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