Drilling In State Forests Under Consideration Again

I am disappointed with the apparent lack of outrage from the "conservationists" among us. I guess not enough good fly fishing will be impacted by the decisions.
 
Jack,

You cannot force us to argue with you...you can try all you want. :-D
 
I did my best to stimulate activism on this important issue, but I suppose unless I can claim that fly fishing as we know it would come to an end without immediate and decisive action, I stand little chance of motivating the "conservationists" around here.
 
Jack,
I'm a little surprised also. I've read the article and will be sending a respondence to the DCNR via the link you provided. Thanks.

There hasn't been any signifant changes in the drilling process to lessen the impacted/harm on the surrounding enviroment. So opening it up would go against the very reason the closed the state lands to begin with. Just goes to show you that big $$ trumps logical thinking with our legistors and agencies.

I've watched them drill about 50 of those damn wells around West Newton in the past year, and every single timed it has rained this year the local stream(Sewickley Creek) has looked like choc. milk for a least three days afterward. This happens on a good fishery it would be devasting!!!

JH
 
Wasn't there an article on this (but in another state) in Trout magazine. Might have been another mag. But they showed a sequence of photos showing how the drilling spread like a rash.

Here's a tip though..if you want me to be on your side...don''t make me go find your argument myself. Astonish me with some piece of info...don't just throw the link down in front of me and expect me to read it. I might, but in this case, I was busy that day. If you had grabbed my attention I might have made a better effort to read it.

Mostly because, A-I didn't know they weren't drilling there now.
B-oh hell its late i'm tired..c'mon Jack,
sell me..tell me why I should be pissed. :-x
 
tomgamber wrote:
..c'mon Jack,
sell me..tell me why I should be pissed. :-x

I'll leave that job to the conservationists. I am more of an idea man.
 
It just reminded me of the couple of posts Chaz made last year when he just made statement...we were kind of left ..."ok, yeah, and now what?"
 
Hey Tom...at least Jack provided a clickable link. I mean the effort is there... :lol:
 
Actually, I provided TWO clickable links-- one to the news article that explained what is going on and the other that would take you to the appropriate site from which you can provide comments. The only thing lacking, as I say, was the apparently neccessary claim that everyone's fly fishing experience might be diminished if the decision goes the wrong way.
 
It sounds like another "all or nothing" argument. In my opinion there are some state lands that should be off limits no matter how careful the effort. But there are other state lands that could be drilled with minimal impact if done in a careful manor. But the special interests on both sides will line up across the fence and throw stones until one side wins.
 
Sierra Club addresses the issue nationally:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09058/952033-85.stm
 
What about getting TU behind this? They have the connections, the financing and the network in place to cast their voice far and wide...
 
wgmiller wrote:
What about getting TU behind this? They have the connections, the financing and the network in place to cast their voice far and wide...

TU is involved in this and has been for some time.
 
baiting at its best ;-)
 
Jack, this situation pisses ME off! What's next? National parks? How 'bout we drill gettysburg. :-(
 
The Forest service can do nothing to stop this. The sierra club is wasting its time. The laws need to be changed to give surface owners some rights, because the way they are written now the subsurface rights are more important than the surface rights. if the forest service could control the drilling in the ANF, they would.
 
Does the state own the mineral rights to the state forests? I honestly don't know.

I know, for instance on the ANF, that the forest service does not own the mineral rights. The land was sold to the gov't with the stipulation that the original landowner has mineral rights, and if at some time they wish to drill or mine they may do so. There have been gas wells on ANF land for many, many years. Of course those wells don't compare in size to the Marcellus wells they're drilling now.

My opinion is that the existence of gas wells is not a terrible thing in itself. They can bring in a lot of money to a region, for relatively little environmental damage. But we have to make sure the environmental damage remains minor, because left to their own devices, the unscrupulous small companies will be first on the scene, and they tend to disregard things like rules. We have to be really careful. The DEP, watershed organizations, etc., have to get in gear quickly, come up with proper protections, and enforce those protections. Violations need to get more than a slap on the wrist.
 
Why should I be outraged that someone wants to open up some of our forests to drill for natural resources? Do I want clean water, sure, good hunting, sure, good fishing, yes.

But do I want to stop those who supply the very materials we require to live comfortable, and there is no reason to do that to begin with. Our forests can be entered, drilling can take place, all without the total destruction some like the Sierra Club claim.

Who causes more damage and is more of a threat to the United States, those supplying our natural resources or those fighting to prevent any advancement. The answer is simple and it isn't the oil and gas companies.
 
Back
Top