[BCNnet] FPDCC Public Land Use (incl. DFAs)
Birdchris@aol.com
Birdchris@aol.com
Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:22:19 EST
-------------------------------1074136939
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en
Speaking of respect, there's a pretty distinct lack of it directed at COS an=
d=20
individuals in Judy's message. It's unnecessary to be so disrepectful becaus=
e=20
you disagree with the view point of other individuals and organizations..=20
You do make a good point about this being an open list serve. I will be more=
=20
careful although nothing I said indicates a lack of respect for dog owners.=20
Perhaps for dog parks, but not for dog owners.=20
I suspect that if you polled birders, you would get a different impression=20
from Judy's of which position has the majority of support of birders re: the=
dog=20
area debate. The results might indicate that it's time for a different group=
=20
to throw in the towel and join the majority.=20
Christine Williamson
Chicago/Cook
birdchris@aol.com=20
n a message dated 1/14/2004 9:10:46 AM Central Standard Time,=20
judymellin@netzero.net writes:
There are so many points to refute here that I hardly know where to begin. =20
Let me start, though, by urging EVERYONE to treat the dog supporters with=20
respect. It is important that we recognize the efforts they have put in, ev=
en=20
though many of us feel those efforts are misdirected. It is also important=20=
to=20
recognize that this is a public listserv and, as such, is linked directly to=
a=20
goggle.com search. Type in Beck Lake Dogs and you'll see a link that leads=20
right back to all the discussions we have held on this list. I would be very=
sure=20
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=20
message: the dog runs are not the focus of our discussion. We are concerne=
d=20
about the use of public land for any private group. We also disagree that t=
he=20
dog runs are a "done deal" as Chris And Randy seem to feel. I also think Ji=
ll=20
Anderson's post was misinterpreted even though I think her feelings were ver=
y=20
clear on this matter. When this discussion started in November, thanks to Al=
an=20
Anderson, Randy kept insisting that "the train has left the station." Well,=
=20
we have found out that, far from that, tickets are still being sold and ther=
e=20
is a great deal of room for those of us who want to make our feelings known=20=
to=20
the PECK and the County Commissioners.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the statement that, "First, COS is NOT in=20
support of dog areas." Gee, I have read and reread the position paper and m=
aybe=20
I did not get a complete transmission of it because those words certainly=20
never appeared in the copy that I received. I will be happy to go back one=20=
more=20
time but I seriously doubt that I will find it. What COS and every other=20
group need to oppose, in my opinion, are ANY fences for ANY use on ANY PECK=20=
land.=20
I feel that a great deal of time and effort is being wasted by arguing over=20
what the dog supporters should and should not have. Yes, we have been=20
discussing the dog runs because this is the topic that brought all of this t=
o the fore=20
but it should not be our focus. The focus needs to be on the PECK mission=20
statement =E2=80=9Cto acquire =E2=80=A6 and hold lands =E2=80=A6 for the pu=
rpose of protecting and=20
preserving the flora, fauna, and scenic beauties within such district,=20=
and=20
to restore, restock, protect and preserve the natural forests and such land=
s =20
together with their flora and fauna, as nearly as may be, in their natura=
l=20
state and condition, for the purpose of the education, pleasure, and=20
recreation of the public.=E2=80=9D=20
Yes, there are fences on PECK land right now but does that mean that others=20
should be added? If we had been around when those fences went up, do you no=
t=20
feel we would have opposed them? If the dog supporters are given what they=20
want, who's next? These are the questions that need to be addressed, not how=
many=20
dog runs there will be.
Those of us who are supporting the mission of the PECK will stay on message.=
=20
It would be nice if the vocal few who are ready to throw in the towel would=20
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=
=20
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 thi=
s=20
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.
The solution is to try to influence the CCFPD on the first point, but not to=
=20
lose the battles while you are waiting to win the war. Taking the high groun=
d=20
on this one likely cause us to lose the battle about dog parks and probably,=
=20
the war itself.=20
I hate the idea of dog parks on public land, but they are coming and unless=20
we insist and convince the CCFPD that it must develop appropriate practices=20=
and=20
regulations to govern if, when and where dog areas are approved, we will soo=
n=20
be swamped with these doggie playgrounds.=20
COS's position is being misinterpreted. Maybe the document I posted up here=20
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=20
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=20
happen (and it seems they will), our recommendations are that:=20
- Commissioners come up with a fair way of evaluating applications that=20
includes opportunity for public input that is HEARD and HEEDED. Right now, t=
here=20
are NO controls AT ALL. COS is demanding that Commissioners take control and=
=20
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=20
be located (to eliminate a lot of argument ahead of time). Staff is in the b=
est=20
position to draw the map of their own environmentally sensitive areas. This=20
would include all designated natural areas and their buffers, anything with=20
water, anywhere endangered species are present (if they come in, the area ge=
ts=20
closed to off-leash dogs), anywhere significant restoration is planned. It i=
s=20
assumed that the YES areas for dog parks will be small once all the restrict=
ions=20
we suggest are considered. ALL that's left as a YES are going to be ratty ol=
d=20
corn fields, I think;
- that total acreage of any single dog area is small and that overall acreag=
e=20
is controlled. If the CCFPD has said in its land management practices doc=20
that not more than 12% of its properties can be developed, then our suggeste=
d=20
tiny % of total acreage will put a lid on the total amount of dog parks. We=20=
doubt=20
the total suggested will be used;
- we demand enforcement and continued monitoring or the areas would be close=
d=20
to off-leash use;
- we demand that dog areas be open to everyone, fenced or not. These are NOT=
=20
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 all=
;
- 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,=20
fishing areas, etc. I don't agree with these uses, either, but they all are=20
MORE restrictive to general use (because you have to pay to use them in most=
=20
cases) than the dog areas which under COS's proposal would be open to all CC=
FPD=20
users.=20
Basically, all that COS and hopefully BCN is saying that under certain very=20
restrictive circumstances, we would not oppose the siting of a dog park. Tha=
t=20
cannot be construed as SUPPORT. We've written the recs so restrictively that=
as=20
Walter Marcisz astutely pointed out, they actually will act as a deterrent t=
o=20
establishment of these dog areas. We want the CCFPD commissioners to adopt=20
these proposals because we think the public process for decision-making, the=
=20
strict siting restrictions, and the absolute need for enforcement and monito=
ring=20
(which the CCFPD can't afford, anyway), will be a deterrent. And if a dog=20
group is determined enough to get past all these barriers and THEN has to ju=
mp=20
through a lot of hoops for many years to keep their small dog area viable, i=
t is=20
extremely unlikely that their dog park will negatively impact birds, humans=20=
or=20
the environment.=20
Maybe these points and the political strategy are too subtle? However, you=20
obviously can't baldly state much of the strategy I outlined in the previous=
=20
paragraph OUT LOUD in the recommendations we will ask the CCFPD to adopt. OF=
=20
COURSE the CCFPD commissioners would balk if we said in the receommendations=
:=20
"Here, adopt these principles because we KNOW they will be so restrictive th=
at the=20
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=20
before my 16 hours in the car on a recent journey to Duluth and back), the b=
ird=20
groups will get what they need (as opposed, perhaps, to what they want) if=20=
the=20
CCFPD Commissioners were to adopt these proposals - few if any dog parks wil=
l=20
be proposed at all; the chance to defeat them if they are proposed; the=20
ability to get shut down of dog parks that are approved and then don't work=20=
out; the=20
recognition by the CCFPD that birders are thoughtful, logical and=20
forward-thinking users of the preserves.=20
If bird groups take a position of blanket opposition to dog groups, I think=20
we'll lose. And then will have to deal with a bigger mess as these damn dog=20
areas get proposed all over the place with no controls and no warning. With=20
experience, I've learned that there are some things you won't be able to sto=
p and=20
that it's sometimes better to take the offensive by recommending a really=20
logical way to deal with what seems like an inevitable trend that actually w=
ill=20
discourage it from happening and if it does, will make sure the process is f=
airer=20
and the outcome better for birds.
-------------------------------1074136939
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en
<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>Speaking of respect, there's a pretty distinct lack of it directed at C=
OS and individuals in Judy's message. It's unnecessary to be so disrepectful=
because you disagree with the view point of other individuals and organizat=
ions.. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You do make a good point about this being an open list serve. I will be=
more careful although nothing I said indicates a lack of respect for dog ow=
ners. Perhaps for dog parks, but not for dog owners. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I suspect that if you polled birders, you would get a different impress=
ion from Judy's of which position has the majority of support of birders re:=
the dog area debate. The results might indicate that it's time for a differ=
ent group to throw in the towel and join the majority. </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>n a message dated 1/14/2004 9:10:46 AM Central Standard Time, judymelli=
n@netzero.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>There are so many points to refute=
here that I hardly know where to begin. Let me start, though, by urgi=
ng EVERYONE to treat the dog supporters with respect. It is important=20=
that we recognize the efforts they have put in, even though many of us feel=20=
those efforts are misdirected. It is also important to recognize that=20=
this is a public listserv and, as such, is linked directly to a goggle.com s=
earch. Type in Beck Lake Dogs and you'll see a link that leads right b=
ack to all the discussions we have held on this list. I would be very s=
ure 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 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 pu=
blic land for any private group. We also disagree that the dog runs ar=
e a "done deal" as Chris And Randy seem to feel. I also think Jill And=
erson's post was misinterpreted even though I think her feelings were very c=
lear on this matter. </FONT><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3>When this d=
iscussion started in November, thanks to Alan Anderson, Randy kept insisting=
that "the train has left the station." Well, we have found out that,=20=
far from that, tickets are still being sold and there is a great deal of roo=
m for those of us who want to make our feelings known to the PECK and the Co=
unty 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 t=
he 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=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 seriou=
sly doubt that I will find it. What COS and every other group need to=20=
oppose, in my opinion, are ANY fences for ANY use on ANY PECK land. </F=
ONT></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 a=
nd 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 th=
is is the topic that brought all of this to the fore but it should not be ou=
r focus. The focus needs to be on the PECK mission statement =E2=80=9Cto<SPA=
N style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>acquire =E2=80=A6 and hold lands=
=E2=80=A6 for the purpose of protecting and preserving the flora, fauna, an=
d<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>scenic<SPAN style=3D"mso-sp=
acerun: yes"> </SPAN>beauties<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> =20=
</SPAN>within<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>such<SPAN style=
=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>district,<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: y=
es"> </SPAN>and to restore, restock, protect and preserve the natural=20=
forests and such<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>lands<SPAN s=
tyle=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>together<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun=
: yes"> </SPAN>with their<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SP=
AN>flora<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>and fauna, as nearly=
as may be, in their natural state and condition, for the purpose of the edu=
cation, pleasure, and recreation of the public<SPAN style=3D"mso-fareast-fon=
t-family: 'Courier New'">.=E2=80=9D</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 now but does that mean that others should be added? If we had b=
een around when those fences went up, do you not feel we would have opp=
osed 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 the=
re will 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 supportin=
g the mission of the PECK will stay on message. It would be nice if th=
e vocal 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 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>F=
rom:</B> <A title=3Dmailto:Birdchris@aol.com href=3D"mailto:Birdchris@aol.co=
m">Birdchris@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3Dmailto:Rbdoeker@aol.co=
m href=3D"mailto:Rbdoeker@aol.com">Rbdoeker@aol.com</A> ; <A title=3Dmailto:=
bcnnet@ece.iit.edu 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 La=
nd 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 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><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 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 title=3Dmailto:birdchris@aol.com href=3D"mailto:birdchris@aol.com">b=
irdchris@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=
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><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Gill Sans MT" size=3D3></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></=
DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1074136939--