Chiques Ck, Lancaster Co. for SMB

[Mike]

There is frequent mention here of fishing the Conestoga for SMB, but never a mention of Chiques Ck. Recently some individuals mentioned fishing a park along the Conestoga outside of Lancaster, but I have seen that location and habitat in general is poor for larger fish or even an abundance of fish. There are much better spots on the Conestoga between upstream as far as the confluence of Muddy Ck. Discussion of that park area for fishing always leaves me wondering: Don't anglers recognize good warmwater stream habitat? Is there an educational need among new or wishful warmwater anglers regarding the components of good warmwater stream habitat? I would certainly recommend Chiques over that location.

Recent survey work out in the country north of Rt 23 and in the stream segment between Marietta and Landisville/Salunga revealed reasonably good SMB populations at the two sites sampled. Much of the stream is hard-bottomed and shoreline rocks hold rock bass up to about 7.5 inches. Just look for the good substrate and knee-deep water or deeper. The bass only ranged up to 11.5 inches, but some deeper water than was sampled would probably reveal bigger specimens, as had some fish kills years ago. A suggestion while the streams and weather are staying warm.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

There is frequent mention here of fishing the Conestoga for SMB, but never a mention of Chiques Ck. Recently some individuals mentioned fishing a park along the Conestoga outside of Lancaster, but I have seen that location and habitat in general is poor for larger fish or even an abundance of fish. There are much better spots on the Conestoga between upstream as far as the confluence of Muddy Ck. Discussion of that park area for fishing always leaves me wondering: Don't anglers recognize good warmwater stream habitat? Is there an educational need among new or wishful warmwater anglers regarding the components of good warmwater stream habitat? I would certainly recommend Chiques over that location.

No. The thing is Conestoga is by no means even a good SM fishery. What that location has is big water on a large chunk of public land. There is no worries about trespassing on private property. Chiques is almost entirely private land and if my memory serves the trail system following it, you are not supposed to get off the trail, just like the conewago outside of etown. The same access issues could be said for the upper Conestoga as far private land. I would love to fish the quarry stretch but wheredoyapark?

While the Conestoga is not a numbers stream, in the 5 years I've been fishing it I have landed numerous big SM out of it in the 16-19 inch range. In the park, if I fish the entire thing I can usually pull one nice bass out of it. That's the allure of it to me. If I wanted to catch 7-11" SM I would just fish the shallows of the Susquehanna. The yoy and year old or so bass has looked great there.

I will say there is one other stream in lancaster that I believe is better than the stoga for numbers and better for size than you reported on chiques. And it's not hammer.

 

[dc410]

Sal pretty much nailed it. I too have never considered the Conestoga a great Smallmouth fishery. There are a few sections that I have fished that have some decent smallmouth habitat and there is always the chance to catch a decent fish, but it is surely the exception rather than the rule. The Conestoga River having frontage on a number of parks or properties with public access and available parking are the reason it gets so much attention IMO. If it wasn't an hour and a half plus drive I would be fishing lower Penns Creek all the time for smallies. Now there is some good Smallmouth water!

 

[Mike]

Fair enough, I understand the public land argument in part. Warm water streams are so lightly fished, however, that I have doubts that getting permission to fish would prove difficult, especially in farm country...as long as anglers do not walk in cultivated fields , try to climb wire fences, leave gates unlocked, or enter pastures that harbor bulls as examples of bad behavior in farm country. In fact, a Chiques landowner specifically mentioned anglers leaving his gates unlocked with the result of animals getting out onto a public road.

I also understand the bigger fish argument. If one is intent on fishing for large fish, numbers are often not important; however, it is an unusual participant on this Board who seems to favor size over numbers. I promote Chiques as an alternative to the frequently mentioned Conestoga, particularly for anglers who live closer to Chiques or those who have not had great success on the Conestoga. I' m not particularly interested in discussing alternate streams for big fish because if one wants to fish over large fish an angler can find big fish in the Conestoga by going to the right places. Again, those places are found by looking for appropriate habitat types. Likewise, there are places on the Pequea, Mill Ck, trib to the Conestoga, and Cocalico where nicer fish can be found than the standard stream fare, but they are not in the standard habitats offered by those streams.

Finally, I am pleased that anglers here are showing some interest in warmwater stream fishing, as these are generally underutilized resources that can provide a lot of fun and little competition.

 

[HopBack]

I posted a glowing report on Chiques creek last year. If you look it up it you will also see some pictures of the garbage and trash all over the place. It's true that it has decent numbers and some nice little runs but its not really an attractive stream to fish for most anglers. I have a friend that recently caught some big channel catfish upstream from the 441 bridge. I suspect that it its only a matter of time before some lager bass move into that section due to the dam removal.


Sal- I suspect that I know what other lancaster county stream you are talking about as I usually catch an outstanding number of smb and rock bass during my outings. Also really good for carping in some sections. I wonder if it has been surveyed in recent years?

 

[Mike]

The "garbage and trash" have not been my experience there, but many streams and rivers have specific spots that have been trashed.

 

[Fishidiot]

Mike wrote:
Finally, I am pleased that anglers here are showing some interest in warmwater stream fishing, as these are generally underutilized resources that can provide a lot of fun and little competition.

Absolutely.
For many of us, small stream WW fishing is a staple of summer.

While I love SMBs - redbreast sunnies and rock bass are fun as well. And while I'll see local anglers, often teenage boys, out with spin gear fishing these creeks for bass, I rarely if ever see a fly fisher. I've long urged folks here on this forum and elsewhere not to overlook small, local WW creeks for fun FFing, esp when trout streams are warm. I think the PFBC could also do more to promote this angling option as well as kids love creeks and sunfish (and no stocking required).

With respect to size vs numbers, in my neck of the woods, this is relative and many of my local WW creeks I've frequented for years have never revealed an SMB bigger than about 15 inches.
But of course, catching dozens of 10" bass is a lot of fun too.

 

[afishinado]

HopBack wrote:
I posted a glowing report on Chiques creek last year. If you look it up it you will also see some pictures of the garbage and trash all over the place. It's true that it has decent numbers and some nice little runs but its not really an attractive stream to fish for most anglers. I have a friend that recently caught some big channel catfish upstream from the 441 bridge. I suspect that it its only a matter of time before some lager bass move into that section due to the dam removal.


Sal- I suspect that I know what other lancaster county stream you are talking about as I usually catch an outstanding number of smb and rock bass during my outings. Also really good for carping in some sections. I wonder if it has been surveyed in recent years?

Chiques Report 8/14

 

[Mike]

Thanks Afish. I read the op and responses.

I recommend that anglers who desire to try Chiques attempt to fish in the lower 7 miles or so of the stream. That stretch should offer the best fishing, but anglers still need to be selective about habitat. There is no shortage of forage fish, including a variety of shiners, dace, darters, yoy suckers, and minnows.

As for the cooler than expected temps in Chiques, it is clearly a warmwater stream based on its fish community. It crosses Lancaster County farm country and runs for miles, but it does receive coldwater inflow from springs in places that may help keep it cooler than most warmwater streams. Its water temps ranged from 21-23 degrees C (mid-morning to early afternoon) during this week's hot spell while, for comparison, the Tully DH Area just above Cacoosing Ck was 25 deg C by mid-afternoon .

 

[foxtrapper1972]

In my "surveys" with fly and spinning gear all these streams have declined over past ten yrs or so. Certainly wouldn't call Chiques a good Smallmouth stream anymore in my experience. It holds some Rock Bass in places and some small bass. Ten yrs ago or more I would catch 12"+ Smallmouth in the sections near Salunga but not lately. I will be interested to see what will happen with the dam at Marietta now gone. The section around rt 23 LOOKS good but has never produced very much. The Conestoga used to have great Smallmouth, Rock Bass and Fallfish and other fish from north of the Ephrata area to the mouth and the numbers and size have really dropped.

 

[wgmiller]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

No. The thing is Conestoga is by no means even a good SM fishery. What that location has is big water on a large chunk of public land. There is no worries about trespassing on private property.

Bingo. Just put it into "drive" and have at it. As both you and I know, there are some very nice fish in the Stoga. It's by no means a numbers stream, but there are some nice fish in spots. The shale bottom makes wading easy and as you mentioned, access is quite easy.

The $20 million question I've been looking for the answer on is where are the musky on the Stoga? I've heard sparse reports of spin anglers catching them by accident in the Water Works/Bridgeport area. But overall, for the number that were stocked over the years, they seem to be absent...

I don't intend to take this thread in a different direction, but the musky question always baffles me.

With regards to the Chiques, it'll be interesting to see how the dam removal improves the fishery. It really changed the dynamics of the confluence and can only make it a better fishery.

 

[McSneek]

I think Mike has mentioned the junction of Cocalico creek and the 'stoga as a musky stocking spot. As close as I am to it I've never actually fished that spot but maybe try there?

I've not targeted musky but would wonder the same, especially with the fish commission signage at the Rock Hall put in/take out.

 

[Mike]

The section that has been stocked with muskies for decades runs from Cocalico Ck confluence to the Lancaster Waterworks Dam. That doe not mean, however, that the fish were stocked exactly at those points. They were likely stocked where the truck could gain access and probably stocked at a variety of points over the years, with 2-4 points used each time. The fish move a lot, so where they were stocked specifically is not so important as is the general stretch. Find the deeper, longer, quieter pools, tail-races of dams, and mouths of major tribs (eg Cocalico) and there should be fish near-by. It would not surprise me, by the way, if the fish are in such habitats for perhaps 5 miles below Rt 30 as well.

While you are at it, consider the SMB in the lower few miles of the Cocalico. We found some nice fish in the sampling site that represented the lower 2-4 miles.

As for the Conestoga segment that we sampled from Cocalico Ck to the headwaters, the most impressive sites were in the stretch from Cocalico Ck upstream to the confluence of Muddy Ck., but finding specific smaller stretches of good habitat was key. You can't just walk in anywhere and have a great day unless you just happen to hit one of those stretches by chance. But, that's how you find them...by covering some ground or spotting them ahead of time.

 

[Swattie87]

I've explored the Conestoga a bit for the first time this Summer, since moving to Morgantown this past Winter. I've generally struggled so far, but that's normal when first exploring different stretches of a WW creek. You gotta cover water and find the good habitat beats. It took me 7 or 8 years to cover the Swatara and learn a half dozen or so good, reliable stretches.

Here's a tip I find helpful...when I'm combing online mapping software looking for Trout streams I generally have the view on Topo. When looking for WW streams, I generally have the map on Sat view. I'm looking for the stretches with frequent broken, bouldery looking water with short stretches of flatter water (pools) in between. Avoid the stretches that look like flat water on the Sat view for long reaches. They're either shallow flats that don't hold fish, or long slow pools that are often are difficult to fish.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Muskys have been taken in the stretch below the Lanc Waterworks around Bridgeport and on down into Lanc County Park and even below Lanc. city over the years. I've had follows north of RT 23 and know of a big one hooked and lost below 23...But that was at least 10 yrs ago. I have not seen a musky or heard of a musky on the Conestoga since that time. I have noticed a steep decline in Fallfish as well as SM and Rock Bass in those sections as well during same time period. In our area the Susquehanna is the place for musky if you are really interested in targeting them.