Spring Ridge Club experience.

[Will]

Like others here I am exceedingly suspicious of anything anyone from SRC says. That said, there was a lot of useful information in this thread and I would not want to discourage anyone from posting similar material in the future by a) twisting or exaggerating what the poster - sight nymph - is saying, or b) accusing him of being dim-witted, which some folks are coming close to doing. I also think that regardless of one's legal rights, it is a polite and appropriate thing to do to move out of the way of a charity fishing event, and I disagree with anybody who implies that doing so is somehow failing to support the courts, or stand up for one's rights, or whatever.

A few thoughts on developers and development. First, I think DB and company are deliberately trying to reposition themselves as allied with non-member anglers against a common enemy. This is smart strategy on their part, but there may actually be some instances where it benefits both "allies". I'd still tread very carefully, though. Second, I think buying up streamside land, as SRC does, doesn't solve - or necessarily even help - the real development problems. For example, most land immediately adjacent to Spring Creek is not heavily developed. You can fish most of it and what buildings there are often older residences. And in places like Bellefonte, the fishing is still good where the banks are built up. The problem there is the digging up and paving of very large parts of the surrounding watershed (and many more people sucking water out of the aquifer). To put it another way, over the long term we may be better off to have some homes near the banks with a decent riparian buffer, sitting in a lightly developed watershed, than have completely undeveloped (and possibly posted) banks in the middle of a watershed that is Pavement City. Whatever the Beav or his successors at SRC are doing against "development" ought to be taken much more seriously when it is focusing on the whole watershed and not just on securing pieces of streamside land that might conveniently serve them as new "beats" in the future.

 

[sight_nymph_17109]

Will,

Thanks. I knew that a verbal beating would ensue if I posted this. This is a very touchy subject for sure. At the risk of being disowned, I thought it might help bring to light some issues and possibly help inspire new ideas to help find a solution to the problems at hand. Most likely, SRC, PFC and the public aren't going anywhere in the near future. There's gotta be a solution. All can get along and focus on saving the streams. Some will be theirs and some will be ours but at least they will be preserved. You can't fight someone with $$ unless you've got more $$$. I'm willing to donate what I can but there's gotta be a plan in place or it's all for nothing.

 

[Padraic]

At the risk of sounding like I am "pounding" on you, I'd like to disagree.

I think what the public has to do is fight more dilligently for it's rights to public resources. And to advocate for environmental protection.

Otherwise, we'll only have white collar and blue collar fishing clubs, not public fishing. And you'll only have the chance to fish your own beat.

The Little J decision preserves the rights of the public to use public resources. It also defines what a landowner cannot claim as private. I'm not saying it's a win-win, but it makes some murky water clearer.