Spruce Creek access

[Hackle]

Court to decide access to tract along Spruce Creek — a world-famous limestone trout stream in Pennsylvania
Mark Nale
// December 30, 2024

Does anyone have any information on this Court case.

 

[troutbert]

Court to decide access to tract along Spruce Creek — a world-famous limestone trout stream in Pennsylvania - Outdoor News

A close look at a map of Rothrock State Forest shows that over a quarter-mile of the state forest is adjacent to Spruce Creek – a world-famous limestone trout stream.

www.outdoornews.com

 

[Hackle]

Court to decide access to tract along Spruce Creek — a world-famous limestone trout stream in Pennsylvania - Outdoor News

A close look at a map of Rothrock State Forest shows that over a quarter-mile of the state forest is adjacent to Spruce Creek – a world-famous limestone trout stream.

www.outdoornews.com

 

[Hackle]

Court to decide access to tract along Spruce Creek — a world-famous limestone trout stream in Pennsylvania - Outdoor News

A close look at a map of Rothrock State Forest shows that over a quarter-mile of the state forest is adjacent to Spruce Creek – a world-famous limestone trout stream.

www.outdoornews.com

 

[Hackle]

I'd love to attend this Court case if I knew where and when it was. I've asked a local news channel last year to do an article on this case for the publics input but haven't seen anything on the news about it. I'd think if more fly fishermen would be aware of this case and voice their support for opening up more stream access along spruce creek dcnr would have a better chance of winning the case.

 

[CRB]

Citizens taking ownership a Pennsylvania DCNR Land/streams should be held accountable as payment(rent should be expected from their taking, be fined and held responsible for their unlawful taking. These individuals are and have been stealing from the commonwealth depriving the lawful use of the land/streams for their own benefit.
I hope the State nails it down in the public's favor.
Will case be heard by judge and jury or just a judge?
Could open even more stream miles up for public fishing/recreation.

 

[jifigz]

I was unaware of this case. Are those opposing the DCNR either families that rent to Homewaters, or is that land owned by Homewaters? If not, is there another fishing club there, or just landowners that want to keep people out?

 

[dryflyguy]

I'm guessing this is the Colerain Park section of stream.
A state forest road crosses the stream right there.
Runs along the water for a bit, then turns up the mountain into state forest land.

Years ago, you could fish the short section in the park.
Then It got posted about 10 feet away from the stream, If I recall correctly.
There are houses along the other side of the stream there along route 45.
And I've figured that those folks decided that somehow, they own both sides of the stream there.
Which seemed kinda strange.......

 

[troutbert]

On Google Maps, if you start at the village of Spruce Creek and work your way upstream a little way, you can see where the state forest borders Spruce Creek.

Property boundaries on online maps commonly have errors, so what you see there may not be accurate. But it looks like the stretch bordered by state forest is pretty short.

 

[dryflyguy]

I zoomed in on that state forest land border on google maps.
If that's right, it does not actually touch spruce creek very much at all.
In Colerain park, it does not reach to the eastern side of the creek, and those posted signs there seem to be correct.
However, it does actually run to the stream edge very briefly, at a few spots upstream and downstream from there.
Be interesting to find out where this tract is

 

[Hackle]

The creek section at colerain park I'm not sure if that's included in dcnr's assessment. The google maps are wrong! Maybe on X maps may be more accurate or closer to reality. There are sections, other than just at colerain park that will be affected by this Court decision. I've seen one of the property owners deeds and the rothrock state forest line is in the middle of the stream in that section. I think the public should be aware that really rich people don't want the public fishing there. If dcnr is correct that their line is in the middle of stream, then citizens should contact state representatives and ask for their due access. It's just fishing.. catch and release.

 

[Hackle]

I was unaware of this case. Are those opposing the DCNR either families that rent to Homewaters, or is that land owned by Homewaters? If not, is there another fishing club there, or just landowners that want to keep people out?

I'm not sure homewaters is involved but most likely be.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

On Google Maps, if you start at the village of Spruce Creek and work your way upstream a little way, you can see where the state forest borders Spruce Creek.

Property boundaries on online maps commonly have errors, so what you see there may not be accurate. But it looks like the stretch bordered by state forest is pretty short.

and its hard to access. Spoke to a landowner. His fear is how do you enforce "half-way" and people will be trespassing to access the DCNR side.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

I was unaware of this case. Are those opposing the DCNR either families that rent to Homewaters, or is that land owned by Homewaters? If not, is there another fishing club there, or just landowners that want to keep people out?

landowners and Colerain fishing club.

 

[dryflyguy]

You should come in via state forest land for sure

 

[nymphingmaniac]

The creek section at colerain park I'm not sure if that's included in dcnr's assessment. The google maps are wrong! Maybe on X maps may be more accurate or closer to reality. There are sections, other than just at colerain park that will be affected by this Court decision. I've seen one of the property owners deeds and the rothrock state forest line is in the middle of the stream in that section. I think the public should be aware that really rich people don't want the public fishing there. If dcnr is correct that their line is in the middle of stream, then citizens should contact state representatives and ask for their due access. It's just fishing.. catch and release.

not all the people are rich, but some are. Maybe it depends on the definition of wealthy. A significant concern is the loss of value of their property. My feeling is that was up to them to do due diligence before they paid a premium price (those who did not inherit). Their land will still be valuable, maybe not as much.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

DCNR should assess the practicality of public fishing in this section. If it is low, they should consider selling the section of the stream to the landowners or some type of "swap" with the Colerain club for more accessible water. Sort of like an easement. I know, that's really complicated.

 

[mgmunson]

not all the people are rich, but some are. Maybe it depends on the definition of wealthy. A significant concern is the loss of value of their property. My feeling is that was up to them to do due diligence before they paid a premium price (those who did not inherit). Their land will still be valuable, maybe not as much.

Loss of property value may be a concern, but not a very legitimate one. Access to public lands for sport and recreation tends to increase value, not decrease. If their benchmark was the false premise of owning the whole stream then they were simply wrong in their assessment. Sounds like a bunch of NIMBYs, quite literally. If it's public land, the public has the right to access and utilize it. This should be as simple as reviewing the survey.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Loss of property value may be a concern, but not a very legitimate one. Access to public lands for sport and recreation tends to increase value, not decrease. If their benchmark was the false premise of owning the whole stream then they were simply wrong in their assessment. Sounds like a bunch of NIMBYs, quite literally. If it's public land, the public has the right to access and utilize it. This should be as simple as reviewing the survey.

I agree. Reporting what I was told.

 

[jifigz]

I am tired of losing access to streams throughout our state. I am tired of elite clubs reinforcing the "hooty-tooty" image of fly fishing and the perceived snobbery that many view the hobby with. I would like fly fishing, and trout fishing in general, to appeal to the common man, and I wish we were all championing people getting into it and not limiting access to waters. (Many of us do champion the sport and help people get into it. I was referring to the greater society of fly fishermen.) Don't get me wrong! Trout fishing does appeal to the common man - for about 3 weeks, and then they quite chasing the stockies. But the continued loss of good wild trout streams has to stop.

There are a myriad of reasons why we continue to lose access, and all of those reasons are bad. I see more and more posted signs all of the time. I have been lucky enough to forge good relationships with certain landowners that have kept certain waters open to me. The conundrum of the whole thing is this: I support and fully agree with landowner rights to limit who accesses what on their land, but I wish that we, as a society, had more of those old-timey views. I wish we weren't so eager to alienate others from what we have. I wish we all treated each other a little more kindly and that it was reciprocated from all angles.

Okay, my rant is over, but dang, I HATE LOSING ACCESS to good water. What is happening on Spruce and what was attempted almost 20 years ago on the Little J is bound to get more common, not less common.