RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change?

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General and Speciality Fishing Boards] >> Conventional Fishing & Tackle >> RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:03:59 PM

anadromous

Posts: 1491
Joined: 11/16/2006
Status: offline

Spoon,
....but you or anyone else can fish it.Is it not a public trout stream?

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 31

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:05:52 PM

thedrake

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Hollidaysburg, PA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

Sooo-- after spending the bait fishermens money to fight Beaver and his special interest group for access to the stream some are suggesting we should replace his group with another special interest group. Some are using the logic that removing bait fishermen would lessen the mortality rate and make for a better C&R stream. Wellll--- Since the Erie tribs are a put and take fishery dependent on yearly stockings and not C&R I guess we should make them bait only to offset the streams some of the fly snobs want to take over for themselves. I carry both and use whatever is hot at the time because my objective is to catch fish not wash flies. I fish with a guy that won't use anything but a fly that he has tied himself even if I am standing beside him outfishing him 10 to one and offer him what I am using. He doesn't try to make me change or go somewhere else and neither should you. Drake has the right attitude on this one. Next the vintage bamboo rodders will want their own section, don't forget an Orvis section, how about one for #20 and smaller hooks. We all pay for a license and what some are suggesting is exactly what Beaver is doing. My 2 cents

"an Orvis section"

Now that would be funny...a bunch of walking orvis catalogs with their own section of water, wearing the latest pastel colored orvis fishing shirts, getting their wonderline tangled in the trees.

< Message edited by thedrake -- 3/4/2008 5:38:21 PM >

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 32

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:13:49 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

I don't know the stream, but if it flows through private land, it can be posted. Only a navigability designation could change that.

The heritage designation ( as I understand it ) only qualifies it for CHP grants.

< Message edited by spoonchucker -- 3/4/2008 5:14:20 PM >

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to thedrake)

Post #: 33

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:17:09 PM

S-10

Posts: 947
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

I actually own some older Orvis equipment but it is well used and shows it. I have seen and chuckle at some of the walking catalogs you speak of.

(in reply to thedrake)

Post #: 34

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:31:37 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

The Authority’s land use easement program is another noteworthy project. In granting a conservation easement the landowner agrees to place restrictions on his or her use of the land, and to limit activities to those that are compatible with conservation objectives. In effect it provides a buffer zone between the stream and future development, and forbids depositing any potentially toxic or polluting materials in the easement area. The land can not be plowed or stripped of grass, shrubs, trees, or plants, and no new buildings may be erected. The landowner retains full ownership of the easement area, and may specify whether or not public access will be granted. At the end of 2000 the Authority held ten easements with a total of fifteen tracts of land, with several additional easements pending.
Zoning
The Authority pursues to attain federal, state and local government regulatory designations, zoning ordinances and similar protection to help preserve the LeTort and protect its watershed. As a result several measures are in place and several more are in progress.
In 1988, the entire stream was placed in the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers System. This program recognizes exceptional natural waterways, and guides state agencies in decisions affecting land management issues in the riparian corridor. This corridor extends from the headwaters to the confluence with the Conodoguinet Creek, follows the 100 year flood plain and is about 1000 feet across at its widest.
In 1997, Pennsylvania designated the segment from the Route 34 bridge to the old railroad bridge in LeTort Park, in the Borough of Carlisle, as an Exceptional Value Stream. This provides additional protection from further development and discharges. With continued community participation and improved municipal storm water management it may be possible to upgrade the entire length of the LeTort Spring Run to Exceptional Value status.

"The landowner retains full ownership of the easement area, and may specify whether or not public access will be granted. At the end of 2000 the Authority held ten easements with a total of fifteen tracts of land, with several additional easements pending."

This is from the LeTort conservation authority's website.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 35

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:49:06 PM

anadromous

Posts: 1491
Joined: 11/16/2006
Status: offline

And all of these easements are so you and I can walk the land and fish the water...as long as we
" limit activities to those that are compatible with conservation objectives. In effect it provides a buffer zone between the stream and future development" Which means no spoonchucking or bait chucking on the Letort and for good reason. Regulations are put in place for the future of trout...not the future of fly fishing. I am not an Orvis add, just a fisherman. I respect your position...

< Message edited by anadromous -- 3/4/2008 5:53:17 PM >

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 36

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:54:48 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

Those two lines are not referring to tackle restrictions. Please explain how, bait, or spoon chucking are contrary to conservation practices.

" and all of these easements are so you and I can walk the land and fish the water...as long as we"

Not true.

The landowner retains full ownership of the easement area, and may specify whether or not public access will be granted.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to anadromous)

Post #: 37

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 5:59:50 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

Actually I am not opposed to LIMITED sections of stream being designated DHALO, or FFO. I fact I kind of like it. Keeps the elitist, "my method is superior" fly Gods, congregated in one (away from me ) where they can all sniff each other's rose scented farts.

By the way I fly fish as much as I chuck spoons, or bait.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 38

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 6:06:46 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

"In effect it provides a buffer zone between the stream and future development, and forbids depositing any potentially toxic or polluting materials in the easement area. The land can not be plowed or stripped of grass, shrubs, trees, or plants, and no new buildings may be erected."

This is what the activities that are compatible with conservation objectives refers to. Nothing to do with fishing, or fishing regulations.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 39

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 6:18:46 PM

anadromous

Posts: 1491
Joined: 11/16/2006
Status: offline

So you would fish the Letort with bait??

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 40

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 6:20:08 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

If I did, I wouldn't harm any more fish than you would on the fly.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to anadromous)

Post #: 41

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 6:25:14 PM

anadromous

Posts: 1491
Joined: 11/16/2006
Status: offline

Not the issue...would you fish the Letort with bait?

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 42

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 6:28:38 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

If regulations permitted, yes I might. Why not? Is the objective to preserve the stream, and fish, or to preserve the fish for a select group?

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to anadromous)

Post #: 43

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/4/2008 6:45:57 PM

anadromous

Posts: 1491
Joined: 11/16/2006
Status: offline

The wild fish and a stream that men dedicated their lives to. I too bait fish Spoon, I love all types of fishing but some streams need preservation. I'll bet you can fish all day and never hook a fish deep, but what about the casual weekender, the fish for free-day guy. You put power bait on a treble hook and I'll show you a gut hooked trout...then the handy hook removing device that gets jammed down their throat, pushed turned and pulled then while a hand gets wrapped around their body(shop rag for a gripping device) sqeezing the fish until the gurgle can be heard for a hundred feet, then let's release the lil' fella to live another day...he'll be fine and so will the Letorts wild fishery, who cares, pass the Rainbow powerbait please!!..Good night spoonchucker, I believe we are at an impass. Take care.

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 44

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/5/2008 11:57:07 AM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

I agree that some streams need protected, and I have no problem with regulations in this regard. It is the PF&BC's responsibilty to identify such streams, put appropriate regulations in place. The problem I have, is that much of the general public (anglers) assume that because a fishery is native/wild, that it is inherently fragile. This is not always the case. Some need little regulatory protection, some need SOME more, others need strict protections. If you read my earlier response, I said I might fish bait IF "regulations permitted". In this case the folks responsible for putting protections in place have determined that LIMITED protections are needed. That the fishery can sustain, if not SOME harvest, at least the incidental, angler related mortality that bait fishing might cause. If the LeTort needs the strictest of regulations then I have no problem with them. I would be far more supportive of AO, than FFO, though. You will never convince me that a guy using jigs, small lures, or spoons is going to harm more fish than a fly guy. Bait fishermen need not, but I'll agree many will.

If you read the authority's objectives, they geared far more to protecting the stream FOR the fish, than they are toward protecting the fish FROM anglers.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to anadromous)

Post #: 45

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/6/2008 4:28:06 PM

bronzeback2

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline

I've been fly fishing the Little J for 20-some years and haven't had any problem with the baitslingers other than having to pick up a bunch of styrafoam bait cups the week after I participated in the annual cleanup, don't get me wrong I fish bait just not over trout, have no problem sharing the river with the bait guys, I actually worry more every time a train goes past coupled with all the industry on the headwaters,one spill kills way more than baitfishing, don't want to lose the bug life again.

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 46

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/6/2008 6:08:23 PM

dano

Posts: 2198
Joined: 9/21/2000
Status: offline

After reading this discussion, the only conclusion I can make is to deem the whole river as... Worms Only. Single Barbless Hooks.
This would protect the fishery by keeping down the number of fisherman on the stream and limiting the threat of invasive species.
Of course the fly fishermen might feel excluded . They really shouldn't. All the have to do is change tactics.

At the least, they could make just a section of the stream "Worm Only". Maybe between the bridges from Spruce to Barree.

< Message edited by dano -- 3/6/2008 6:10:35 PM >

_____________________________

Gone Fishing.

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 47

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/6/2008 6:25:51 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

Why not make it hookless? Just tie the bait, fly, whatever to your line without a hook, and visualize the take. No hook-ups, no fight, no harm.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to dano)

Post #: 48

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/6/2008 7:01:04 PM

thedrake

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Hollidaysburg, PA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: dano

After reading this discussion, the only conclusion I can make is to deem the whole river as... Worms Only. Single Barbless Hooks.
This would protect the fishery by keeping down the number of fisherman on the stream and limiting the threat of invasive species.
Of course the fly fishermen might feel excluded . They really shouldn't. All the have to do is change tactics.

At the least, they could make just a section of the stream "Worm Only". Maybe between the bridges from Spruce to Barree.

You mean make the water that runs along the SRC property "worm only"? That would really pizz the beav off.

(in reply to dano)

Post #: 49

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/6/2008 7:03:15 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4905
Status: offline

I want a powerbait, under a beachball section. Maybe a Snoopy rod section too.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to thedrake)

Post #: 50

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/6/2008 9:39:43 PM

Grendel

Posts: 2107
Status: offline

Thong only section for females.

Doc

_____________________________

"Sir, I know what I said, but I cannot take responsibility for what you thought you heard." John Roberts

Hu kares duud - da penz suk!

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 51

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/7/2008 9:35:58 AM

flyfishindave

Posts: 316
Joined: 3/21/2005
Status: offline

I will second the thong only section for females

(in reply to Grendel)

Post #: 52

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/7/2008 9:40:41 AM

SilverKype

Posts: 3450
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bronzeback2
I actually worry more every time a train goes past coupled with all the industry on the headwaters,one spill kills way more than baitfishing, don't want to lose the bug life again.

yep~!

(in reply to bronzeback2)

Post #: 53

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/7/2008 12:53:26 PM

Thats_Hot

Posts: 20
Joined: 8/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dano

After reading this discussion, the only conclusion I can make is to deem the whole river as... Worms Only. Single Barbless Hooks.
This would protect the fishery by keeping down the number of fisherman on the stream and limiting the threat of invasive species.
Of course the fly fishermen might feel excluded . They really shouldn't. All the have to do is change tactics.

At the least, they could make just a section of the stream "Worm Only". Maybe between the bridges from Spruce to Barree.

There's a table turner. Good argument against those that don't think changing these regs actually "excludes" anyone. Since I only fly fish, it sure would exclude me.

(in reply to dano)

Post #: 54

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/7/2008 4:20:57 PM

thedrake

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Hollidaysburg, PA
Status: online

Just to turn the tables a little more.....

The FFO section of Yellow Creek IS the hardest fished section of stream. That short stretch gets fished every single day by more than a few people. On weekends during the spring, there are more people piled into that short stretch than any other section of YC. Each weekend it would remind you of the first day of regular season. FFO sections do at times tend to draw more people to a stretch of water. Why? I think its because of people believing since a section was special enough to exclude some people, the fishing must be the best there. Take the case of the SRC water on the LJ in spruce creek. Once that was opened to the public, TONS of people fish it, because they feel it must be the best water since it was privatized for a while.

< Message edited by thedrake -- 3/7/2008 8:03:16 PM >

(in reply to Thats_Hot)

Post #: 55

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/7/2008 6:51:38 PM

PeteM

Posts: 217
Joined: 11/1/2007
From: Bethel Park
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thats_Hot

quote:

ORIGINAL: dano

After reading this discussion, the only conclusion I can make is to deem the whole river as... Worms Only. Single Barbless Hooks.
This would protect the fishery by keeping down the number of fisherman on the stream and limiting the threat of invasive species.
Of course the fly fishermen might feel excluded . They really shouldn't. All the have to do is change tactics.

At the least, they could make just a section of the stream "Worm Only". Maybe between the bridges from Spruce to Barree.

There's a table turner. Good argument against those that don't think changing these regs actually "excludes" anyone. Since I only fly fish, it sure would exclude me.

Does it exclude you, or do you exclude you?

If there was a section like that, what would stop you from getting a spinning rod and chucking some bait?

By saying "since I only fly fish" you have made yourself FFO.

(in reply to Thats_Hot)

Post #: 56

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/8/2008 11:54:58 AM

thedrake

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Hollidaysburg, PA
Status: online

I think some people are missing the point here. The little Juniata IS a PUBIC stream. The vast majority of streams are not public. The fight against allowing the river to be private was funded by the commonwealth, the publics money paid for this case. Even making it harder for the public to fish it by making them buy new tackle to do so, is not fair.

The little Juniata Assoc. wants everyone to believe their are dead trout constantly floating downstream from all the bait and spin fisherman on the river. That is not true. I could count on one hand, the number of dead trout I see in the river every year. I can assume that plenty of them have died of natural causes, and not only by a spin fisherman.

Being catch and release only, the river doesnt have the crowd of fisherman who dont know how to handle fish, like stocked streams so often do. Yes, I have seen my share of people that grip fish too tightly or handle them too long, or hold the fish out of the water for too many glamour shots, but the people who do this are just as often fellow fly fisherman, who dont know any better.

Should Bill Anderson or anyone in the little J assoc. be considered an expert or authority on this subject? NO. Remember, this movement is coming from the same guy who said on the spruce creek fly co. forum, that the numbers of green drakes on the Little J has decreased because too many birds were eating them. Anyone who fishes the river enough and knows anything about the green drake knows that their numbers decreased on the river as the amount of silt decreased. I wouldnt consider anyone who makes such an outrageous comment to be an expert on the little J.

< Message edited by thedrake -- 3/8/2008 12:41:42 PM >

(in reply to PeteM)

Post #: 57

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/8/2008 10:27:35 PM

Pgh Kid

Posts: 76
Joined: 1/1/2008
Status: offline

Solution:

1 - Take down that nasty picture of what ever she is supposed to be.
2 - Bait fishing from the right bank only.
3 - fly fishing from the left bank only.

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 58

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/9/2008 10:38:04 AM

duncsdad

Posts: 1252
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

Sooo-- after spending the bait fishermens money to fight Beaver and his special interest group for access to the stream some are suggesting we should replace his group with another special interest group. Some are using the logic that removing bait fishermen would lessen the mortality rate and make for a better C&R stream. Wellll--- Since the Erie tribs are a put and take fishery dependent on yearly stockings and not C&R I guess we should make them bait only to offset the streams some of the fly snobs want to take over for themselves. I carry both and use whatever is hot at the time because my objective is to catch fish not wash flies. I fish with a guy that won't use anything but a fly that he has tied himself even if I am standing beside him outfishing him 10 to one and offer him what I am using. He doesn't try to make me change or go somewhere else and neither should you. Drake has the right attitude on this one. Next the vintage bamboo rodders will want their own section, don't forget an Orvis section, how about one for #20 and smaller hooks. We all pay for a license and what some are suggesting is exactly what Beaver is doing. My 2 cents

"an Orvis section"

Now that would be funny...a bunch of walking orvis catalogs with their own section of water, wearing the latest pastel colored orvis fishing shirts, getting their wonderline tangled in the trees.

But Simms would be okay?

Sorry, I just got my CC statement with the jacket on it.

_____________________________

Duncsdad

All Fishermen are liars except you and me. And I'm not too sure about you.

(in reply to thedrake)

Post #: 59

RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change? - 3/9/2008 11:11:37 AM

SilverKype

Posts: 3450
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

Of course Simms would be okay DD. They make a great product. Orvis .... hmmmmmmmmm...wellllllllllllllllll. Not so sure about that.

They stand between their products however!!!

(in reply to duncsdad)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [General and Speciality Fishing Boards] >> Conventional Fishing & Tackle >> RE: Little Juniata... Regulation Change?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Locked w/ New Messages
No New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

0.203