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

I guess when in doubt---FISH!
 
If in doubt I don't- especially after a nice lunch with Mrs GB at the Gin Mill inLebanon - the crab n red pepper bisque was top notch.

A nice stroll round Litiiz too - plenty to entertain the good lady for a couple of hours in the spring while I wet a line, if anyone else is considering a trip out there.

 
crs5942 wrote:
There used to be signs that said "No fishing" at the Upper Hopewell Furnace Preserve. It was about 10 years ago that I last remember seeing them along the stream on the paved section of Pumping Station Rd. They either fell off or someone helped them fall. I do see bait fisherman down in that section from time to time and it would be good to get some signage replaced since there are some wild trout in that section as well. It could definitely function as a protected spawning region like some of the brookie streams in the northern part of the state that have "brook trout refuge" areas.
Click to expand...

I would agree except that the bulk of that stretch is all mud-bottom, so no spawning to will be on the agenda there.

Jeff
 
No, I saw redds there dude. Active redds. It's true there's a lot of silt, but there are plenty of places for redds as well.
 
Trout spawning refugia referenced above, if they exist, have not been established by agency biologists, nor are they recommended. It is seldom the abundance of adult trout or their redds that limits trout populations. Spawning success at the population level, which is what biologists care about, is nearly always limited by environmental factors, primarily weather and its impacts on stream flow, water temps, sediment deposition, bottom scour, and anchor ice. It can even be limited by the water temps during the previous summer and their impacts on trout gametes. Refugia for spawning Pa trout = a feel-good measure.
 
The_Sasquatch wrote:
No, I saw redds there dude. Active redds. It's true there's a lot of silt, but there are plenty of places for redds as well.
Click to expand...

Well then I stand corrected. Good news indeed, especially if its mostly brookies.
 
Maurice wrote:
"...its not like we are having keggers and cutting down trees. If the signs are not there..."
Click to expand...

 

Attachments

  • maurice1.jpg
    maurice1.jpg
    120.9 KB · Views: 1
Speak for yourself Mo. Anytime I don't see any signs I make sure to be as obnoxious as possible and draw as much attention to myself as I can. That way the land owner can see me and they know I am on their property. Which makes them feel better because now they don't have to wonder whether people are on their property or not.

Sas, I love you to death bro but dang it, let a sleeping dog lie.

I want to rant about intra-web forums right now so bad. Seriously folks, we don't need to share EVERYTHING.

Once you tell something to someone or post something on the web you lose control of how it's handled. Soon (if not already) the biggest issue we will be facing on the east coast is going to be access. We need to think twice before we speak. Even Mike acknowledged there is a time and place. We need to be thoughtful of everyone involved when we push for answers.
 
Here’s the part I don’t get as this thread continues on…It’s not as if we lost access to this section based on this thread or an email to the Conservancy. It was off limits to fishing, and still is off limits to fishing = No net loss of access here. If you were fishing there previously (myself included) you were trespassing. The difference is now you know.

I get that there were no physical “Posted” or “No Fishing” signs there, but that doesn’t change the fact that the landowner has made their intentions for the property known…They don’t want fishing on it. There still may be no signs erected, but that doesn’t matter. Using an example I mentioned earlier in the thread, this would be the same as Squatch and I returning to that lady’s property on Snitz where we got kicked off last year. The property was not posted then, and is still not posted, but we were informed we weren’t welcome to fish there. The difference is now we know.

I get the access battle and losing waters to posting and that’s a fight we’re all on the same side of, but that’s not what happened here. An un-posted stream with a long standing “gentleman’s agreement” between the landowner and anglers is different…Yeah it doesn’t make sense to question or pester that landowner into putting up fishing permitted signs. Based on the email Squatch got back from the Conservancy, there was no such nudge/nudge, wink/wink “gentleman’s agreement” here. The section of stream is and was intended to be off limits to fishing.
 
And as someone else noted, it WAS posted and the signs are now missing. That is something that I wanted to make sure did not happen as well. When it was stated on the website it's closed to fishing, there were a few things that could have been. Either the website was wrong and there was an oversight, the streamside posting was wrong and the oversight was there, OR the streamside posting at one point was right and now it's not due to magical vanishing signs. I seem to have a vague memory a few years back when this was discussed of someone saying there were signs at some point.

If the conservancy sent a letter back and said, "Hey, fishing is allowed there, we'll update the website" would the nay sayers be givin' me crap about this?
 
Don't worry about the bashers Squatch. You did the right thing, IMHO.

The agreement made between the original landowners and the conservancy should be honored.

Landowners considering conveying land or making conservation easement agreements with conservancies should be able to have the confidence that the agreements they make will be honored and maintained, not ignored.
 
Speaking of being mindful of the land owners I am sure the LCC could use some more volunteers. Maybe you guys could offer to go around their properties and make sure all the proper signage is posted? It would do some good to get out of the house and away from the keyboard for a bit. I think they are always looking for help. Just a thought.
 
The_Sasquatch wrote:
It's a popular spot for hikers and bikers and smokers and dopers I think. Cars don't surprise me. I rarely am the only one parked there.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that there are quite a few of the latter group down there. I fished it last Sunday and there were some what I will call "questionable types" going up and down the road and looking a bit on the scruffy side. Other than that the water was very low so I didn't hang around long and only fished deeper spots that I could find.

How often do you fish Hammer?

Also Segloch Run pretty nice. Surprised at how picky the brookies can be over there though.
 
Cause' I'm a hiker
I'm a biker
I'm a smoker
And I'm a doper
Playin' my music in the sun
I'm a joker
I'm a smoker
I'm a mid-night toker
I get my lovin' on the run
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh
 
I approve the above message.
 
How the heck did this thread get resurrected!? Oh PaulR asking me questions haha! Sorry Paul! You bumped this 6 days ago and I finally saw it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages

Share this page

Back
Top