Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 »


Re: Is there an Update on SC?
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22113
Offline
I have always questioned the one-sided, knee-jerk posts I see on any topic, not just conservation. However, I acknowledge that one-sided knee-jerk posts seem to occur most often on conservation-related topics. An opinion is not worth having if it cannot stand up to or tolerate scrutiny-- at least I see it that way. Would that others who have opinions see it that way too.

Posted on: 2007/8/27 19:41
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
If you asked George Harvey who should be in charge of the canyon, he would tell you in no incertain terms.

Posted on: 2007/8/27 23:32


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:20
Posts: 235
Offline
"Actually Jack you have continuously and sometimes with venom interupted conservation posts almost every time such a post has been made."

Actually, Chaz, if you pay attention, Jack generally does pretty much what he says he does - challenge assumptions and play devil's advocate. If you come on very strong and one-sided (as certain posters, ahem, almost invariably do) then you increase the likelihood that you will get an argument out of him. I often disagree with Jack, but I don't think its fair to label him anti-conservation, and I think its frankly ridiculous to label the entire site that way.

On the actual issue at hand, my opinion is that the PGC would be a much better and safer steward of the SC canyon lands than PSU would be, based on everything I have heard. That ought to be the goal, if it can be achieved. If not, easements may be a better fall back position than no protection at all.

Posted on: 2007/8/28 11:53


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
Previous post ,that should be uncertain not incertian. I think PSU has been Spring Creeks worst enemy and they have earned that reputation, certain folks (developers) would just as soon see the trout die out, then the public wouldn't scream about their pollution of the stream, either pollutants or thermal pollution. I know they have the George Harvey water on Spruce, wouldn't suprise me if they gave that to a retiring college president some year.

Posted on: 2007/8/28 13:13


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7514
Offline
Jack, When I posted the message about the Brook trout DNA I posted the link, I am pretty sure you didn't read the study because your comment was something related to stocked trout surviving to spawn. That' wasn't even the point of the study if you read it you would know. Your comments with regard to conservation issues are as knee jurk as others are, in fact I can predict your response nearly every time. Read the study them comment on it, or don't comment at all. The whole reason I posted the message was so that every would have the study as a resource. This is only the latest instance. Your respnses to the post about McCoy dam, show you are not interested in the truth. I've kept informed about the issue, maybe not as much as some others here, but know enough not to trust our elected officials on this issue, particularly the representative from Centre County.

Posted on: 2007/8/28 19:23


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2007/6/26 23:22
Posts: 59
Offline
lj,

The Canyon - I am not familiar with George Harvey's position on this issue. What is his position?

Posted on: 2007/8/28 19:43


Re: Is there an Update on SC?
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 6977
Offline
Troutbert and all,

I'll weigh in on this. I've reread the thread post for post and have determined in my mind that Jack didn't do anything to elicit the kind of lashing you took on the site and the moderators. If the word "misleading" set you off, all I can say is WOW.

First of all, as for the moderators beind anti-conservation, well, two of them are past TU chapter presidents.

It is my opion that you derailed this post, rather than discuss it, you made it a rail against the site.

For the record, I sent letters to the legislators in my district, (one didn't know what I was talking about and the other didn't answer.)
I believe it is an issue worthy of consideration by all flyfishermen who visit Spring Creek. I appreciate you keeping up with it and sharing it with the board. I hope you continue to keep us up to date with the issue.

I also believe that you and I and everyone else here are entitled see these issues through the eye of the poster. In this case Jack saw some broader viewpoints than the movement. I disagree, but can look past others opinions to keep the greater goal in focus.

Sometimes you just have to ignore the child at the other table who talks too much....

Posted on: 2007/8/28 20:21
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: CYANIDE Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
Cynic The college killed the stream, Spring Creek was and always has been George's favorite water http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04130/313491.stm

Posted on: 2007/8/29 9:55


Re: CYANIDE Is there an Update on SC?
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22113
Offline
LJ, is there some belief that the PSU cyanide spill was intentional? If not, why demonize the University so much? Seems to me, there is always a tension between development and natural resources. Do people think that area of the Commonwealth could survive without all the money that is brought into the local economy by the University? These issues are always one of balance, but if anyone thinks that all development will or even should stop so as to preserve our pleasure in fly fishing beautiful stream across the Commonwealth, they are living in a dream world.

Posted on: 2007/8/29 10:12
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: CYANIDE Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
Jack: I would be immensly proud if Penn State was the model and set the example of development while protecting the environment, as they should!

Posted on: 2007/8/29 10:17


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6022
Offline
Thanks to all who have sent messages to their legislators and/or the governor on the Spring Creek Canyon lands issue. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Posted on: 2007/8/29 10:26


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:20
Posts: 235
Offline
Too many belt-high fastballs in that one to just let 'em go by, Jack.

1. "LJ, is there some belief that the PSU cyanide spill was intentional? If not, why demonize the University so much?

One need not conclude that PSU has damaged SC "intentionally" in order to hold them responsible. There is such a thing as negligence, counselor. And even if PSU has not been negligent, I think the issue is whether they have been a good enough custodian to merit trusting them with additional sensitive lands.

2. Do people think that area of the Commonwealth could survive without all the money that is brought into the local economy by the University?

Yes. Surely other areas of the Commonweath have "survived" without PSU being there. There have been economic burdens and benefits of having PSU where it is. Reasonable people could disagree about which has been greater. State College is a very nice town and PSU is in many respects a great institution. But if you've spent any time elsewhere in Centre County it is pretty darned nice in its sleepy and undeveloped state.

3. "...if anyone thinks that all development will or even should stop so as to preserve our pleasure in fly fishing beautiful stream across the Commonwealth, they are living in a dream world."

If anyone thinks that - or says anything remotely like it - I am sure you'll let us know. In the meantime, you might stop setting up straw men just to knock them over.

Posted on: 2007/8/29 10:28


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18108
Offline
Quote:

Maurice wrote:
Guys,

I too was satisfied with the quoted agencies (PGC, DCNR) until I read the last line....." Further delay in the transfer will only result in additional proposals for development, such as the housing project and sports complex already proposed. We need to protect the land now by transferring it with the protections outlined above. "

That sounded like a line from a used car salesman trying to sell a jalope to an old woman.


That is what it sounded like to me, too. Developers can submit all they want, but at this point, it wouldn't matter. Think about it, they turned down a higher offer from the PGC in favor or Penn State. Why would they sell it to a developer?

They just need to get it right. so what if it takes a few extra months. the land isn't going anywhere in the mean time.

Posted on: 2007/8/29 10:49
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Is there an Update on SC?
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22113
Offline
My query regarding the cyanide spill was not in any way suggesting they weren't responsible for the spill or damage, but if you are going to base your contension that transfer of part of the land in question to PSU spells the end of Spring Creek as we know it, then I think you have to be coupling that belief with the belief that PSU doesn't care whether its activities harm the environment. How can one conclude that without a showing that prior events were at least grossly negligent?

It is true that the area would survive without PSU, but it would look nothing like what it does now. Nor would it support the present non-student population, nor the commerce that it does. I have no problem if people want to see the area return to the grand days of yesteryear, but you can't have it both ways unless you find a way to balance development against preservation of natural resources. Once again, if someone wishes to advance the cause of strict preservation of the land in question, they can and should do so. Yet, if they ignore the reality of the strength of the forces behind transfer of some of this land to PSU, they risk that the transfer will occur with little protection, let alone full preservation, of the resources at issue.

Finally, I don't think I have set up any straw man. The posts promoting the PGC transfer option argue for no development on this plot of land as best I can tell for the purpose of preventing any risk that Spring Creek will be impacted. I am suspect that preserving our fly fishing paradise is a completely unrelated interest for those advocating this here. Rather than a strawman falacy, I would suggest what I am doing is extending the arguments to their logical conclusion so that people might consider whether,in this particular instance, taking a position of all or nothing is as wrong-headed as would be the position that the land simply be conveyed to whomever without any restictions that would protect the resource.

Posted on: 2007/8/29 10:55
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Is there an Update on SC?

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18108
Offline
Quote:

Will wrote:
"Actually Jack you have continuously and sometimes with venom interupted conservation posts almost every time such a post has been made."

Actually, Chaz, if you pay attention, Jack generally does pretty much what he says he does - challenge assumptions and play devil's advocate. If you come on very strong and one-sided (as certain posters, ahem, almost invariably do) then you increase the likelihood that you will get an argument out of him. I often disagree with Jack, but I don't think its fair to label him anti-conservation, and I think its frankly ridiculous to label the entire site that way.

On the actual issue at hand, my opinion is that the PGC would be a much better and safer steward of the SC canyon lands than PSU would be, based on everything I have heard. That ought to be the goal, if it can be achieved. If not, easements may be a better fall back position than no protection at all.


Will, I agree 100 percent ... with your entire message.

Posted on: 2007/8/29 11:00
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com