This Needs Attention START SCREAMING

[JackM]

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with the Bill other than your using your disagreement as a way of supporting your opinion that the Governor is "no friend of hunters," whereas all these various organizations that are "friends of hunters" seem to be on the same side as the Governor with respect to it.

 

[Maurice]

FarmerDave wrote:
Responses to your questions.

#2. that is all a bunch of what ifs. Regardless if simply a part of it or none of it is set aside, it is still a lossed opportunity, and it sounds like a loss of money for the state, too? Your #2 sounds like this. So what if my big brother ate the whole cake and stole the birthday money, I still might get to lick the plate someday.

I didn't intend for them to sound like what ifs...More like opportunities to take an unfortunate situation and make it better. An optomistic point of view.

Compromise is usually a tasteless meal on a hungry stomach. It brings out the the worst in the uninvolved fringe. But rest assured, there will be dedicated conservationists out there fighting to make the best of this "deal" Call them tree huggers, (not you dave) but lets face it....there are alot of lazy, apothetic sportsmen (fishermen and hunters) out there who ride their hobbies on the backs of the environmental wackos whether they like it or not. And, oh yeah...they like it. They are what I like to call the "Users".

 

[JackM]

A winking smiley does not a distortion undo:

"...the state will invest $7.2 million from Growing Greener II for the acquisition of the Laurel Hill property by The Conservation Fund. The land will then be transferred to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' Bureau of Forestry.... The fund agreed to hold the property until it can be transferred
to DCNR for long-term public stewardship."

 

[FarmerDave]

Well, Maurice and Jack. Since you are the most vocal about my opinion that Governor Ed is not a friend of hunters, how do you feel about the original subject? Do you think it was a good decision?

 

[JackM]

I'm gald you asked, Dave. I am actually withholding judgment until I can read more about it from someone other than a party that is apparently very interested in a particular outcome and appears to be a bit disgruntled that the outcome he is interested in does not seem to be leading the pack. It isn't a bad idea for others to consider a similar tack.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with the Bill other than your using your disagreement as a way of supporting your opinion that the Governor is "no friend of hunters," whereas all these various organizations that are "friends of hunters" seem to be on the same side as the Governor with respect to it.

That was my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

Let me ask you something. Those groups may support that bill, but do they support the Governor in general?

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
A winking smiley does not a distortion undo:

"...the state will invest $7.2 million from Growing Greener II for the acquisition of the Laurel Hill property by The Conservation Fund. The land will then be transferred to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' Bureau of Forestry.... The fund agreed to hold the property until it can be transferred
to DCNR for long-term public stewardship."

Sure it does. especially when I expressed how I really feel about it after that little joke. a lot of people worked hard on that one. Man, I'm sure glad I didn't point out that Growing greener was started by a Republican who was actually a hunter. Sheesh! :lol:

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
I'm gald you asked, Dave. I am actually withholding judgment until I can read more about it from someone other than a party that is apparently very interested in a particular outcome and appears to be a bit disgruntled that the outcome he is interested in does not seem to be leading the pack. It isn't a bad idea for others to consider a similar tack.

that was also my initial thought as well, but looking past the spin, if the numbers are correct, I can't see how this was a favorable decision.

 

[FarmerDave]

Maurice, all rhetoric aside, I think we are on the same page for the most part. i just don't think Randell is that great of a Governor, but he is certainly better than Taft was in Ohio. Besides, I must remind myself that I don't live in PA anymore.

 

[Maurice]

FarmerDave wrote:
Well, Maurice and Jack. Since you are the most vocal about my opinion that Governor Ed is not a friend of hunters, how do you feel about the original subject? Do you think it was a good decision?

I would have like to see it go the other way...on the surface, as a fishermen...but there are other factors involved I am sure. And probably some back door hanky panky or at least it will appear there is in the coming days. But I will, as Jack, wait a while before passing judgement. As I said, this can be a win....but it will take some pressure to make it happen.

For the record, I am not defending Rendell. I don't have the interest or time to dig up that data Jack does.

I just am responding to my inner-sense, call it common (although I'm not so sure it's as common as people believe). And view things from an even plane, realizing there are two sides...knowing which side I stand on and trying to see the other sides point of view. When you are involved in such situationsin a real life community/social, conservation fight, you can call names, and cut & run or you can dig in and get to the bottom to protect your factions goals. You win some and you lose some. But in the end...its the name callers who benefit, with little investment.

It is the name callers that I take isssue with...not their stance...or parties stance....but their lack of ability to or interest in fact finding and proficiency to be vocal about a party line or prejudice without accountability.

But thats just me and how I see things....with one crooked eye.

Maurice

 

[troutbert]

why in the hell did rendall give the land to penn state when the game commission was willing to pay so much more?

This thing isn't over. The legislation has not been passed. It is being PROPOSED to give the stream corridor lands to Benner Township and the flanking uplands to Penn State. Penn State would use the land for agricultural research, so you'd have intensive agriculture, research buildings, access roads, utilities etc., much like their Rock Springs property, if you are familiar with that.

The other proposal is that the land go to Game Commission. This would be better for the long-term conservation of the stream and surrounding lands.

Flyfishers who care about the future of streams in general, and Spring Creek in particular, should be asking themselves what they can do to influence the decision towards the Game Commission proposal.

The answer is to contact your state legislators in your district and tell them. By phone, by email, by letter. Do the same with Governor Rendell. If you do that, you are making a contribution to stream conservation.

You should make the message very simple. Avoid going off on tangents and making attacks etc. Simply tell them that you do not approve of the lands going to Penn State & Benner Twp, and that you are in favor of the land going to the Game Commission, for permanent protection.

 

[FarmerDave]

I took a second look at this one.

JackM wrote:
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with the Bill other than your using your disagreement as a way of supporting your opinion that the Governor is "no friend of hunters," whereas all these various organizations that are "friends of hunters" seem to be on the same side as the Governor with respect to it.

What are you smoking? you don't need to put owrds i my mouth. i'm perfectly cabable of screwing things up myself if I chose to. I did not use that bill to support my opinion that the governor is "no friend of hunters." On the contrary, I stated he was not a friend of hunters before you brought up that bill. That's right, you brought it up to try and support your opinion that he is a friend of hunters. You are also entitled to that opinion (twisted as it may be). I just happened to disagree with the bill. I already figured groups like those would be for it, but it is irrelevant. He is a politician and choses his battles wisely.

The verdict is still out on the Advisory Council. Of course if he really was a friend of hunters, he wouldn't need an advisory council on it IMHO. :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

Great news troutbert. Not too late.

 

[JackM]

After I posted the piece about the mentor program, which demonstrates that the governor supports legislation that hunter advocacy groups also support, you immediately responded by stating your disagreement with the legislation and then ended your comments by saying "Real Smart. Does he even have a clue about hunting."

To me that is, in fact, "using your disagreement [with the legislation] as a way of supporting your opinion that the Governor is 'no friend of hunters,'" (PS, this is what I said, as opposed to your misquote of my accusation).

 

[jaybo41]

I respect your decisions to remove questionable content as a mod Jack, it's pretty much a selfless thing you're doing here. Regardless of whether my post was deleted or edited my feelings remain the same. I don't believe it was such a horrible, blatant attack, but that's your call. You're the mod and to post here I've got to comply. I'll respect that and leave it at that.

Political opinions aside...because we clearly won't agree, and it's not the forum to discuss politics...my point remains the same. I would think that ownership by the PF&BC would be a better alternative to secure land for the public access. Private ownership puts the land in jeopardy of being posted. Regardless of how you or I feel about who is Governor, Senator, or even President, this IS a problem. One that is becoming more prevalent.

 

[JackM]

If anyone wants to look at various sides of the issue, go here http://benner.centreconnect.org/benner.htm and scroll down the page. There are links to various viewpoint on the issue.

 

[Maurice]

FarmerDave wrote:
Maurice, all rhetoric aside, I think we are on the same page for the most part. i just don't think Randell is that great of a Governor, but he is certainly better than Taft was in Ohio. Besides, I must remind myself that I don't live in PA anymore.

Dave, we don't have to agree and I'm not at odds with you. Just having a friendly discussion. Just sometimes when my hair stands, my fingers get itchy and this is a good way to scratch them. After a few day's I'll forget all about this rhetoric. I won't argue and divert until I wear out the other side and then end the thread with...see I was right. :-D

And what does living in PA have to do with it....you use the resources of PA so you have an interest and the ability to purchase a ticket on the gravy train like everybody else.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
After I posted the piece about the mentor program, which demonstrates that the governor supports legislation that hunter advocacy groups also support, you immediately responded by stating your disagreement with the legislation and then ended your comments by saying "Real Smart. Does he even have a clue about hunting."

To me that is, in fact, "using your disagreement [with the legislation] as a way of supporting your opinion that the Governor is 'no friend of hunters,'" (PS, this is what I said, as opposed to your misquote of my accusation).

... and to me, a sunday is not a Sunday without nuts.

What are you talking about "in fact." That is not a fact, it is your opinion "To me that is, in fact." Give me a greak, you even started the sentence as an opinion.

The fact is, I made the statement about the Governor, and then you brought up the bill to try and convince me otherwise, and probably while thinking all hunters fit into a pigeon hole of your own design. I simply did not buy into it, and I certainly do not agree with the Bill.

And it is also a fact that I don’t need to support my opinion of the Governor. if it were way out in left field, then maybe i would feel a need to support it, but it isn't.

Look Jack, if you are still trying to convince me that the Governor is a friend to the hunters, why don't you instead ask all those pro-hunting groups that I disagreed with if they "in fact" feel that the Governor is a friend of hunters.

This is getting silly.

P.S. i know that Maurice.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with the Bill other than your using your disagreement as a way of supporting your opinion that the Governor is "no friend of hunters," whereas all these various organizations that are "friends of hunters" seem to be on the same side as the Governor with respect to it.

The PA Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs strongly supports the Game Commission getting the land. This is the major group that represents hunters in the state.

PA Trout Unlimited also supports the land going to the Game Commission. This is the major group that represents conservation-oriented trout anglers in PA.

And so should you. Contact your state legislator and let them know.

A lot of arguments here have strayed off the issue. Here's the issue. The land will either go to:

1) Penn State (for agriculture research) & Benner Twp.

or

2) The Game Commission

Those are the choices. You can influence the choice by contacting your state legislators. And Governor Rendell.

The decision will affect Spring Creek essentially forever. And the decision will be made soon. If you contact your legislator, and our side wins, you can say that you helped conserve that land and Spring Creek. If we lose, you can still say you tried.

So please email your legislators. And if you do, please report back. I've contated the legislators in my district and the governor. Many other people have already done so. Join in now.

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave wrote:
This is getting silly.

To me, you have, in fact, dodged the issue I addressed.