Cold Run Schuylkill County Stocking Cancelled

U

Upstream

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
52
Does anyone have any background information concerning the cancelling of stocking of Cold Run in Schuylkill County. The message on the stocking schedule says "CANCELLED Water removed due to landowner posting".
 
I didn't know this. It is a good thing to stop stocking, but I wonder what is posted now. I have an idea, but not sure. I know SGL borders some of it, but not all of it. I hope it isn't the stretch I am thinking. I would like to know the story.
 
Troy wrote:
I didn't know this. It is a good thing to stop stocking, but I wonder what is posted now. I have an idea, but not sure. I know SGL borders some of it, but not all of it. I hope it isn't the stretch I am thinking. I would like to know the story.
Click to expand...

It looks like Cold Run, the entire stream is no longer on the stocking list.
 
Only a small stretch of Cold Run was ATW, but it contained some nice holes. I'm wondering what part is now posted.
 
Troy wrote:
Only a small stretch of Cold Run was ATW, but it contained some nice holes. I'm wondering what part is now posted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Mike would know. I would assume stocking was ceased because of posting in the ATW section which runs from the confluence of Beaver Creek downstream to the mouth at the Little Schuylkill.

 
Did not realize the ATW went all the way to the Little Schuylkill. That is interesting. Might have to check it out soon. Hopefully, that is what got posted.
 
It looks like about the lower half of the stream is now posted, I just noticed it the other day. This is the lower half below the confluence with Beaver Creek. Too bad, I normally fish it about twice a year, once late spring and once in the winter. I caught my first trout in Cold Run, way too many years ago to mention, back when the dam was still there. When I get a chance I'll check to see who posted it.
John
 
That's a shame. That is a nice piece of water that ironically, didn't need stocked. Now it won't be stocked, but no one can fish it...That section of stream could and should turn into Class A under those conditions.

If the whole thing below Beaver is posted, the landowners must have banded together as I got the impression it wasn't one continuous tract/property. If it's all posted under one name, I suppose that could be challenged, if someone had the ambition to do it. Can't say I blame the landowner(s)...lots of litter, trash dumps, and evidence of apparent shennanigans. Being that close to the road didn't help that stretch.

Along a large gravel "beach" at one of the better holes, someone had actually dug a small bathtub size "holding tank" for their catch.
 
Be prepared for more of this once DHALO are opened to bait and early utilization.
 
According to online maps (AcmeMapper) parts of the stream are within SGL 222.

Does anyone know if that is accurate?

There must be some way to acquire some of the lands that streams flow through to maintain access and provide good riparian habitat into the future.

In that case you have the state gamelands there, very close to the stream. Just a fairly small amount of acreage of land purchased and added to the SGLs would provide access and protection for a decent length of that stream.
 
This is the stream that I said going class A would not be a good thing if it required the cessation of stocking because it would most likely get posted if a new landowner came along. Well, it did not go class A but the effect was the same or worse. A new landowner came along, posted most of the stretch below the SGL to the bridge, and for those of you who might gloat over such things, the gloating will most likely be short-lived. The stretch will be privately stocked. PFBC was stocking 75-100 trout In that area and 300 in the entire creek.


This is what happens in the real world, away from any idealism. What also happens in the real world is what happened to the PGC in this case. The PGC was interested in this tract for access to its present tract along the Ltl Schuylkill. They could not find a partner...municipality, sportsmen's clubs, environmental group, land trust, etc to share in the cost, and the cost per acre was higher than Game is allowed to pay on its own. They had to watch as the land was sold.
 
Mike wrote:

The PGC was interested in this tract for access to its present tract along the Ltl Schuylkill. They could not find a partner...municipality, sportsmen's clubs, environmental group, land trust, etc to share in the cost, and the cost per acre was higher than Game is allowed to pay on its own. They had to watch as the land was sold.
Click to expand...

Mike, is there any sort of legalities that would prevent the PFBC from partnering (contributing money) with the PGC with their purchase of this type of property?

Clearly it would benefit the PFBC to keep such streams open. And if the PGC was willing to pay much of the cost, the additional cost to the PFBC might not have been too great.

And the PGC would then manage the land, with no continuing costs or maintenance obligations for the PFBC.

These kinds of properties should be the highest priority. There has to be a way.
 
Thanks for the info, Mike.

Really sad news...another stream lost to posting.
 
I have been after the conservation folks to buy that land along Cold Run for years, but it fell on deaf ears. It's a darn shame because now it's closed to all but the people who own it, and the owner is going to stock it, so it's a lose lose situation.
It might explain why there are so many browns in it suddenly after years of not having many brown at all.
 
It is sad news, it was a nice stream.

I did think a significant portion of that section was within the SGL, though. I knew it winds in and out, and most of the road, I believe, is private property. But I thought significant portions of the stream were within the SGL. I will have to take a closer look at maps.

I know there's a section near where Beaver Run comes in that is very private, and was "borderline" posted to begin with. I've walked the stream up through, fishing, and seen no signs as I got up in there. But if you get out, there's signs facing the road. I felt terrible about it and stopped fishing that section.

Above the confluence with Beaver Creek, the stream gets real small and flat. This is certainly private land, not game lands. There are brookies there, I believe it might even go class A. But from a fisherman's point of view, it's not real good. The best area, for wild fish, seemed to be along the road from the mouth of Beaver Creek down to the bridge.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
It is sad news, it was a nice stream.

I did think a significant portion of that section was within the SGL, though. I knew it winds in and out, and most of the road, I believe, is private property. But I thought significant portions of the stream were within the SGL. I will have to take a closer look at maps.

I know there's a section near where Beaver Run comes in that is very private, and was "borderline" posted to begin with. I've walked the stream up through, fishing, and seen no signs as I got up in there. But if you get out, there's signs facing the road. I felt terrible about it and stopped fishing that section.

Above the confluence with Beaver Creek, the stream gets real small and flat. This is certainly private land, not game lands. There are brookies there, I believe it might even go class A. But from a fisherman's point of view, it's not real good. The best area, for wild fish, seemed to be along the road from the mouth of Beaver Creek down to the bridge.
Click to expand...

Here is the map I posted above: Cold Run.

It does run in and out of SGL. But the best access is from the road through private property. I suppose one could access parts of it from the SGL side, legally, but for all intents and purposes, it's off limits to anglers. A real shame.

This is stream is the poster child for the PGC & the PFC and/or a land conservancy to purchase or lease for public access. Budget constraints for both agencies are a real problem.
 
I hoped that access to the very small stream between cold run and the little schuylkill in the SgL would improve. Truly a bear to walk over the hill and then back down the hill to get on that tiny stream... but it's a very remote area once you are there.
 
I can see by that map that even the part I thought was in the SGL probably was not. I knew it was just a matter of time that it would be closed along the road though. Serval properties have changed owners over the last 25 years, one property owner even clear cut the trees land all the way down to the bank at one location.
 
There is this, which has been in place for years with little to no publicity:

http://fishandboat.com/cap.htm

While it may not have helped Cold Run, there are lots of cold runs out there that may have their access saved through programs like this. You can direct your donation specifically to cold water access if you wish, it is matched 100% and is tax deductible.
 
I'm still wondering what is and what is not state game lands. From the map Afish posted, it still looks like a lot of it is fishable from the game lands road downstream. It just shows that the area from the game lands road upstream is private. If a creek is adjacent to game lands, does that make it public even though the other side is private?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

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


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top