Big Spring/Newville????



And when are talking about "back in the day" do you mean 1970? 1930? 1880? 1840? 1770? It probably makes a difference!

It may be that the trout population in the lower stretches has been low for a long time.

troutbert, if you have or can find a copy, the first bit of Charlie Fox's Rising Trout has a bunch of historic blurbs that recount the fishing in Big Spring and other CV limestoners.

And regarding the oxygen issue, with the mill ponds in place, it's possible in my mind that the outlets helped oxygenate the stream since they were basically a chain of small waterfalls churning the water between the impoundments, instead of the long, uninterupted placid flows we've seen during the last few decades...
 
troutbert wrote:
Fishidiot wrote:
albud1962 wrote:
What is curious is that the creek was a series of mill ponds which held many fish. Wouldn't dissolved oxygen and thermal impacts been a problem back then?

One would think. The dissolved oxygen problem these days isn't severe....but is measurable. Why the difference between then and now? Someone more knowledgeable than I would have to tackle this one. Perhaps it may be connected to the fact that back in the day there was consistent and meticulous channel maintenance performed by the mill owners(?).

The lack of trees in the old photos of Cumberland Valley limestoners back in the day is really striking.
Definitely a lot more trees along BS and Letort today.

How good was the trout population back in the day? In the upper stretches? And the rest of the way down? Most of the angling writing seems to deal with the upper end.

And when are talking about "back in the day" do you mean 1970? 1930? 1880? 1840? 1770? It probably makes a difference!

It may be that the trout population in the lower stretches has been low for a long time.

For what it's worth, historical accounts (things I've read) have said that anglers would travel there from Philadelphia during the late 1700's early 1800's for the fishing, it was that good.
 
Back
Top