Is there an Update on SC?

[Cynic]

From the Conservation Forum:

Spring Creek, Centre County, PA is in danger of being degraded by a land deal involving the Rockview Penetentury Land and adjacent canyon corridor along Spring Creek. Here is a link to an article on the FFP message board regarding the issue.

What is happening with this Spring Creek issue? Or is it a 'done deal'?

 

[troutbert]

No it's not a done deal. Now is a good time to contact your legislators and the governor. There are links in the post in the conservation section that make it easy to do this.

 

[JackM]

A discussion can be found here:
http://www.paflyfish.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1975&forum=2&post_id=15659#forumpost15659

In case it doesn't appear in that thread here are a few other helpful links:

To find your legistor, and their contact information, go here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/find.cfm

To contact Gov. Rendell, go here: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/governor/cwp/view.asp?a=1117&q=437853&governorNav=|

If anyone wants to look at various sides of the issue, go here http://benner.centreconnect.org/benner.htm and scroll down the page. There are links to various viewpoint on the issue

 

[troutbert]

Cynic,
There is going to be a public meeting in September. And then I think the issue will probably be voted on by the legislature sometime after that.

So it's the issue is still definitely in play, and public comments to their legislators and the governor could help decide the future of that land.

Benner Township is not a good choice for stewardship of the land that Spring Creek flows through. They do not have the resources or experience for natural resource management. Think of the typical small township in PA. That's what Benner Township is like. And no one knows what future township supervisors might want. They might put in a highly developed park right on the floodplain right along the stream, as many other municipalities have done, and just wreck the place.

And Penn State would not a be a good choice for the uplands flanking the canyon. Their announced plans are for agricultural / industrial / research use.

Which would mean intensive agriculture, with accompanying runoff of sediment, pesticides and fertilizer. And research buildings and access roads and utilities (water, sewer, electric, etc.) to those buildings.

Although they've talked about a "conservation easement" they have never said what this would be in the easement. They have never said they are willing to give up their original plans for the property, as described above.

And Mike Hanna, a legislator who is pushing for the Benner Twp & Penn State plan, said the land must be conveyed FIRST, then a conservation easement done afterwards!! Doesn't that sound a little "fishy?"

 

[cce114]

This is the response I received from Rep Haluska:


Thank you for your email regarding the Rockview Land Transfer.



While the legislation does convey the property to Penn State University, Benner Township and the Fish & Boat Commission, Chairman of Agriculture Committee, Rep. Hanna’s amendment carries specific language requiring the deeds to contain restrictive covenants guaranteeing that the property will not be sold and will only be used for agricultural education by PSU, passive recreation by Benner Township and for the mission of the Fish & Boat Commission or it “shall immediately revert to the grantor” (the Commonwealth). In addition, all 3 entities have agreed to continue to participate in the development of the Spring Creek Master Plan and abide by its provisions once completed. Also, Memorandums of Understanding governing the land use, protecting against any development inconsistent with the Master Plan and further protecting the right to public hunting are being developed. The public, the Spring Creek Conservancy and many of the other organizations who are asking for a delay in the legislation will be participating in the development of the Master Plan.



The legislation and accompanying agreements meet the requirements that the landowners “be bound by the environmental and cultural provisions” of the Master Plan and that while the restrictive covenants are not a “conservation easement”, they together with the Master Plan will accomplish the same thing while also protecting the public interest in education and recreation that is not inconsistent with protecting the exceptional natural resources of this land.



The only reason being given for delaying the transaction is to determine if a better landowner can be found. In fact the obvious choices for consideration, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) are participating in the development of this legislation and the Rockview Land Transfer

Master Plan. Carl Roe of the PGC issued the following statement on Thursday June 28, 2007, "The Pennsylvania Game Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Penn State today to insure hunting access for sportsmen. The Pennsylvania Game Commission will not oppose the transfer of the property to Penn State." DCNR has issued a statement of support for the transfer. Further delay in the transfer will only result in additional proposals for development, such as the housing project and sports complex already proposed. We need to protect the land now by transferring it with the protections outlined above.



Sincerely,

Gary Haluska

State Representative

73rd Legislative District

 

[JackM]

Interesting to hear that the Game Commission seems to be OK with transfer to PSU. Maybe some of you need to direct some letters to the Game Commission about that. At the same time, the restrictions being worked into the potential transfer to PSU, Benner Township and PFBC look like they may satisfy the conservation concerns if not fully satisfy those who do not favor any compromise on the option to transfer the entire tract to PGC.

 

[troutbert]

The Game Commission is actively seeking transfer to the land to their agency.

The following groups have signed onto the proposal that the land to be transferred to the Game Commission for permanent protection:

PA Council of Trout Unlimited
Spring Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited
PA Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
Centre County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
PA Chapter Sierra Club
Moshannon Group Sierra Club
National Wild Turkey Federation
United Bow Hunters of Pennsylvania
Adams County Chapter of Trout Unlimited
State College Bird Club
Juniata Valley Audubon
Coalition for Open Space Preservation
Nittany Mountain Biking Association

There will be a public meeting in September and the legislature will probably decide at some later date.

Now's a good time to contact your legislator and let them know your preference.

 

[JackM]

Is the legislator lying in his letter when he relates this:

Carl Roe of the PGC issued the following statement on Thursday June 28, 2007, "The Pennsylvania Game Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Penn State today to insure hunting access for sportsmen. The Pennsylvania Game Commission will not oppose the transfer of the property to Penn State."

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Is the legislator lying in his letter when he relates this:

Carl Roe of the PGC issued the following statement on Thursday June 28, 2007, "The Pennsylvania Game Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Penn State today to insure hunting access for sportsmen. The Pennsylvania Game Commission will not oppose the transfer of the property to Penn State."

Jack, it could be the PGC is simply covering both scenarios. Looking for a win win situation, not putting all their eggs in one basket, and a few other cliche’s come to mind.

I am not a wordsmith, but it seems to me that "will not oppose ..." does not necessarily mean “will support” and is definitely not the same as “will not pursue transfer to the PGC.”

 

[JackM]

It sounds to me like they see the writing on the wall. The rest of what you say is correct. troutbert's post, unless he was unaware of the two prior posts, was a bit misleading in light of them, hence my query.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
It sounds to me like they see the writing on the wall.

It sounds that way to me, too.

 

[Maurice]

Guys,

I too was satisfied with the quoted agencies (PGC, DCNR) until I read the last line....." Further delay in the transfer will only result in additional proposals for development, such as the housing project and sports complex already proposed. We need to protect the land now by transferring it with the protections outlined above. "

That sounded like a line from a used car salesman trying to sell a jalope to an old woman.

 

[JackM]

You're only paranoid if people really aren't out to get you. Likewise, if what he says is true based upon knowledge that he would have access to considering his position, then one might want to consider it a word to the wise. By the time you "think it over" that pink Cadillac may be someone elses dream car.

 

[Maurice]

from the words of my good friend...."Cat, Never be afraid to walk away from a deal...."

 

[troutbert]

FarmerDave wrote:

JackM wrote:
Is the legislator lying in his letter when he relates this:

Carl Roe of the PGC issued the following statement on Thursday June 28, 2007, "The Pennsylvania Game Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Penn State today to insure hunting access for sportsmen. The Pennsylvania Game Commission will not oppose the transfer of the property to Penn State."

Jack, it could be the PGC is simply covering both scenarios. Looking for a win win situation, not putting all their eggs in one basket, and a few other cliche’s come to mind.

I am not a wordsmith, but it seems to me that "will not oppose ..." does not necessarily mean “will support” and is definitely not the same as “will not pursue transfer to the PGC.”

That's about right. At the time, it looked like the legislators were prepared to ram this thing through. So the PGC got them agree to a hunting easement, so that if the land did go to Penn State, at least there would be some hunting available, for awhile. (Penn State would not agree to a permanent hunting easement.) Signing the easement does not mean they supported the transfer to Penn State.

A lot has happened since that time. A coalition of conservationists got together to oppose the transfer to Penn State and Benner Twp, and to find a conservation entity to manage the land for conservation purposes, to protect water quality and riparian and floodplain areas in Spring Creek Canyon, and to protect rare plants found on the canyon walls. The entity that was willing to do this was the PA Game Commission.

They are definitely interested in this land. They were at the original meetings asking for the land. And this summer they sent a representative to a meeting with conservation groups here in Centre County and asked for our support. This was AFTER the hunting easement was signed. That hunting easement isn't really relevant to what's going on. The Game Commission has also offered to pay more money than Penn State for the land.

After the meeting, the following groups have signed onto the proposal that the land to be transferred to the Game Commission for permanent protection:

PA Council of Trout Unlimited
Spring Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited
PA Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
Centre County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
PA Chapter Sierra Club
Moshannon Group Sierra Club
National Wild Turkey Federation
United Bow Hunters of Pennsylvania
Adams County Chapter of Trout Unlimited
State College Bird Club
Juniata Valley Audubon
Coalition for Open Space Preservation
Nittany Mountain Biking Association

After hearing about this movement, Mike Hanna tried to sneak through a transfer to Penn State with little discussion or public input at the end of legislative session. But we conservationists contacted key legislators and put a stop to that. So contacting legislators can work! The fact that we stopped Hanna from doing this shows that this issue is still very much in play.

It's a boiling kettle right now, there's all kinds of stuff swirling around. If you are a conservationist here in Centre County, you hear about all this stuff, much more than I can describe online. So no one really knows how it will all play out.

There will be a public meeting in September and then at some point the legislature will have to make a decision.

That's why I posted on here asking people to contact their legislators.

(I'm not sure why posting a conservation message on here always becomes so difficult. What is this website's position on stream conservation?)

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:
....(I'm not sure why posting a conservation message on here always becomes so difficult. What is this website's position on stream conservation?)

I don't think this website has any position unless you would point to a consensus among people who voice their opinions, which does not seem to be homogenous. The question is whether there is any justification for the hidden implication that the sale of this land to Penn State is neccessarily an anti-conservation event. It is obvious that you feel it is, but it is possible that others feel that conservation goals can be achieved through means other than the one option that you and the organizations you list support. So far, it seems to me that there is a strong lobby for transfer to Penn State. If the idea of pursuing easements and restrictions in the event of that transfer is ignored, then I think the risk of that transfer without conservation protections is increased. When this issue first arose on this Board, I alluded to the Young Woman's Creek issue that arose many years back. Sometimes when you take a position of "all or nothing" you end up with "nothing." As I said, while winning is a wonderful thing, sometimes it is better to not lose so badly.

 

[troutbert]

When people post conservation related topics they are consistently and incessantly attacked by one of the moderators. This has been going on for a very long time, not just on this issue.

When every conservation post is attacked by a moderator of the site, it certainly gives the impression that the site does not welcome conservation messages and has anti-conservation bias.

On this thread, I was trying to provide flyfishers with information on a conservation issue on Spring Creek, one of our most productive and popular streams. I'm very close to this issue and am tracking it closely. And I just tried to share this info with the readers. And what happens?

My posts get labelled as "misleading" by one of the moderators, who knows nothing about the Spring Creek issues!

The idea seems to be to drive away anyone daring to post conservation information. And it seems to be working. I've noticed that many who used to post such information have been driven away already. Is that what paflyfish.com wants?

Is this site going to welcome conservation posts or is going to incessantly attack, disparage, harrass, and harangue anyone who posts such messages? It's decision time!

 

[JackM]

I am a moderator in the sense that I help with some of the duties requiring special privileges with the software. I have never, nor will I ever use my moderating privileges to interrupt a debate or censor a discussion as long as the posts do not begin to involve vulgarity or personal attacks of an eggregious nature. My participation here, however, is not "as a moderator," but as a private invitee, just like you and I never agreed to surrender my freedom to express an opinion on a topic under discussion because I have taken on voluntary duties as a moderator.

That said, let's get to the issue. Every thread that has been open on this topic, you have posted on, making the implication that transfer of this land to PSU spells doom and gloom for Spring Creek and that the only way to save it, the only way any reader of these topics can act responsibly as a conservation-minded angler is to oppose the transfer to PSU and support the transfer only to PGC. I happen to disagree with that position. So, when I see that position promoted on a thread discussing this issue, I exercise my privilege to engage in the discussion so that others reading about the topic will have more to think about than the view you are promoting.

The question to ask yourself is who is attempting to scare away who? Do you expect that every topic you post on should have no dissent? And "dissent" is not even the right word, because I have never, ever, suggested that anyone oppose the option to transfer this land to PGC. What I have done, will always do until I am no longer welcome as a guest of the Board owner, is to make sure that all viewpoints are represented, particularly when I feel someone is implying that there is only one viewpoint that is worthy of being held.

 

[Cynic]

Troutbert,

On Benner Twp - Lived in a smaller Pa. Twp. for 24 years. Now living in Montgomery Co., Md. The difference - better liars and spin here in Mont. Co.

Will try to read this entire thread and then comment on your position that there is an anti-enviroment/conservation bias here. But, in our society in general, taking a strong pro-environment position on an issue is not too popular. But, you have to go back to basics on such issues which is: as a Nation we have chosen to build an Economic Monster instead of a Civilization!

On another thread there were some comments about arguing. On that, I'll just say: July 11, 1804!

 

[tabasco_joe]

Cynic wrote:
Troutbert,

On Benner Twp - Lived in a smaller Pa. Twp. for 24 years. Now living in Montgomery Co., Md. The difference - better liars and spin here in Mont. Co.

Will try to read this entire thread and then comment on your position that there is an anti-enviroment/conservation bias here. But, in our society in general, taking a strong pro-environment position on an issue is not too popular. But, you have to go back to basics on such issues which is: as a Nation we have chosen to build an Economic Monster instead of a Civilization!

On another thread there were some comments about arguing. On that, I'll just say: July 11, 1804!

Did you know that Burr cheated? A couple years ago the Smithonian took the dueling pistols apart to clean them. They were supplied by Burr for the duel. Turns out they had a hidden set trigger which is a no-no in dueling.

That duel was precipitated by heated verbal battles in the press. If you think our current news sources are biased you should check out what was happening in the early 1800s. Each side had it's newspaper allies which slanted the news in thier favor including outright lies.

So when the debate over bamboo or graphite rods gets heated be careful you may need to choose your weapon. Nymphs or dry flies?