Saucon Creek Special Reg Water

[Foxgap239]

Not sure if many of you are aware (I know I was not until today when I fished it, maybe I need to read my regs more closely) but the Special Regulations Area on the Saucon has been reduced. It used to go upstream to a little beyond the horse farm but now it ends at the riffle before the long deep flat pool. I'm guessing they cut out a good 1/3 of a mile. Really ticked me too because that flat was alive with rising fish I couldn't fish for! :roll:

Fox

 

[Heritage-Angler]

Section 5 of the regs water goes from where the stream goes under 412, all the way up to near the intersection of Goodman Dr and Creek Rd.

If you parked in the park off of 412, that's one hell of a walk upstream - even for you, my fleet footed friend. ;-)

Go to the PFBC website, and below the header picture is the special regs link. It'll take you to a map, and one of the task bar options is for regs stream sections. Select the Saucon from the drop down menu, and you'll see the map of section 5.

 

[afishinado]

yup,

I went to the "county maps" section on the FBC site and zoomed in on the stream. I see no changes on that map. The SR section is the same as it has been in recent years, as Ed describes it above.

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/county.htm

 

[Foxgap239]

Thanks. I just looked at the map link and it looks like what I saw yesterday although there are now signs that I never saw before in stretches that I always thought were special reg water. I also asked a local guy who knows the stream and he said they were all pissed about the reduction of the area. There was a VERY prominant sign that read "End of Special Reg Area" which was never there before and then multiple signs on trees stating that this water was ATW. All I can say is that I was surprized.

H-A, I parked at the Seiderville Bridge, so not so long a walk. Although I did walk downstream to the 78 bridge and the swimming hole.

 

[fishfuzz]

I was there a while back when the WCO was putting up the current signage. He offered the following...

The limits of the TT Section did not change, but the signage was wrong and misplaced for years. FF's actually took signs from the lower portion of the reg section and posted them farther up the stream.

The upstream limit of the special reg section ends where Hellertown begins to own property on the eastern streambank. Looking at tax maps this designation is closer to Bachman Street than Goodman Dr. If you look at the PFBC map the upstream limit also ends closer to Bachman St.

I think I remember an "End of Special Reg Area" sign being put up just above Bachman Dr. which is the street along side the blue recycling building up on the hill. And I know an "Approved Trout Water" sign was placed above that.

 

[Foxgap239]

Well that explains quite a bit and at least brings my sanity out of hte question. You are correct in the signage placement too.

Well, after next Saturday it will be mute but I loved fishing that flat in March with BWO's, now I can't :-(

 

[Chaz]

Sounds to me like the boundary should be at a road.

 

[Mike]

Chaz, I disagree. It sounds to me more like the anglers should keep their hands off of the signs. This is one that FF'ers can't blame on bait anglers. Clearly, a FF'er or spin fisherman moved the signs.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Ya clearly.

It couldn't have possibly even been a passerby, like a teenager or anyone else.

Had to be a spin or fly guy. Clearly.

Spawning habitat signs get ripped down on the Letort in the Heritage area all the time. Clearly it has to be a fly guy doing that also and not one of the 50,000 people that walk down that trail daily.

 

[Chaz]

Mike wrote:
Chaz, I disagree. It sounds to me more like the anglers should keep their hands off of the signs. This is one that FF'ers can't blame on bait anglers. Clearly, a FF'er or spin fisherman moved the signs.

I know that section and frankly I think it's a mistake to have a boundary where none recognizable exists. If it's based on a supposed property line, who did the survey? Who's the landowner? I think you understand my point.

 

[Mike]

If the boundary is clearly marked with signs posted by the WCO then, no, I do not see the point. What appears to have occurred was someone trying to extend a special reg area on his or her own. What would be a more reasonable motivation? I understand vandals tearing signs down, but I have yet to see vandals rehang them.

 

[fishfuzz]

Considering I was there I offer the following...

The WCO asked two fly fishermen to move from the ATW water they were "illegally" fishing and he directed them to the TT special reg section. He gave them warnings for not knowing where they were, but I assume this outcome may have been different if correct signs had been in place.

There was a long discussion about the upstream boundary of the TT section and the WCO made it clear where this boundary is located. He then posted signs. Based upon what he says he extended the TT area by a pool.

Sal, I like you and your posts, but, during the interaction, one of the FF'men admitted that he knew the signs were misplaced. He even told the WCO what FF'man took signs up the creek and posted them in an effort to extend the TT section.

The WCO took the information and said he was going to follow up.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Mike,

I can't believe I would have to explain the mindless acts of people playing pranks to mess with or get people in trouble.

Fish,

Being you were there I believe it and the people that tried to illegally extend a Special Reg area should be punished. My post in general was to point out my frustration of the divisional line, we and the PFBC have created, between bait and fly anglers. It bothers me greatly when a person post here, not only as an individual but also as a rep. of the PFBC and makes comments that further highlights and deepens that line. I appreciate Mike's posts on many of the experiments and findings he encounters doing his work as a PFBC officer. I'm disappointed by his occasional comments about FFerman and the feelings he projects on them as an individual.

A lot of assuming went on in that post, right or wrong.

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
Chaz, I disagree. It sounds to me more like the anglers should keep their hands off of the signs. This is one that FF'ers can't blame on bait anglers. Clearly, a FF'er or spin fisherman moved the signs.

Hadda be a spin guy! :lol:

 

[sandfly]

it was loum, i saw him do it...........................