20
unlikely that their dog park will negatively impact birds, humans or =
the=20
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=20
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,=20
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=20
to defeat them if they are proposed; the ability to get =
shut down=20
of dog parks that are approved and then don't work=20
out; the recognition by the CCFPD that birders are =
thoughtful,=20
logical and forward-thinking users 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=20
damn dog areas get proposed all over the place with no controls and =
no=20
warning. With experience, I've learned that there are some things =
you won't=20
be able to stop and that it's sometimes better to take the offensive =
by=20
recommending a really logical way to deal with what seems like=20
an inevitable trend that actually will discourage it from =
happening and=20
if it does, will make sure the process is fairer and the outcome =
better for=20
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></BLOCKQUOTE>=
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C3DA89.09499DA0--