Spruce Creek access

[dryflyguy]

Not according to dcnr and dept. Of forestry. They firmly state that the line is in the center of stream. I find it hard to believe the state would make an incorrect assessment of their own property line.

I'm not stating that the DCNR doesn't have a good case.
I'm sure they do.

Just wondering how much of the area in question can actually be opened up, according to their own map
Does seem kinda unusual to have a pronounced border like that run so close to a natural feature like spruce creek, and stop just short, as it seems to on much of that map
Guessing this will come to checking deeds and and surveys

 

[troutbert]

ArcGIS Web Application

huntingdonco.maps.arcgis.com

You can see Huntingdon County's tax parcel mapping at that link.

Tax maps are far from perfect. And are not the legal description of the boundaries, which are found in the deeds. But they are probably the best mapping available on the internet.

 

[rrt]

When I was young more than 50 years ago, I stopped and fished Colerain a couple of times and caught a number of wild browns in the 9-10-inch range. I think it was a state park then, a tiny one with some picnic tables. It was small, and I doubt that it took an hour to fish -- at least that's how I remember it after all these years. I have no idea about who owns what now. It would be a nice place to spend an hour fishing and then sit down at a table for a sandwich if it is declared public property.

 

[Hackle]

ArcGIS Web Application

huntingdonco.maps.arcgis.com

You can see Huntingdon County's tax parcel mapping at that link.

Tax maps are far from perfect. And are not the legal description of the boundaries, which are found in the deeds. But they are probably the best mapping available on the internet.

I got a copy of this from Harrisburg

 

[flyguyfishing]

I support public access to fishing, so this would be good.

However, to me, it seems the motivation is mostly protecting their right to the land instead of new public fishing.

It is a small portion of the stream and fisherman will need to stand on one side (the public side) to fish.

From attachment Hackle posted “This work will apply catch and release artificial lures only regulations to this section of Spruce Creek and prohibit wading in the stream.”.

Not complaining about more public fishing access, but it seems like fishing access was not the priority of the proceedings.

 

[dryflyguy]

I support public access to fishing, so this would be good.

However, to me, it seems the motivation is mostly protecting their right to the land instead of new public fishing.

It is a small portion of the stream and fisherman will need to stand on one side (the public side) to fish.

From attachment Hackle posted “This work will apply catch and release artificial lures only regulations to this section of Spruce Creek and prohibit wading in the stream.”.

Not complaining about more public fishing access, but it seems like fishing access was not the priority of the proceedings.

It is as a small stream that usually doesn't require much wading anyway.
Given the situation of private property on the other side, I think its a reasonable stip

 

[nymphingmaniac]

fishing wise, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

 

[riverwhy]

I have no desire to fish where you are not allowed to wade. Can't even unfree a caught fly or splitshot.

 

[Patroutfly]

I like the idea of more fishing options, especially on public land.

 

[troutbert]

It's public land. We have a right of access to it.

DCNR has the duty/responsibility to prevent our right of access from being taken away.

 

[CRB]

It is about private taking, stealing resources from the 99.99% of the citizens of this Commonwealth.
It can not persist as it will give other people the right to take public lands and resources without payments or tax justifications.

 

[Swattie87]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m supporting and rooting for the public here. But it’s not gonna move the needle for me as to whether I’m gonna spend time fishing Spruce Creek.

 

[Hackle]

I have no desire to fish where you are not allowed to wade. Can't even unfree a caught fly or splitshot.

I get trying to save a good fly or wading to get a better drift. I can't fish the little J without wading but i can understand the damage 100+ fisherman a year, wading up a small short section of spruce creek could do to the aquatic life and stream banks. I think a no wade is a good compromise to get access.
An old fly fisherman asked me a question once fishing with him on spruce creek, "Why wade a stream you can cast across". He would step in to land a fish but that was about it. He didn't mind taking a kid fishing, but don't spook the fish he's about to catch under the bank. Lol.

 

[troutbert]

Once they get the boundaries clearly marked, I'll fish it to support DCNR's efforts to keep public land open to the public.

This is just one example of a larger issue. Some people will try to "privatize" public land, if allowed to.

 

[Bamboozle]

More importantly, a no wading rule will diffuse any situations arising from someone accessing from the public side and crossing over in to the private side inadvertently.

But...

If only HALF is public, how does the PFBC make it C&R & no wading or is that just THE public half?

 

[flyguyfishing]

Once they get the boundaries clearly marked, I'll fish it to support DCNR's efforts to keep public land open to the public.

This is just one example of a larger issue. Some people will try to "privatize" public land, if allowed to.

For sure! Hopefully others will too.

 

[Hackle]

My understanding is the state has the right thru eminent domain to confiscate private property for public use, with compensation. If so, would that give the state the ability to confiscate the other side of creek at colerain park for public use?

 

[Cznymph]

My understanding is the state has the right thru eminent domain to confiscate private property for public use, with compensation. If so, would that give the state the ability to confiscate the other side of creek at colerain park for public use?

I wouldn’t deem fishing access as grounds for eminent domain.

 

[tomgamber]

My understanding is the state has the right thru eminent domain to confiscate private property for public use, with compensation. If so, would that give the state the ability to confiscate the other side of creek at colerain park for public use?

Probably not so you can fish it. A highway, airport, even a new sports stadium even. But that's a hard argument. Public good and public use are very far apart. You can make your own conclusions.

Title 26

www.legis.state.pa.us

 

[Hackle]

I wouldn’t deem fishing access as grounds for eminent domain.

I can agree it shouldn't be used for just fishing access. But colerain used to be a state park with swimming, picnicking and hiking. Early mornings one could fish before the kids showed up to swim. I spent alot of time there as a child in the 60s and 70s. There used to be pavilions for picnicking with built in barbque pits for cooking. Not sure what changed or why the state tore it all down and closed it.