Hammer Creek, Lancaster/Lebanon Cos., 9/23-27/13

[johnstevens5462]

I agree with Sasquatch - seek clarification. If there are conflicting messages ones should not assume the more stringent one applies.

Based on my understanding, for a property to prohibit trespassing or restrict certain uses it must clearly state such restrictions on the property in accordance with legal requirements for posting property. If it does not, than it is not legally prohibiting those activities irrespective of what a website may say.

This is akin to a posted speed limit sign on a village road saying 40mph but on the village website it specifies the maximum speed limit on any road within village boundaries as 25mph.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Not only that, seeking clarification will help the conservancy. They do good work. By making their desires more clearly known, it'll (hopefully) help them in their work. If they desire to keep all fishing out of the stretch, then posting more clearly will help them. If they want to allow fishermen to use the stretch, then by removing the statement from the website they'll eliminate any confusion.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Got a response!
Hi Andy,

In the original Deed for the Upper Hopewell property transfer, being that it was designated a "Wildlife Sanctuary", both fishing and hunting ARE prohibited. I will make a note here at the office on the need for "no fishing" signs. Hopefully we can get those up soon.
Thank you for the information!

Sincerely,
K--- G----
Conservation Planner
Lancaster County Conservancy

I informed her of our trout season beginning at the end of March and said that it would be beneficial for them to get the signs up before that, as upstream of 322 is stocked.

So there you go! Hopefully we start seeing those signs!

 

[The_Sasquatch]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
At least we will all know who to thank if the signs go up.

Sorry dude, but I think seeking clarity was the right thing to do. I may not like how much land is posted in PA, but if it's posted, I want to respect the rights of private property owners. The conservancy does some wonderful work in the county, so I can deal with not fishing this stretch. You still have a lot of water on that stream to fish.

 

[Swattie87]

The_Sasquatch wrote:

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
At least we will all know who to thank if the signs go up.

Sorry dude, but I think seeking clarity was the right thing to do. I may not like how much land is posted in PA, but if it's posted, I want to respect the rights of private property owners. The conservancy does some wonderful work in the county, so I can deal with not fishing this stretch. You still have a lot of water on that stream to fish.

Props for checking it out Andy, and props for them getting back to you with a definitive answer...even if wasn't the one we necessarily wanted. You did the right thing...you don't need to hear it from us, but you know you did.

trapper - You're off base on this one. Assuming you'd read and respect the signs (as opposed to the website), you can thank Squatch for saving you the trespass charges and/or associated legal costs. Not to mention as anglers maybe keeping a good rapport with the Conservancy for the sake of the 15 or so other properties they have where fishing is permitted. Just fish above the 322 bridge...the water is better up there anyway.

 

[dc410]

Squatch,

Thanks for taking the time to get an answer on this. I had assumed that being a Conservancy property this area was open to fishing. I am glad to know what the actual regulations for that stretch of stream actually are. It is certainly our responsibility to respect the rights of the property owners as well as any deed restrictions in any situation. It was handled very well on your part.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Hey for real. I was just to the point of frustration with it. I also had selfish motives too...I wanted the website to be the oversite, not the streamside posting! Oh well! I'm glad we know 100% now, and I sincerely hope for their sake the signs get posted, and posted clearly.

Swattie's right, too. The Conservancy has been very generous to us wild trout fishermen in allowing us plenty of access on other conservancies. I can definitely respect their wishes with this one.

 

[McSneek]

Not so sure I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy as their conservation efforts seem to be focused around acquiring land and then making it off limits to everyone. I suppose if the alternative is the land gets sold and a strip mall goes in it's a good thing but I also think it's a bunch of BS designate an area like the one in this discussion as a "wildlife sanctuary" and then prohibit fishing.

 

[troutbert]

McSneek wrote:
Not so sure I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy as their conservation efforts seem to be focused around acquiring land and then making it off limits to everyone. I suppose if the alternative is the land gets sold and a strip mall goes in it's a good thing but I also think it's a bunch of BS designate an area like the one in this discussion as a "wildlife sanctuary" and then prohibit fishing.

See post #63. From that it appears that the restriction was the choice of the landowner who transferred the land to the conservancy, and is a deed restriction. In that case the conservancy is obligated to honor the deed restriction.

 

[troutbert]

McSneek wrote:
Not so sure I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy as their conservation efforts seem to be focused around acquiring land and then making it off limits to everyone. I suppose if the alternative is the land gets sold and a strip mall goes in it's a good thing but I also think it's a bunch of BS designate an area like the one in this discussion as a "wildlife sanctuary" and then prohibit fishing.

The organization involved here is the Lancaster County Conservancy.

The Nature Conservancy is a totally different organization.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

troutbert wrote:

McSneek wrote:
Not so sure I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy as their conservation efforts seem to be focused around acquiring land and then making it off limits to everyone. I suppose if the alternative is the land gets sold and a strip mall goes in it's a good thing but I also think it's a bunch of BS designate an area like the one in this discussion as a "wildlife sanctuary" and then prohibit fishing.

See post #63. From that it appears that the restriction was the choice of the landowner who transferred the land to the conservancy, and is a deed restriction. In that case the conservancy is obligated to honor the deed restriction.

That was my impression as well, and as Swattie has stated their other conservancies allow fishing, I have no reason to believe this is not the case here.

I'm thankful for Lancaster Conservancy, particularly the Welsh Mountain conservancy. There's been some hub bub around the sale of the New Holland reservoir and the surrounding wooded land. At least the areas that Lancaster Conservancy owns will not be developed. It ain't much, but it's better than ALL the woods (and stream, which has natives) becoming a housing development.

 

[McSneek]

Maybe it's a false perception but I've always been under the impression the Nature Conservancy is about land aquisition for conservation purposes but then limiting or even denying public use. Thanks to Troutbert for pointing out (I should have read more closely) that the area we're discussing is preserved by the LANCASTER County conservancy and they do permit a significant amount of access to most if not all of their preserves so kudos to them.

I also realize the original landowner may have placed certain restricitions on access when they sold to the conservancy.

I don't get up that way too often anymore. Only fished the Hammer a few times and that was years ago. Used to park at Pumping Station Road and access the various trails when I had a lab and wanted to get him out for a good long walk in the woods.

 

[troutbert]

McSneek wrote:
Maybe it's a false perception but I've always been under the impression the Nature Conservancy is about land aquisition for conservation purposes but then limiting or even denying public use.

Be careful about making such assumptions. There is a lot of disinformation being put out to try to discredit all conservation efforts, by people with ideological axes to grind, people whose interests do not align with those of flyfishers.

What percentages of the Nature Conservancy's land and fishing is open vs closed, I haven't really researched.

But here are 2 world-reknowned trout fishing locations, conserved by the Nature Conservancy. Probably some people on here have fished these places.

Silver Creek Preserve
Location: Picabo (south of Hailey and Ketchum)
The Conservancy's first preserve in Idaho, Silver Creek is world-famous for its tremendous mayfly hatches that support one of the highest densities of trout in the world. Each year, anglers from all 50 states and 39 countries visit the preserve to try to catch one of the legendarily difficult trout.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Fork Preserve Location: Swan Valley The South Fork of the Snake River offers some of the best cutthroat trout fishing in the West. The scenery in the South Fork is also spectacular--and it's going to stay that way. The Conservancy and its partners have conserved much of the main canyon, including the preserve.

 

[geebee]

well done Squatch, at least now we know and perhaps their posting it will protect some wild fish too.

as i posted before, Trout run and a bunch of other preserves actively encourage fishing.

nice one.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Definitely. I always worried about the brookies and wild brownies that live in that stretch. Many are "legal size", and most of the "trout season" crowd will keep a legal native or wild brownie not knowing any better. I saw a few larger brookies on stringers this past May.

 

[Alnitak]

I wonder if the deed restriction would be open to something like catch and release? Maybe that could be a FFO C&R release stretch with some exploration of the intent of the deed restrictions with the Conservancy. Just thinking out loud.

Jeff

 

[Maurice]

I raise my hand to the camp of thanks for nothing squatch!

Sometimes you have to learn to read the unwritten. Especially if you are local. Many landowners are indifferent about fishermen using their land for such use and don't post signs because they don't care to be bothered and are not bothered by the fishermen. Many fishing sites are at the bottom of their properties and are out of sight out of mind. Sure a bad experience may result in posting signs. But many times when there are no signs it means they don't care or don't know and its not like we are having keggers and cutting down trees. If the signs are not there and its a trout stream, they know that people fish it and they don't care. Leave it alone.

If you push landowners to check a box "put up fishing permitted signs" or "put up posted signs" they will likely choose the latter.

That said, Approved Trout Waters REQUIRE signage to permit fishing.

But does EVERY property owner along the stretch need to put up a white sign and take down their posted signs? No! Does EVERY posted sign need a black and white sign under it clarifying the priviledge to fish even though the posted sign says No Hunting or Fishing? No.

Look if a landowner wants NO FISHING on a stream with game fish they surely WILL make it clear. In the case of the Conservancy I would guess that they didn't care that people fished it o(or didn't know) but had to by legal means post it somewhere "on their website". for protection from abuse.

Sometimes you just have to learn shut up and fish!

We "had" a property owner in the middle of a popular remote stretch on Muddy Creek that had posted signs along a rail bed up for decades. With dozens of Fishing Permitted signs at both ends of the section stating where to park and such a cautious and perhaps overly wary angler complains that the stretch is posted. (on here no less) concerns fly around, threats of closure to the reach and after visiting the guy with the signs I find out that he never goes down there, doesn't care if people fish, Actually appreciates fishermen because one saved his beagle from being attacked by a larger dog once. I asked whether he would allow us to put up fishing permitted signs and he said he would rather I didn't I asked well do you allow fishing, he said yes but I would rather not have the signs. I carefully said I respect that and bid him a good day. Then went down and put two signs up in the middle of his property along the creek. They are still there 10 years later.

He no longer owns the property as of two years ago and the new folks, well lets just say they allow fishing along the stream....

Shut up and fish....if if doesn't say you can't fish and people fish there its probably OK. And you are not going to get arrested or fined if you are "caught".

Sure ask permission, be polite, all that jazz but don't push people into filling a check box committing them to legal consequence. Especially a business.

THEY DON'T CARE! if they did you wouldn't be asking!

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Thank you Maurice. You said it. It doesn't make you an outlaw to leave things well enough alone. I do have some experience with the Lanc Conserv. and posting etc. Enough said... and remember---- I know people are careful to not offend and do the right thing all the time but sometimes as the old saying goes....
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I'm sorry, how does this lead to hell?

If Maurice is right, then I suspect they won't put the signs up now, either.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

old saying---just means that sometimes good intentions lead to unforeseen/bad consequences....