Is there an Update on SC?

[Will]

Jack wrote: "...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?"

I don't agree. PSU might very well care about the environment but have a relatively poor history of executing on that. And why must one conclude that PSU has been "grossly negligent" to feel that there are better options for this land? Ordinary negligence is fine with you?


Jack wrote: "Rather than a strawman falacy, I would suggest what I am doing is extending the arguments to their logical conclusion..."

Again I disagree. You have emphasized that this issue is about balancing development and preservation. If so, then it is hardly fair to take someone else's position that is somewhere in the middle (though they do not draw the line in the same place as you would) and then "extend" it to a more extreme position so that you can more easily assail it.

Jack wrote: "That local economy depends entirely on the University and anyone who won't acknowledge that is in denial."

Who are "those"? I'll wait. In my opinion, those who won't acknowledge that the State college area is already being developed so heavily and so rapidly that the "loss" of this parcel from those available for development would have zero economic impact are in denial.

I actually think the whole question of whether PSU can be "trusted" is the wrong one to ask. Haven't they indicated plans to use the land for agriculture and other development? Someone indicated that above. Is it correct? If so, then why do we need to speculate about what they will do? The PGC says they won't use the land that way, and PSU says they will. It doesn't seem like a tough call to me. BUT, as I have said already, if a transfer to PGC can't be accomplished then placing restrictions on the transfer to PSU is better than nothing.

 

[JackM]

The PSU transfer option does not presently envision that the entire tract will be clearcut, fertilized, planted, or used to graze cattle. In fact, if memory serves me, the plan whereby PSU would get part of the tract includes other parts, most notably those near the creek, to be held by other entities, or at least set aside with conservation and recreational easements. The part of the parcel that PSU intends to use for a research facility is the most distant from the creek and I think only contemplates a limited development of a structure or two and likely parking.

It seems to me there are two schools of thought into which the opponents of the PSU transfer option fall:

1. Some are primarily motivated by the belief that PSU will eventually either sell the land, over-develop it, or carry on activities that carry a risk of catastophy;

2. Some are primarily motivated by a desire to see no development near Spring Creek (and probably any other [trout] stream), regardless of the need or reasonableness of the development and regardless of the safeguards put in place to protect the stream.

Those in the first group would withdraw their opposition if they can be satisfied that the things they fear-- conveyance to irresponsible land owners, over-development, or catastrophy-- will not occur. Those in the second group will never withdraw their opposition, because their position can only be satisfied by conveyance to PGC or, I suppose, to a Conservacy of some kind.

My arguments and comments are directed toward the first group so as to persuade them to emphasize those restrictions that they think are needed when they write to or speak to their representatives. In that process, my arguments and comments are irritating to the second group because they want the first group to join them in their risky all-or-nothing gamble.

 

[JackM]

Continuing....

Those in this second group find themselves nowhere in the "middle" of two extremes as you suggest. They want transfer to PGC because it means NO development. This is at the very end of the spectrum.

If they are willing to accept transfer to PSU with neccessary or deemed neccessary restrictions, then they are in the first group and I will continue to urge them to communicate their interests and the details of the restriction they wish to see to their government officials implement should the property transfer to PSU carry the day.

You ask me who are "those" that do not acknowledge that the local economy depends entirely upon PSU. I say it is those who naively would urge others to ignore the PSU transfer option and urge their representative to simply favor the PGC option.

I have read the information available, and I am convinced that what the representative said is accurate, whether it sounds like a used-car sales pitch or not: ignore the PSU option at your own peril.

 

[Will]

Your arguments may be directed at the first group, but your posts are liberally peppered with swipes at the second group.

You persist in characterizing the "second group" as some sort of extremists. Is it really so extreme to suggest that this one parcel along Spring Creek be preserved with no development? The whole area, including much of the same valley, is being rapidly developed. In light of that, I have a hard time swallowing the argument that development of this one sensitive parcel is inevitable, economically critical, or imporant to sustaining PSU as an educational institution and engine of local growth.

Your point regarding political strategy is more germane. I think reasonable people could differ on whether the best idea at this point is to press for PGC ownership or accept the PGC option as a lost cause and advocate restrictions on a PSU transfer. You characterize the former as a risky gamble, but one could as easily say that asking only for the PSU option with restrictions is negotiating against oneself. If you start out asking for only half a loaf, you guarantee that you will never get a whole loaf and may get nothing.

Fortunately, requests to legislators can be framed in the alternative.

 

[JackM]

I have seen nobody, other than myself, suggest that entreaties directed to the elected and appointed decision-makers should include discussion of any alternative to the PGC transfer. This is why I continue to engage this topic. From the start, the proponents of the PGC transfer have done very little beyond trying to force the conclusion that any responsible conservation-minded person must support the PGC transfer option.

 

[Cynic]

I am a lazy person. In bringing this SC/PSU issue to this section, I only skimmed the posts in that section. Thought it to be an interesting issue. So, I posted it here.

I am sure this information is in one of the posts, but since so many of you are so well informed on this issue, just how many square miles of land are at issue here?

Thanks.

 

[FarmerDave]

I see it a little differently Will.

Jack, all I can say is, what a load. Many of us don’t fit into either of your groups. Why do you insist on pigeon holing us.

In that process, my arguments and comments are irritating to the second group because they want the first group to join them in their risky all-or-nothing gamble.

Actually, You are also irritating anyone who feels that the PGC is simply the better of two good choice. Are they in your first or second group, or is that a third.

To expand on that: The way I see it, we basically have two choices here. PSU or PGC. Like many others, I think that they are both good choices for this piece of land as long as environmental protections are established. However, I feel PGC is simply the much better choice (lower risk). I think a whole lot of people have a similar stand. Probably a majority. Most of the examples I have seen of letters sent fall along those lines. Most stress that the most important is protect the environmental integrity of the land, and second, the PGC is the better choice. Many praised the move, and only suggest the PGC might be better. i didn't see any that said PGC is the only choice. So, is it OK to state what I just said in an email to the appropriate people?

I could be wrong, but you on the other hand seem to think Penn State is the better choice while criticizing those that disagree. Do you care to tell us which choice you think is best? If it is PSU, do you care to explain why? If you are trying to convince us that PSU is the better choice, this might actually help win someone over. The way you are going about it now just isn’t working.

One last thing. It is time someone torches that bogus argument about the economy relying almost entirely on the university. Alas, the local economy does rely almost entirely on PSU, but it is irrelevant in this discussion. You can bet your last dollar that the university is not going to move to Ohio if they don’t get that land. They aren’t going anywhere regardless of what happens. Therefore, that argument is truly made of straw. That is unless you think we should give it up to them simply to kiss there arse just for being there.

 

[JackM]

The local economy "argument" as you call it is not an argument, but a reality check. A couple hundred fly anglers trying to gain or preserve their ability to fish on previously restricted land is not much of a match bor a billion dollar industry. More freshmen enter the University each year than the out-of-town anglers that visit Spring Creek.

I posted my letter to my representatives on one of these threads. I made it clear that I favored one thing and one thing only: protection of the creek. If that can be done with transfer to PSU, then I am glad both for the creek and PSU. I will not set up a false dilemma of PGC transfer or death to the creek. I will not presume to know more than the decision makers about what is in the best interest of all of the various stakeholders.

 

[tomgamber]

FarmerDave wrote:

One last thing. It is time someone torches that bogus argument about the economy relying almost entirely on the university. Alas, the local economy does rely almost entirely on PSU, but it is irrelevant in this discussion. You can bet your last dollar that the university is not going to move to Ohio if they don’t get that land. They aren’t going anywhere regardless of what happens. Therefore, that argument is truly made of straw. That is unless you think we should give it up to them simply to kiss there arse just for being there.

I agree it has little to do with this issue. I only mentioned it in my post because someone suggested that it wasn't so. I'm glad I read more than just the first 2 sentences above though. When someone writes such completely contradictory statements I usually read no farther. Is see now that your point was whether it was relevant to the discussion.

I still don't see how either one of these two prospective owners can be a really bad thing. Be happy Ryan homes or some Korean glass manufacturer isn't trying to purchase it. You can't completely protect the stream from disaster. Ask the people with homes and businesses along the Sinnemahoning. Do you think they saw a spill coming there? How will you feel if the PGC puts a firing range on the land. We have one right above one of my favorite brookie streams in the gamelands here. Its not fun having bullets whizzing overhead while walking ON THE ROAD to and from the stream. Point is, one could find fault with either. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[JackM]

Cynic wrote:
I am a lazy person. In bringing this SC/PSU issue to this section, I only skimmed the posts in that section. Thought it to be an interesting issue. So, I posted it here.

I am sure this information is in one of the posts, but since so many of you are so well informed on this issue, just how many square miles of land are at issue here?

Thanks.

No one has given any details, but I did post links where you could learn all you want to know. There is now a page consolidating the information here: http://benner.centreconnect.org/rockview.htm

The total land under consideration for transfer is 1800 acres if I read correctly.

 

[Maurice]

Jack and all,

The way I see it or from what I've read, the deal to PSU is the one on the table. With conservatoin considerations included, etc. The suggeston to turn the land over to the PGC is a recommendation, a "better" solution for the land transfer to "guarantee" conservation easement and practice. There may have been allegations of potential mis-use based on previous practices used to convince potential political influence toward the PGC option. But that isn't unusual. It too isn't untrue.

It is also not an "all or nothing" proposition. If the PGC options isn't explored, then the PSU option goes into effect. I am not aware of another possibility. Nor do I believe that the powers that be will "fix our wagon" if we don't support the PSU decision.

It is our right as a citizenry to voice our opinions to our legislators toward public domain issues. Why can't people close to the issue who know more about it than anyone make recommendations toward our expression of that right.

Here is what bothers me about these things regarding conservation issues. People close to an issue bring options to the table and make recommendations, Often these rec's meet opposition and usually by those not interested in conservation. Thats OK its their right too to oppose. But in the mean time, the fall out from the incessent argument and undying, tiring process kills the potential to build support for something that really, in the end would be a "better" solution. Not an all or nothing proposition. And all for the sake of arguement...not because they have a vested interest in the arguement. I think those who do this are spoilers.

And as for the YMC reference, It also occurs to me the recommendation from the WCCSA was to make it stocked, with DHALO or general regs. There was already a selective harvest reg there. The end result was stocked with C&R. So it wasn't a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It was a compromise. It was worth the fight and this is too. Without the fight, you would find few if any places to fish in PA over the past 50 years and the years to come.

What amazes me is how one can stand alone and argue for so long about the same issue. If it is about making a point, make it and move on.

 

[JackM]

You should know that I can stand and defend my positions when they are attacked and criticized usually for as long as people attack and criticize them, so "move on" advice should be directed at both/all participants or none at all. Every word of advocacy from those "close to the issue" has been to contact legislators and the Governor to urge them to support transferring the land to PGC. I have been the only one to suggest that people not neglect addressing their concerns about restrictions needed in the deeds if (and most probably when) the transfer involving PSU takes place.

Regarding YWC: claiming half a victory now sounds impressive, but if you are honest in your recollection, nobody was advocating C & R regulations, they were advocating no stocking on this high Class B section to allow it to recover. Instead of seeking a compromise where only part of the vast stretch of YWC would be stocked, the whole section was opened to stocking with C & R. Is that better than open regs? Certainly. Is that really what anyone other than the sportsmen's group wanted? Not to my recollection.

Further, the point I am urging isn't that the representatives or PSU will "stick it to" the opposition. The point I am making is that a simple message, no matter how eloquent, saying you favor the PGC transfer is, in my opinion, a huge error, if you don't also address your concerns about restrictions and why you want them in the event of the PSU transfer. If you don't what will happen is what happened on YWC, in order to appease the opposition, they will throw a bone your way that they think will satisfy your concerns. Never having been told what your real concerns are, you should not be surprised if they don't actually address them.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:
You should know that I can stand and defend my positions when they are attacked and criticized usually for as long as people attack and criticize them, so "move on" advice should be directed at both/all participants or none at all. Every word of advocacy from those "close to the issue" has been to contact legislators and the Governor to urge them to support transferring the land to PGC. I have been the only one to suggest that people not neglect addressing their concerns about restrictions needed in the deeds if (and most probably when) the transfer involving PSU takes place.

Regarding YWC: claiming half a victory now sounds impressive, but if you are honest in your recollection, nobody was advocating C & R regulations, they were advocating no stocking on this high Class B section to allow it to recover. Instead of seeking a compromise where only part of the vast stretch of YWC would be stocked, the whole section was opened to stocking with C & R. Is that better than open regs? Certainly. Is that really what anyone other than the sportsmen's group wanted? Not to my recollection.

Actually, the sportsmans group want it to go to a kill section, nothing more. They wanted to put fish there and kill them. The F&BC allowed the stocking but not the kill. Allowing the wild pops to rebound if they were inclined to, albiet with the competition of stocked fish. I'd call that a compromise.

Further, the point I am urging isn't that the representatives or PSU will "stick it to" the opposition. The point I am making is that a simple message, no matter how eloquent, saying you favor the PGC transfer is, in my opinion, a huge error, if you don't also address your concerns about restrictions and why you want them in the event of the PSU transfer. If you don't what will happen is what happened on YWC, in order to appease the opposition, they will throw a bone your way that they think will satisfy your concerns. Never having been told what your real concerns are, you should not be surprised if they don't actually address them.

Now see, that is a good, concise point.

I'll move on now.

 

[littlejuniata]

Anyone know what the value of 1800 acres would be to a developer?? I think the Game Commission generates revenue, Penn State is supported, Game Commsision should have the land, if need be let PSU lease from the Game Commission. PSU has loads of money, ask JoePa

 

[JackM]

Maurice wrote:

Actually, the sportsmans group want it to go to a kill section, nothing more. They wanted to put fish there and kill them. The F&BC allowed the stocking but not the kill. Allowing the wild pops to rebound if they were inclined to, albiet with the competition of stocked fish. I'd call that a compromise.

It was a compromise, but I think a bad one. Both opposing groups lost. The "sportsmen" don't get to kill and the "conservationists" have the whole section stocked. Had the conservationists seen the writing on the wall, they would have been wiser, methinks, to advocate allowing stocking and killing on the lower section, which was adjacent to stocked waters anyhow (on the left branch ) in exchange for no stocking in the upper reaches of right branch with C&R regs. The reasons this compromise didn't get reached is only speculation, but one reason is could be that no one really sought it.

 

[Maurice]

...its a fly ball to left field....he's under it will Jack make the catch. No he dropped the ball. A can of corn too. :lol:

you gotta keep your eye on the ball Jack. When YWC went to Class B for the second year, the proposal was to take it off the class A list which would take it out of the Sel Har reg. The sportsmans club railed hard for it and met opposition. Adding another "deal" only muddies the water and lets face it, the F&BC when faced with these quandries rarely if ever follows ones side of the public front.

Troutbert, sorry for derailing the SC issue.

Send your comments to the legislators and governor regarding your opinion on the transfer of the Rockview land. Include conservation minded interest whatever your point of view is on the favored custodian.

 

[Cynic]

The proposed owners and acreages of land are:

· Benner Township - 400 acres

· Penn State – 1124 acres

· Rockview State Correctional Institute – 18 acres

· PA Fish and Boat Commission-Benner Springs Hatchery – 59 acres

· PA Department of General Services (DGS) – 235 acres

That's 1,836 acres which is less that 3 square miles - I think.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
You should know that I can stand and defend my positions when they are attacked and criticized usually for as long as people attack and criticize them, so "move on" advice should be directed at both/all participants or none at all.

Well, you have to admit that is pretty easy when your position is a moving target, or cloudy at best.

Don't get me wrong, As usual, I think your advice is very good advice once it is sifted from the chaff.

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave wrote:

JackM wrote:
You should know that I can stand and defend my positions when they are attacked and criticized usually for as long as people attack and criticize them, so "move on" advice should be directed at both/all participants or none at all.

Well, you have to admit that is pretty easy when your position is a moving target, or cloudy at best....

The only thing that has changed about my position on this issue is your perception of my position and the only two things that are cloudy are your recollection of my consistent position or comprehension of it. Here help yourself:

http://www.paflyfish.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&type=&topic_id=592&forum=2

http://www.paflyfish.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1969&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&type=&mode=0&start=0

http://www.paflyfish.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&type=&topic_id=592&forum=2

http://www.paflyfish.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=15647

Posted by Jack M. on 7/25/2007

I will be sending these letters tonight:

Dear [Governor Rendell][Representative Harhai][Senator Stout]:

....If there is any chance that the allowable development by the University will negatively impact Spring Creek or that the transfer will make it possible for the lands to be further transferred without restrictions on such development, I urge you to oppose that option.
....Please use your influence to assure that Spring Creek is protected in the process of this property transfer either by supporting transfer to the Game Commission, or requiring enforceable restrictive covenants that would prevent development that might threaten the health of Spring Creek.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

 

[FarmerDave]

Maybe so Jack, but let me point out just one incidence where you clouded up your so called “consistent position”. There are more. This is from one message. The one I called a load.

1. Some are primarily motivated by the belief that PSU will eventually either sell the land, over-develop it, or carry on activities that carry a risk of catastrophe;
…
Those in the first group would withdraw their opposition if they can be satisfied that the things they fear-- conveyance to irresponsible land owners, over-development, or catastrophe-- will not occur.

That is consistent with what? Most of us support PGC over the PSU choice for concerns stated in your number 1 or at least for similar reasons. You yourself seem to support PGC over the original proposal. So, why on Gods green earth would you want anyone to withdraw their opposition knowing that if everyone did that, the original proposal would surely go through. Unless of course, you are really in favor of the original proposal over the PGC if safeguards are in place. Safeguards with more risk involved I might add. Like I said, cloudy at best.

This wasn’t the only instance, either. Sounds to me like your “consistent position” could use a little Viagra.

I can see it now.

My new letter to the people involved as written per Jack’s recommendations:

Great idea guys, that is a heck of a good idea to divvy that property up to all those groups. I understand this is basically a done deal. But here is another idea. Sell it to the Game Commission. It’s not necessarily a better idea, just another one. I know that a couple times before they had offered to buy it, but would you please look at it again. It might be as good of an idea. I know the environment will get some degree of protection with either choice. It might be a little better protected under the PGC, but not enough to be concerned about where I would chose one over the other. Keep up the good work.

Oh yea, that would help.

What is the point?

Of course like i said, you could be right. It could be I was just reading you wrong, but if more than one of us don’t think so, then maybe it actually was in the presentation.