Access, access, access

Without access a river is of no use to fishermen or canoeists. As of this moment two long-used access points on the West Branch and the East Branch are under attack. Property owners are attempting to exclude recreational users from access points that have been in use for forty years or more.

On the West Branch a landowner is attempting to close an old stretch of road off Route 191 that leads to the river at Stockport. It is my understanding that Pennsylvania law prohibits the closing of a road if that portion had been maintained with public money in the past. Nevertheless, a landowner is trying to find a loophole that would allow him to close this access. The Stockport access is the only public area between Hancock and the Buckingham access point.

On the East Branch, two landowners are attempting to force the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) to permanently close the access at Bumps Eddy. DOT, which normally readily transfers excess property to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is handling this situation in an ambivalent manner. In an email to interested parties Mr. Andrew Stiles of DOT states that “various factors are taken into consideration to determine if DOT property should be turned over to the DEC for a fishing access. One factor is adjacent property owners’ concerns.” He states that, “property owners with homes in close proximity of the access have complained of people urinating within view of one of the homes and loud parties at night.”

Let us go to the dictionary. Webster’s defines “proximity” as being very near or close by. “Adjacent,” another term used by Mr. Stiles to describe the position of these homes, is defined as nearby, or having a common border. The owner who has a house on the east side of Route 30 is some 600 to 700 feet from the midpoint of the access. In addition, the access is six to eight feet below the roadbed of Route 30, so that three quarters of the old access, which is least 200 feet in length, is invisible to this landowner. As for the house on the far side of the river, some three hundred feet from the access, his view is screened by some fifty or sixty very leafy trees. To claim, as Mr. Stiles does, that these homes are adjacent to or in proximity of the access is to completely ignore the accepted definition of these words.

Mr. Ed Van Put, a long-time employee of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, who has obtained fishing rights and fishing accesses for the department for the past forty years, points out that there is no reason that a DEC fishing access should not exist at Bumps Eddy. The DEC has rules and regulations that govern these sites and the DEC has the police to enforce them. There is no reason the DEC could not install a port-a-john at this site, which would eliminate one of the complaints. Any decision to eliminate this historical access would not be in the best interests of the people of the State of New York. He went on to point out to Mr. Stiles that fishermen and canoeists would attempt to continue to access the river at this point by parking on the side of the road, creating a very dangerous situation. If the DEC were to have an access here, parking would be done in an orderly manner. Unless DOT is prepared to attempt to maintain a police patrol and issue tickets, they will have created far more of a problem than exists there at the present.

Mr. Stiles attempts to defend his closing of the access by saying there are seven other locations that offer access to the East Branch. However, only one of these offers parking for three cars. This access, located at Gregorytown, is laughingly referred to by fishermen who have used it as “the coronary hill access.”

It seems to me it is possible that DOT is caving in to political pressure of some sort in closing this long-time historical river access. If you care to express your opinion of the closing of this access, Mr. Stiles has an email address. It is astiles@dot.statenv.us I hope you will let your voice be heard.