nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
see:
http://www.littlejuniata.org
http://www.littlejuniata.org
pemberton access news from LJRA
- Thread starter nymphingmaniac
- Start date
Wetfly01
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 227
That's great news for J anglers. It'll be great to have those areas opened back up. When can we expect to hear how the funds will be raised? I am ready to pony up for the cause and I am sure other angler will join in when things get started. Definitely keep us informed.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,551
Seems like a good use of the voluntary wild trout permit money IMO. Regardless of the source of funding, the PAFBC should take a break from throwing money at Erie trib access and secure an easement on one of our best and most popular wild trout streams.
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
Pennkev the challenge is finding willing landowners to participate. Money can be found comparatively easily.
ryansheehan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,609
I'm confused, aren't they looking for a long term source of funding the $5,000 per year lease?
Never heard of nes&l but bush league move by them. 5k is 10 triaxles of stone, or .05 percent of their annual overhead if my guess on their revenue is close after looking at their website.
They should do the right thing I'm sure there is a write off that would offset their insurance premium. 5k a year? For a stone quarry and road building company? It's a drop in the bucket
They should do the right thing I'm sure there is a write off that would offset their insurance premium. 5k a year? For a stone quarry and road building company? It's a drop in the bucket
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
was responding specifically about his comment about using pfbc funds for permanent easements (at least that's what I thought he was talking about). its hard to find landowners to sign a permanent easement along the river. Bill and LJRA is always looking/trying though.
the arrangement with nesl is not a permanent easement. The lease is renewable yearly. They were not interesting in the easement at this time. Perhaps if this is successful (no troubles) they might reconsider in a couple of years.
Attempts to get PFBC to budget some money fro this is underway. The budget process is long and you have to do this far out in time.
the arrangement with nesl is not a permanent easement. The lease is renewable yearly. They were not interesting in the easement at this time. Perhaps if this is successful (no troubles) they might reconsider in a couple of years.
Attempts to get PFBC to budget some money fro this is underway. The budget process is long and you have to do this far out in time.
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
Moon,
I understand your point and had your reaction initially. Then I looked at it this way- they could have just left it posted. That would be the easiest for them! They were cooperative and committed some person-time on working on this when they didn't have to. I feel more gratitude now than anything else.
Most of the delay was working through the state bureaucracy. A lease is a binding legal agreement and it had to be approved at multiple levels. LJRA is discussing plans for the renewal of the agreement. Funds would have to be committed for year two a good amount of time ahead of the expiration of the lease on Nov 21st 2020.
I understand your point and had your reaction initially. Then I looked at it this way- they could have just left it posted. That would be the easiest for them! They were cooperative and committed some person-time on working on this when they didn't have to. I feel more gratitude now than anything else.
Most of the delay was working through the state bureaucracy. A lease is a binding legal agreement and it had to be approved at multiple levels. LJRA is discussing plans for the renewal of the agreement. Funds would have to be committed for year two a good amount of time ahead of the expiration of the lease on Nov 21st 2020.
DGC
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 905
We only have knowledge about the LJRA agreement. If there are competing offers from private parties offering more lucrative terms seeking exclusive access, then the LJRA agreement and NESL might be seen in a far more positive light. I applaud both parties and suggest reviewers consider recent history before dismissing what may be a quite generous gesture.
dryflyguy
Well-known member
While I'm all for any stretch of water being accessable to the public again, I also kinda wonder if there might have been another - cheaper - way, to get this stretch open.
If the only concern of New Enterprise is liability, couldn't it have just been posted "Use at your own risk"?
Most of the state parks with swimming areas that I've been to lately, have signs up saying "No lifeguard on duty - swim at your own risk"
I'm guessing that protects the state in case someone gets hurt, or even drowns there
If the only concern of New Enterprise is liability, couldn't it have just been posted "Use at your own risk"?
Most of the state parks with swimming areas that I've been to lately, have signs up saying "No lifeguard on duty - swim at your own risk"
I'm guessing that protects the state in case someone gets hurt, or even drowns there
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,551
As atie in to previous posted land discussions, un-posted land open to public access actually offers more protection to the owner when it comes to liability. So from that standpoint the liability/insurance argument seems even weaker. However, the difference is that this land is owned by a company that is operating a quarry. With that in mind, their legal counsel probably didn't want anything to do with public access on their land without significant insurance coverage. I cant blame them, they are not just some guy who owns a patch of land along the river. So from that angle the current agreement isn`t too far off base IMO.
5k a year is about what it costs to lease a ford explorer with no money down. It is 2 dollars per employee a year. It's a very small rounding error.
In other words I have no idea why they would want 5k a year, it doesnt move the needle. One positive newspaper article would eclipse 5k.
The Detwilers have owned NESL out of Bedford County for almost a century.
Last year they cleared $130m before taxes off $630m in revenue, the majority of which comes from the Pennsylvania taxpayer through huge PennDOT and Turnpike contracts.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-New-Enterprise-Stone-Lime-to-B2-outlook-stable--PR_404928
One would think it not much to ask a locally-owned company to find it in their heart to contribute 0.003% of annual profit to something good for the community.
Last year they cleared $130m before taxes off $630m in revenue, the majority of which comes from the Pennsylvania taxpayer through huge PennDOT and Turnpike contracts.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-New-Enterprise-Stone-Lime-to-B2-outlook-stable--PR_404928
One would think it not much to ask a locally-owned company to find it in their heart to contribute 0.003% of annual profit to something good for the community.
