Have you seen all stakeholders coming together??

[Brownout]

Just wondering, from all of your experiences involving conservation, are fisherman reaching out to hunters, bird watchers, hikers, bikers, canoeists, lodging owners, etc, or is this approach not leveraged that much?

If you tally up all the groups that benefit from protecting land surrounding watersheds, we can see how the voice gets much stronger. Granted, not everyone's interest will align, but I think in many instances it would be beneficial. Interested in any experiences. Thanks.

 

[RLeeP]

There has always been (at least in my experience during my active TU years) a lot of this cross-cooperation between nominal conservation/environmental groups. My observation has been that this activity tends to be episodic, temporary and focused on a single large issue. When that issue is resolved one way or the other, the cooperation tends to fall off. Not turn to animosity or competition, but simply go into dormancy until the next time the combined numbers are needed. I remember being involved in negotiations/discussions with National Fuel Gas in the late 80's or early 90's over the proposed route of a major new pipeline through NC PA. Everybody and his left-handed brother in law from TU to Sierra to NWF to the turkey people were in the middle of that one. Other issues tend to draw smaller coalitions depending on their potential impact as seen through the eyes of the potential stakeholders.

So, I think the short answer is that cooperation is pretty common but somewhat underutilized. Part of this latter has to do with the nature of the volunteer dynamic which has a cyclical, ebb and flow nature to it anyway..

 

[franklin]

RLeeP wrote:
There has always been (at least in my experience during my active TU years) a lot of this cross-cooperation between nominal conservation/environmental groups. My observation has been that this activity tends to be episodic, temporary and focused on a single large issue. When that issue is resolved one way or the other, the cooperation tends to fall off. Not turn to animosity or competition, but simply go into dormancy until the next time the combined numbers are needed. I remember being involved in negotiations/discussions with National Fuel Gas in the late 80's or early 90's over the proposed route of a major new pipeline through NC PA. Everybody and his left-handed brother in law from TU to Sierra to NWF to the turkey people were in the middle of that one. Other issues tend to draw smaller coalitions depending on their potential impact as seen through the eyes of the potential stakeholders.

So, I think the short answer is that cooperation is pretty common but somewhat underutilized. Part of this latter has to do with the nature of the volunteer dynamic which has a cyclical, ebb and flow nature to it anyway..

Part of the ebb and flow may be due to the localized conflicts that also occur between the groups. Take the issues of canoeing through the canyon section of Spring Creek, debate on mountain biking on some forest trails, issues with horseback riding on state game lands, the white water boaters vs. the fishermen concerning water releases on the Lehigh, etc.

 

[JackM]

franklin wrote:

Part of the ebb and flow may be due to the localized conflicts that also occur between the groups. Take the issues of canoeing through the canyon section of Spring Creek, debate on mountain biking on some forest trails, issues with horseback riding on state game lands, the white water boaters vs. the fishermen concerning water releases on the Lehigh, etc.

.... fly anglers stereotyping spin anglers, and vice versa....

 

[RLeeP]

>>Part of the ebb and flow may be due to the localized conflicts that also occur between the groups. Take the issues of canoeing through the canyon section of Spring Creek, debate on mountain biking on some forest trails, issues with horseback riding on state game lands, the white water boaters vs. the fishermen concerning water releases on the Lehigh, etc.>>

That's all true... When we consider multiple user bases of the same public resource, some of these sorts of conflicts are natural and inevitable.

But the ebb and flow I was referring to was more something that is in the nature of volunteer groups of these types. More often than not, they themselves go through internal activity cycles depending on the composition of their core. Look at virtually any TU Chapter in PA that has been around more than a decade, They'll be very active and in the middle of everything for 3-4 years and then spend the next 3-4 years trying to find 8 guys to come to a meeting. Then boom, along comes another couple guys with a real zeal for the mission and the time to spend and they re-energize the thing, until they too burn out.

And round and round it goes...


My sole point is that most of the orgs we are talking about are volunteers and all are prone to this cyclical thing. So, part of the reason cooperation is not all it could be may have something to do with the fact that while TU is peaking, NWF is down to 5 guys, 3 of whom are mad at all 11 of the turkey guys who all hate all 140 Sierra people because they think they are all anti-gun.

The volunteer dynamic itself sometimes makes effective cooperation difficult..

 

[Brownout]

Thanks for the feedback. I think that with the Internet, the opportunity to reach out could be a wonderful prospect. As more people become Internet savvy, I have high hopes. Imagine seeing a rare species of bird taking insects, and sending some pictures to some birders, or photographing some mountain laurels in bloom and sending them to some flower lovers.

Now, with the hunting and rafting, things get a bit complicated-for me at least, haha. I probably wouldn't send some pics of a great rafting line that appears when the water is raging like the Amazon at the peak of the rainy season. Hunters.......I can get along with them. Sending them some tips and pictures would hopefully be beneficial. Hey, so and so, I stumbled upon a turkey roost the other day, you wouldn't believe the birds.....or, I spooked a huge buck in velvet yesterday, right down by the........

I definitely agree with your point about the ebb and flow of volunteerism in general. A forum such as this one removes that to some extent, and can bring all currently active people together at once. The power of the Internet is amazing in this respect. One TU group could invite another to their home waters, post some pictures of stream restoration, or write a story about a recent success.

To the future
int:

 

[troutbert]

Below are the member groups of the Spring Creek Canyon Alliance, who signed onto the position that the Spring Creek canyon and adjoining uplands being divested by Rockview pentitentiary should be owned by a state conservation agency, namely the Game Commission, rather than going to Penn State University. As you can see from the list, a great many diverse groups came together.

And a great many private citizens not affiliated with these groups also joined in the opposition to the land going to Penn State, and in favor of a state conservation agency, either the Game Commission or DCNR, owning the land.

But it seems clear now that we are going to lose. So, that's a point that hasn't been made yet. You can get a lot of diverse groups to join together, and still lose. In this
But it this point

 

[troutbert]

The following are the groups that joined the Spring Creek Canyon Alliance, and signed on to the position that the 1800 acres being divested from Rockview prison, which includes Spring Creek canyon and adjacent uplands, should go to a state conservation agency, namely the Game Commission.

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (Penn Future)

Coalition for Open Space Preservation

Fly Fishers Paradise

Juniata Valley Audubon

Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Adams County

Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Centre County

Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Pennsylvania

Helping Hands Housing, Inc.

Little Juniata River Association

Mach 1 Kayak Slalom Team

Nittany Mountain Biking Association

Penns Valley Conservation Association

Sierra Club, Moshannon Group

Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Chapter

State College Bird Club

Trout Unlimited, Adams County Chapter

Trout Unlimited, Pennsylvania Council

Trout Unlimited, Spring Creek Chapter

Tussey Mountain Outfitters

United Bow Hunters of Pennsylvania

Wild Turkey Federation, Pennsylvania Chapter

As you can see it is quite a long list of diverse groups. And there were also many private citizens unaffiliated with these groups who also opposed PSU ownership and who favored state agency ownership, either Game Commission or DCNR.

But it's pretty clear at this point that we are going to lose. So that's something that has to be considered. You can build a big coalition of diverse groups, and still lose.

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:

But it's pretty clear at this point that we are going to lose. So that's something that has to be considered. You can build a big coalition of diverse groups, and still lose.

And yet, significant use restrictions could probably be bargained for in the process if these advocates for stream protection don't stick to the tactic of insisting on fighting PSU ownership but rather shift focus onto the usage restrictions.

 

[troutbert]

What is your argument in favor of PSU ownership, over Game Commission or DCNR ownership? Why would that be better?

 

[JackM]

It's not that it would be better at all. The idea for Rockview to divest itself came about only because PSU wants the property. There is no political will to divest without PSU's desire.

My understanding is that the advocacy for other agency/governmental unit ownership is coming from sources other than the agencies or governments. Has the Game Commission or DCNR changed their mind about wanting greater ownership? I do not see either on your list of advocates.

Your latest comment suggests that there is some recognition that getting some part of the property to PSU is an inevitability. I suggested that was the case over a year ago, more as a suspicion than a true conviction. If that really is the case, then trying to protect the resource and recreational interests while accomodating the interest of PSU in acquiring some part of the property may be the best solution.

What I think often happens in these types of struggles is that the political forces face a situation where they feel that they will make one side angry no matter what they do, so they resign themselves to that negative reaction and just give it all over to the stronger lobby. The result for this could be to deed the land to PSU without any restrictions on use or future transfer to others who might develop the land in any way they choose, all to the possible detriment of the creek and canyon.

 

[osprey]

Right now this type of thing is happening in Somerset/Cambria county in regards to The Quemahoning Watershed and The stoneycreek river , attempts being made and funded by various groups to turn the area into an outdoors tourist destination , i think if you pay attention to this , which is happening right now , you could learn alot about the process and the inevitable politics.