Totally agree with JackM.

Quote:

I agree with this in part and disagree with this in other parts.

I fully understand Andy's reasons for being skeptical about joining DTU. For years I advocated the major need for a restoration of Hammer Creek from the headwaters downstream to Speedwell Forge Lake. From a fishing perspective, Hammer Creek in this area is mostly on private land but a good portion is on SGL's. However, rather than using this stream to explain my point I will use the one in the post

Trout Unlimited is a great organization and as Tim posted, if you care about cold water and trout fishing in the Commonwealth then please join, but it goes much deeper than this. I mentioned Hammer because Lititz Run is almost on 100% private land and Hammer has a good portion open to fishing in the SGL's. This is where my initial complaints about the lack of interest in Hammer Creek spawned from but has since grown into a much more complex issue. All that being said, I was wrong about the open land issue.

There have been many projects completed on Lititz Run. Some of the projects on private land were in Lititz Bourgh (which included Santa Domingo Creek), the Banta Property and the Conservancy, all on private land not open to the general public. Projects completed on private land now open to the general public are Riparian Park and the entire C&R area. The relationships made by DTU, Lititz Run Watershed Assoc., Land Studies and many other organizations opened up this land to the general public that would otherwise be closed. This is good new for anglers.

The projects completed on private land (mainly the Conservancy and the Banta Property) may never be open to the general public. Many may ask, then why work on them? The short answer would be best answered with another question. How much success is a stream restoration if the entire watershed is not restored? A better answer/question is are we only joining an organization because of our interests in fishing or the interest of clean water?

The Conestoga River drains 475 square miles of Lancaster County and flows nearly 65 miles. In a 2008 study it was revealed the Conestoga River contributes nearly 30,000 pounds of nitrogen and 1,900 pounds of phosphorus each day from point and nonpoint sources into the Susquehanna River. Lititz Run on its own contributed to 15 percent (1,747.92 pounds) of the total nitrogen load into the Conestoga River. Lititz Run also contributed to 17 percent of the total phosphorus (42.42 pounds) and 14 percent of the dissolved phosphorus (31.82 pounds)
loads present in the Conestoga River. This is staggering when you consider that Lititz Run is such a small watershed. Especially when you consider that the Conestoga River is highest contributor to these types of pollutions in the Susquehanna River. In the end the Susquehanna River transports 66 percent of the total nitrogen load and 40 percent of the total phosphorus load of the Bay.

Now the success of this project has received national attention. The high point was in 2009 when the stream was re-designated a Cold Water Fishery (CWF), upgraded from its previous designation as a Warm Water Fishery (WWF). Other notable accomplishments include construction of the first Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) restoration in Pennsylvania, the first regional water quality facility in Pennsylvania, over 5 miles of stream and riparian corridor either planted or restored, and over 9 acres of wetlands have been created to reduce flooding and improve water quality. And yes, the nitrogen and phosphorus levels have dropped and continue that trend down ward. None of this would be accomplished if the private lands of the stream were not restored.

I agree that one should not join DTU solely to gain access to fish a private section of stream. However, it should be a perk of being part of such a great success and organization, it is nothing like the SRC and that comparison is laughable. Conservation goes much deeper than this and it isnt even about our fishing experience as you have argued in the past Jack.

Its about clean water, the whole way down to the bay.

Or... it could be just about sour grapes and access issues. Depends if your mind is open or closed. However, your above post is a plethora of information.

You have opened my mind. Also, you make me want to fish the hell outta Lititz the next time I'm in LanCo. I guess the Smallies on Mill Creek can wait. I want to catch a trout.

Sal,

You must have been reading the Sunday News:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/lo ... -bay-through-the-mud.html

Today I had an hour for lunch so I went on my lunch break just to fish the little hole there at the Thompson farm. 3 chubs and one rock bass (!?) first time I ever caught one of those there! That stretch is a 4 minute drive from work. I think I'll fish it every day on my lunch break for about 20 minutes or so (I usually only get 30 minutes). Probably help me save money and loose weight since I won't be eating crap junk food from Sheetz at lunch.

Lost interest after all that irrelevant data, but I want to say that I have no problem improving streams running through private land in order to enhance fishing opportunities on lands not covered by private permissions, badges, permits or memberships. Otherwise, let it be a private side-project, rather than a TU resourced project.

Now take what I say for the garbage it is, because I am not a TU member.

Check out this blast from the past:

Blast From The Past Thread on similar topic

Similar yes. Difference is cooks is 99 percent posted and lititz is about 60. The main thing I tried to explain is when improving a 1st 2nd or 3rd order watershed, not only is that watershed improved but all downstream watersheds are improved. In the case of lititz run this means the conestoga river, susquehanna river and the bay. this also improves all the public water in all these streams, which is why public funds should and were used to improve privatelands. I wonder if that is irrelavant also.

I think the improvement of the Chesapeake Bay water quality was the last thing on anyone's mind when they invested in the stream, but I am merely speculating.

Certainly you are speculating and I'm glad you accepted that view.

Lancaster County has been in the papers numerous times about water quality and how it is affecting the bay. Once you get past the belief that TU is all about trout fishing, you will begin to understand.

I am going to work on that for 2012.

Note to self: Remember TU is NOT all about trout fishing. Forget that you can't fish a special area of stream unless you are a member or have made additional monetary contributions to a conservacy which owns the land providing access to the improved waterway.

Quote:

Keep working on it.

One of the, if not THE primary public funding grades for these projects IS the Chesapeake Bay. Whether State, Federal or non-profit (CBF, etc.) the data supports improvement of the bay....the solutions to improvement include TMDLS in the upper watershed, Trout streams comprise the vast majority of the upper watershed. These are the funds available to TU and other conservancies. So thats the purse we pursue.

So Jacks insinuation that TU is a bunch of self centered/self serving nest featherers is partially correct. TU is one of the main serogates for spending this public money on watersheds. But once you get past the jealousy of self committment toward a greater good you realize that the TU volunteers are just the mules for the improvement of the greatest estuary on the east coast.

If and when it improves I will be happy to wear that moniker.

Lead, follow or get out of the way. Know your role.

My issue is not with improvement of the waterway, water quality or water fertility and biomass. It is only that the folks involved in the Litiz conservacy property project do not open the stream to the public. That is my sole concern and I present it as a concern, not necessarily a criticism. My feeling is that they can be validly criticized on this point without jumping to conclusion about the person criticizing them, so at least they can be questioned without some conclusion being inferred from the inquiry.

Maybe the best way to persuade me would be to tell me about other streams and watersheds in the geographical area that were improved by TU volunteers without a grant of semi-exclusive fishing rights or, better yet, water quality and habitat improvements on waterways holding only rough fish.

Quote:

Since TU is "dedicated to conserving, protecting, and restoring North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds"... trout, char and salmon are about as "rough" as it gets when it comes to coldwater fish


BTW, here's the definition of "fisheries" from Websters:

Definition of FISHERY
1
: the occupation, industry, or season of taking fish or other sea animals (as sponges, shrimp, or seals) : fishing
2
: a place for catching fish or taking other sea animals
3
: a fishing establishment; also : its fishermen
4
: the legal right to take fish at a particular place or in particular waters
5
: the technology of fishery —usually used in plural

Attach file:

---

  TU slogan.JPG (68.91 KB)