Is there an Update on SC?

[troutbert]

Thanks to all who have sent messages to their legislators and/or the governor on the Spring Creek Canyon lands issue. Your help is greatly appreciated.

 

[Will]

Too many belt-high fastballs in that one to just let 'em go by, Jack.

1. "LJ, is there some belief that the PSU cyanide spill was intentional? If not, why demonize the University so much?

One need not conclude that PSU has damaged SC "intentionally" in order to hold them responsible. There is such a thing as negligence, counselor. And even if PSU has not been negligent, I think the issue is whether they have been a good enough custodian to merit trusting them with additional sensitive lands.

2. Do people think that area of the Commonwealth could survive without all the money that is brought into the local economy by the University?

Yes. Surely other areas of the Commonweath have "survived" without PSU being there. There have been economic burdens and benefits of having PSU where it is. Reasonable people could disagree about which has been greater. State College is a very nice town and PSU is in many respects a great institution. But if you've spent any time elsewhere in Centre County it is pretty darned nice in its sleepy and undeveloped state.

3. "...if anyone thinks that all development will or even should stop so as to preserve our pleasure in fly fishing beautiful stream across the Commonwealth, they are living in a dream world."

If anyone thinks that - or says anything remotely like it - I am sure you'll let us know. In the meantime, you might stop setting up straw men just to knock them over.

 

[FarmerDave]

Maurice wrote:
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.

That is what it sounded like to me, too. Developers can submit all they want, but at this point, it wouldn't matter. Think about it, they turned down a higher offer from the PGC in favor or Penn State. Why would they sell it to a developer?

They just need to get it right. so what if it takes a few extra months. the land isn't going anywhere in the mean time.

 

[JackM]

My query regarding the cyanide spill was not in any way suggesting they weren't responsible for the spill or damage, but if you are going to base your contension that transfer of part of the land in question to PSU spells the end of Spring Creek as we know it, then I think you have to be coupling that belief with the belief that PSU doesn't care whether its activities harm the environment. How can one conclude that without a showing that prior events were at least grossly negligent?

It is true that the area would survive without PSU, but it would look nothing like what it does now. Nor would it support the present non-student population, nor the commerce that it does. I have no problem if people want to see the area return to the grand days of yesteryear, but you can't have it both ways unless you find a way to balance development against preservation of natural resources. Once again, if someone wishes to advance the cause of strict preservation of the land in question, they can and should do so. Yet, if they ignore the reality of the strength of the forces behind transfer of some of this land to PSU, they risk that the transfer will occur with little protection, let alone full preservation, of the resources at issue.

Finally, I don't think I have set up any straw man. The posts promoting the PGC transfer option argue for no development on this plot of land as best I can tell for the purpose of preventing any risk that Spring Creek will be impacted. I am suspect that preserving our fly fishing paradise is a completely unrelated interest for those advocating this here. Rather than a strawman falacy, I would suggest what I am doing is extending the arguments to their logical conclusion so that people might consider whether,in this particular instance, taking a position of all or nothing is as wrong-headed as would be the position that the land simply be conveyed to whomever without any restictions that would protect the resource.

 

[FarmerDave]

Will wrote:
"Actually Jack you have continuously and sometimes with venom interupted conservation posts almost every time such a post has been made."

Actually, Chaz, if you pay attention, Jack generally does pretty much what he says he does - challenge assumptions and play devil's advocate. If you come on very strong and one-sided (as certain posters, ahem, almost invariably do) then you increase the likelihood that you will get an argument out of him. I often disagree with Jack, but I don't think its fair to label him anti-conservation, and I think its frankly ridiculous to label the entire site that way.

On the actual issue at hand, my opinion is that the PGC would be a much better and safer steward of the SC canyon lands than PSU would be, based on everything I have heard. That ought to be the goal, if it can be achieved. If not, easements may be a better fall back position than no protection at all.

Will, I agree 100 percent ... with your entire message.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
LJ, is there some belief that the PSU cyanide spill was intentional? If not, why demonize the University so much? Seems to me, there is always a tension between development and natural resources. Do people think that area of the Commonwealth could survive without all the money that is brought into the local economy by the University? These issues are always one of balance, but if anyone thinks that all development will or even should stop so as to preserve our pleasure in fly fishing beautiful stream across the Commonwealth, they are living in a dream world.

Jack, I doubt it was intentional, but being someone who deals with safety issues, I can argue that it was careless at best.

Was TMI intentional?

 

[JackM]

I suppose, then, we will just have to accept the implication that PSU is "accident prone." I'm convinced. Tell your legislators and the governor that if PGC can't get the land, you don't care what happens since it spells the demise of Spring Creek as we know it. Here's to the sun not exploding. int:

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
I suppose, then, we will just have to accept the implication that PSU is "accident prone." I'm convinced. Tell your legislators and the governor that if PGC can't get the land, you don't care what happens since it spells the demise of Spring Creek as we know it. Here's to the sun not exploding. int:

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not, but i didn't say that. You can draw that conclusion from what I said if you like, but I did not imply that and clearly did not say that. All I did was answer the question.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Whether the cyanide spill was intentional, grossly negligent, negligent, or an act of God, the point really is that when you have any kind of development in a sensitive area, the development is likely to have negative impacts. The cyanide spill wouldn’t have happened if the land was in a natural state, no matter what the cause. I’m just saying this to make a point so, Jack, please give me credit for having some sense, and don’t respond that the only way to prevent such impacts is to go back to the 16th century. This is one fairly small area of special significance in it’s somewhat natural state. There are very few places like this around. Development and “progress” can’t be held at bay, but it can be done in a way that minimizes negative impacts on the environment. I think the majority of the population would prefer this if they had the power to do it. I highly doubt that there is some great need to develop this one small parcel of unique land.

 

[FarmerDave]

Well said WM.

My original response was going to be this (I saved it), but i decided to take a different route.

You tell me (Jack). Given what we know about the parties involved, and the choices of the PGC and Penn State as proprietors of that property. Which choice presents the lesser risk to the stream and the property from an environmental point of view.

I realize there are other factors involved besides the environment, but I was only responding to your question whether or not Penn State polluted that stream on purpose or not. The negative risks to the stream and the land are clearly greater with Penn State at the helm. Give them Tobey Creek in Clarion County instead. I'm sure they can get most of it for a song and a dance, and Lord knows they could use the economic boost :-D

Jack, I'm guessing you are a PSU alumni. OK, that wasn't in my original, but i decided to add it. :-D

 

[JackM]

I have been saying all along that "[d]evelopment and “progress” can’t be held at bay, but it can be done in a way that minimizes negative impacts on the environment...". I have also been suggesting that there are more ways than transfer of the land to PGC to accomplish this goal.

Now, more poignantly, you say:

"I highly doubt that there is some great need to develop this one small parcel of unique land."

And you are correct. There is no great need-- just a very strongly supported desire. Spring Creek runs, how many miles or dozens of miles, from its source until it spills into Bald Eagle? Will those opposing this transfer to PSU, even with severe restrictions that might be bargained for in the process, feel differently about use of land anywhere within a half-mile of Spring Creek's expanse? I doubt it. I don't think thay are reacting to the limited development in this particular area, but are reacting to development anywhere near the stream. It is unrealistic, though not akin to trying to return to the 16th century-- that would require that we de-develop. But if development of any kind were opposed for the sake of preserving the land and waters in their present state, wouldn't it be akin to remaining in the 20th century from the viewpoint of those in the 24th century?

 

[tomgamber]

I'm kind of surprised by all the PSU bashing. When I think of Penn State, after football, I think about the grad who is the Bull Trout biologist for the state of Idaho working every day to help save a threatened species. I think about the first college to add flyfishing to it phys ed curriculum. I think of all my buddy's frat brothers who were all parks and rec and biology majors and took me fishing when I visited. I know at least one for them works for Orvis and another is a big wig with the Rocky mountain Elk foundation. I think about the fact that the only stretch of spruce creek that, as a regular joe , I can fish is owned by PSU.

I don't know or remember about the cyanide spill...must have missed that thread...have followed the Spring Creek "for sale" thing as much as I can on here...Not sure how I feel one way or another...but I'm really surprised, even living in Pitt country, why some of you are so quick to condemn PSU. As far as the economy thing is concerned...its a joke..if PSU doesn't exist, neither does State College. Its just a big forest with good fishing...and without the 50,000 residents that come and go in 4-year cycles...

 

[JackM]

Not an alumni, don't you have to graduate to claim that? But I did attend my first two years there. That local economy depends entirely on the University and anyone who won't acknowledge that is in denial. You have a myriad of developers looking for land, and I dare say, the intentions of most are far worse than the intentions of PSU. If you read through some of the posts, you will note that in order to persuade readers to favor the transfer to PGC, many of those advocates are claiming or implying that PSU "can't be trusted, etc...." Frankly, I think that is an unfair tactic in the debate and this is why I questioned whether there was a belief that they had acted intentionally or even recklessly in regard to this resource.

 

[Wulff-Man]

I am a PSU grad. Studied biology and environmental resource management. I go back every year for at least one game, and more times to fish. It's a great school, and one of the great things about it is the setting. I don't necessarilly think that the university would be irresponsible, but I do think that money has become a very big factor in the "corporate educational system". I'm sure there are factions of the university that are pro-environment, and factions that are pro-business. I'll just go back to what I said earlier about any kind of development being a risk for a special area that is currently in a basically natural state. When the PGC offers more money for it than developers, it would seem like a good thing to preserve this land. And because PSU makes the region what it is doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not the area in question should be sold for development.

 

[littlejuniata]

I really don't see the issue as bashing PSU. just facts in the argument as to who would be the better steward. I really do think that it would be to PSUs advantage to educate, promote and assist with environmentallly correct development. Since the college and who knows who else benefits greatly frim Penn State Home games, and since the games are a tremendous drain on a very scarce resource (water) I would think it would be great PR if the college donated a percentage of the "take" to the study and preservation of the stream and preservation of the ground water resources. Went past Slab Cabin today looks like it is nearly out water again??

 

[FarmerDave]

Jack, I agree some are bashing Penn State like that can't be trusted. I am not one of them, and I'm a Pitt grad so i should be bashing them. Pitt VS Penn State was a geat rivalry until the Penn State pukes decided that Pitt wasn't worthy. Now we have to settle for getting out butts kicked by WVU.;-)

Sure there are several ways to protect this land from development or minimize the effexts of development. But which provides the lowest risk.

For me, it is about minimizing risk. It is a big part of what i do for work too. Look at it this way. If I can save the company money while also achiving the lowest risk, that my friend is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the politicians don't have to run the government like a company.

 

[FarmerDave]

I still have to wonder why the PGC wasn’t initially even considered even though they repeatedly expressed interest. My second guess (after the standard cooling off period) is because they figured most citizens would like to see the property used by a learning institution. It probably makes more sense than my first guess which I'll admit sounded a lot like a knee jerk reaction. ;-)

 

[littlejuniata]

Anyone realize that most will not be able to see the Penn State game on their local stations this weekend? The college had to agree to the Big Ten Tv fiasco, now I am mad at the college!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tomgamber]

littlejuniata wrote:
Anyone realize that most will not be able to see the Penn State game on their local stations this weekend? The college had to agree to the Big Ten Tv fiasco, now I am mad at the college!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not that it has anything to do with Spring Creek...but they never show PSU games on my locals in Pixburgh anyway. Don't get the J-town stations since I wen to the dish. I only see them if they are on ESPN. But I do get to see lots of Boise state games on weeknights!!!

 

[PaulG]

I'll watch it somewhere, even if I have to go to some bar :-(

PaulG

Go PSU!