Speedwell Forge Lake: refilled last yr, fairly good bass fishing already

[foxtrapper1972]

Oh well who am I to oppose the do gooders!
Sounds like you are eager and a ringleader to me. "We will build off this project"
From your groups meeting ---

"• A large scale multi agency project is coming to Hammer Creek at Pumping Station Rd. The US Fish&Wildlife Service, Donegal TU, PGC, PFBC, Boy Scouts of America, DEP and the Lancaster County Conservation District are all involved. This project is slated for 2018-19. It includes a dam removal on Walnut Run along with the removal of the Culvert. It also includes the removal of the dam remanence on Hammer and adding fish habitat and stream restoration to Hammer in that area. At this point he details of the project are unknown to the extent, but we will attempt to assist through volunteer hours. At a later date we will build off of this project."


What;s next? Signs, marked trails, more parking, security cameras.... And you think I am kidding? Sad.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

:lol:
At this point you have to be joking because your list is comical.
All I can say is come out and let your voice be heard or sit back and reap the benefits like everyone else. Needless to say I got more important things to do than humor this conversation.

 

[nomad_archer]

Sal -> thanks for your efforts. I wish I had the capacity to lend a hand but two young kids and work limits my time. I know excuses but please know what you are doing is appreciated. Also I am very glad to see the tires removed.

 

[sarce]

That old dam area is a massive restoration opportunity. I don't have that much experience on that stream but from what I saw, the potential is far greater than the risk of too much pressure. If you want to criticize people for doing stream habitat work because it is forcing the stream to be like "their version of nature" you ought to be critizing the dam that was put there in the first place and wrecked that portion of the stream. That's why it's called a "restoration", because there is a need to fix something that people already screwed up.

If you have the means to improve a fairly large native brookie stream in SE PA, idk why you wouldn't. FWIW I think you should electrofish the browns out of there too especially in light of the whole LMB invasion fiasco.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

sarce wrote:
That old dam area is a massive restoration opportunity. I don't have that much experience on that stream but from what I saw, the potential is far greater than the risk of too much pressure. If you want to criticize people for doing stream habitat work because it is forcing the stream to be like "their version of nature" you ought to be critizing the dam that was put there in the first place and wrecked that portion of the stream. That's why it's called a "restoration", because there is a need to fix something that people already screwed up.

If you have the means to improve a fairly large native brookie stream in SE PA, idk why you wouldn't. FWIW I think you should electrofish the browns out of there too especially in light of the whole LMB invasion fiasco.

Agreed Sarce. And I'm not sure what FT's and our vision of a trout stream is or how they differ, but I'm pretty sure none of us envision a silty structureless mess with an invasion of largemouth bass, a crap-ton of litter, piles of tires, shingles, buckets of human waste, **** bottles, etc. decorating the stream banks.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

PS-on an upside, as far as I know, Sal and I were the only "fly fishermen" involved w/ Saturday's cleanup. Several of the volunteers were from a mountain biking club which is great! This effort expands well beyond fishermen.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

nomad,

It is no worries. I totally understand and being a father and work takes precedence of course. Ill keep sending out emails and you just join us when you can. That reminds me, I have one to send.


sarce,

Yes I wish the browns could be removed. Unfortunately at this point I don't believe electro-shocking and removing would have much of an effect on them at this point. either way, I dont have that power, that would be a Mike K decision. I do think and have been trying to voice that I believe installing habitat, when TU's project comes up, that favors brook trout over browns would be a good choice. I do not know what that entails but I was hoping to contact CVTU to see what exactly they did at Big Spring that accomplished this goal. Theirs worked for sure, would it work at Hammer? I don't know. I think it involved slowing down velocity while adding dissolved oxygen. Slowing velocity in Hammer wouldn't be hard as it is pretty slow already. Scour pools with downed timber would be wonderful but again I'm not sure how this will effect browns vs brook trout. I'm sure undercuts would be good too. Does anyone know if slowed velocity is what brook trout actually prefer or is it just brook trout in Big Spring?
In the end, I am no expert in this matter and I can only chime in with what I think, contrary to whatever FT thinks I am just as much on the sideline in this regard as he is. Then again, I'm not just complaining on a message board and I'm in actual contact with the people running the show.
I agree with everything else you said.


Sas,

Yes it has been a multi agency, landowner, user base affair and it has been a pleasure dealing with everyone. SAMBA was awesome to say the least. Keystone Fly Guides will be releasing an article on how this multi user volunteer base has come about and it is my ONLY vision for this.


Foxtrapper,

You know I was mowing the lawn today and thinking about your comments. It is insulting. Trust me, if I could sit back and go fish while someone else handled this, I would. I'm not a ringleader or commander. I'm just a guy who stepped up to try and make a difference. In fact, I wish more people would step in to handle all the hard stuff! its tiring and time consuming.

One of the reasons I'm doing this is to get my children involved in conservation and to show them that doing is more powerful than complaining. Also my daughter is going through some horrible things and this has helped her get through those issues a little easier. They have also put time and effort into the things we are doing, in fact a lot and are really insulted by your disrespect. You want support of our efforts to fail and that's fine, you have your "reasons" and we have ours to keep going. Even still, you have an issue on conservation measures because it might effect your fishing and I do find that ridiculous but you have your opinion.

My life is half over and yours is probably more. So we are not the ones that would have to deal with the issues facing water quality as much as my children. So I have allowed them to read your comments here because I want them to see that no matter what good you try to do, you cant please everyone and someone will always have something negative to say. My stepson was rather floored by your attitude and had some words for you that I wont repeat here in fear it would be labeled as a personal attack (don't worry he doesn't swear). However, they both cant believe what you are saying. My stepson and daughter have issued a challenge to you. Come to the next meeting and convince them that they shouldn't be "do gooders" and should stop what they are doing. Here is your chance to end the cycle of these conservation groups you are so sick of as my kids are willing to hear your side. Take it while you can because after this offer, we go deaf to your "issues."
Just so you know we aren't joking. You better come prepared but be respectful, they are just kids but they are crafty.

I also invite anyone to come to the Oct. 16th meeting if you wish to see Foxtrapper debate a 7 and 8 year old on the merits of conservation. It should be entertaining to say the least.

In fact come even if FT flakes out. We would love to have you.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Sal----The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You know, those darn unintended consequences.

Very simply, I have enough respect and humility before nature that I think that very often the best thing we can do is let things alone. Nature may be a bit more complex than even the so called experts think.

More often then not when these so called conservation groups get started a new project is proposed and eventually the money flows. Next thing you know they are making "improvements". The Lanc County Conservancy and a lot of these townships get funding and have really screwed up some really nice places in this county with their over zealous trail making and parking lot building and advertising and horn tooting.

I have no problem picking up trash or planting trees. I have real reservations about going further.

Interesting that people chime in and want to kill the wild Brown Trout. Making these kinds of assumptions about our role in nature or this particular stream is wrongheaded.

And MY vision for a watershed is just as valid as yours but you win because you are on the side that has the "vision" for changing something and the gov't agencies (that need to justify their role), and you have your clubs and dollars to boot.

I could go on but I'll leave it there.

Bring on the bulldozers.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

OK but FT, right now, isn't the talk about undoing something that we (meaning humans) did in the first place, such as install dams and fill the stream with silt because of poor farming practices? I think you have some valid points about increased traffic, etc. I would oppose reg changes because of those concerns. I think Sal would too.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

sasquatch- What proof do we have that trout are in decline in this creek?

You certainly can remove dams and mess around with stream banks etc. You can't undo 100s of yrs of human activity. And you really can't (in my view) say why this particular fishery has thrived.

To your point about traffic-One thing I can tell you about the small Lancaster and York wild trout streams. (And I know this will come as a huge surprise to those who love promoting fishing spots). The most wild fish and biggest ones are on private land where no/very limited fishing is allowed.

There are streams where many thousands have been spent on restoration and results are not what were expected.

I would take a close look at other similar creeks in our area that have been tinkered with before jumping on bandwagon. This is not a Big Springs Creek. It is much smaller. Very different.

But it probably is too late. It certainly sounds like everyones passions and the wheels of "improvement" are already well underway.

I foresee one of those brown signs with white lettering listing all those agencies and groups responsible for making "improvements". Needless to say i won't be attending the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new and improved creek.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Actually you can. Once again the wild brook trout did not start showing up in the creek until AFTER the dam removals at pumping station and rexmont. This is confirmed through about 10 different surveys before and after dam removal. Further you have a real lax definition on thrived. The population data has been dismal and this IS because of the agricultural above filling the creek with sediment and creating loss of habitat. It's pretty simple really.

No one is claiming it's a Big Spring. Contrary to your point I have fished every wild trout stream in Lancaster and York and also ones that have private land on them and have found the very opposite. One stream in York yeilded multiple big wild browns in the 17-23" range and it was on publicland. Here in Lancaster I've caught natives on public land ranging in the 12"-14" range. Some on Lancaster county conservancy property. In fact, I have found the private land trout streams in our area to be lackluster in size and population. However, more specific to hammer creek, the projects proposed are on publicland not on private land. The private lands won't be open to the public AT ALL. There will still be the buffer zones you so seem to love to grow large fish.

In the end our group has no money, we are not filing for non profit status. Our main focus is to get the creek to EV, fix the Lebanon County farms above the publicland so they stop destroying the creek and Monitor water quality. Even if we disbanded today the projects would still come, we aren't running them. So keep complaining to the wrong entities if you wish but you really have lost your way here Fox. Doing is more powerful than whining. At this point it's apparent you have some personal vendetta and it's humorous to me because virtually everything you say doesn't apply.

Come to a meeting, put up, shut up or keep complaining. Either way, it apparently makes no difference when you are this misinformed, misguided and bitter. You believe in democracy, well given the shear amount of people interested you are outvoted.

Next.

 

[sarce]

Deleted...getting too off topic.

 

[McSneek]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Our main focus is to get the creek to EV, fix the Lebanon County farms above the public land so they stop destroying the creek and Monitor water quality.

Recent article in the Lancaster News said a year long inspection of farms in Lancaster and 42 other counties found that 60 percent of them had state-required erosion and manure plans. Any idea if some of these Lebanon County farms are in the in the 40% that don't have erosion plans?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I'm sure there is a way to find out.
At this point after conversations with 3 of the farms possibly interested in installing fencing to keep cattle out I would say likely not.

Sarce,

I read your comment before you deleted it. I completely agree and think it should be a driving force to save to brook trout over the browns. ATM I'm not sure what that would entail but I'm sure it will come up soon

 

[Mike]

There will not be a removal of Brown Trout. Multiple reasons: amt of effort needed for little result in the long run; too many potential sources of Brown Trout, including a BT trib, and too many refuges in the drainage basin where they could "hide."

 

[lycoflyfisher]

McSneek wrote:

Recent article in the Lancaster News said a year long inspection of farms in Lancaster and 42 other counties found that 60 percent of them had state-required erosion and manure plans. Any idea if some of these Lebanon County farms are in the in the 40% that don't have erosion plans?

These numbers are really skewed across the state. Several conservation districts would go out for a farm inspection, write the "neccessary" plans for the farm and then fill out the inspection report as no violation when the farm really had no prior written management plans. Also the inspection process so far is only checking to see that farmers have a written plan and is not investigating if they are following their plans. it really is a joke because who is going to go around to farms to ensure that they are spreading 8 tons of liquid manure an acre and not 12? (#s are just an example) its easy to manipulate numbers and make them look good on paper. Cover crops and establishing riparian buffers and not spreading manure withing 100 ft of a stream are the biggest environmental improvements we can make in agriculture.