Little Juniata... Regulation Change?

Now that Donny Beaver is done trying to take over the Little J, I've heard a lot of talk about wanting to make it bait free.  People like Bill Anderson and Brian "Ranger" Keen are running the Little Juniata River Association with a main objective to make the Little Juniata bait free and eventually fly fishing only (according to some old posts on various forums by Brian Keen).  They consider this action protecting the stream.  Do you think this would be right?  Isn't this basically what Donny Beaver was doing... deciding who should and shouldn't be allowed to use the Little Juniata?

The reasons I don't think it's a good idea are for one, I don't think Allan Bright (Spruce Creek Outfitters), PADEP, PAFBC, or DCNR took the case to court for everyone except bait fishermen.  They did it for the public in general.  Two, any type of fishing is still a blood sport.  We all kill fish no matter what tackle we're using and how careful we are.  Three, I've seen a lot of bait fisherman handle and release fish a hell of a lot better than a lot of fly fisherman.  Four, I became attached to fishing by starting with bait on the Little J.  I only fly fish now, but I'm not sure I would be doing that if it wasn't for starting with a spinning rod.  If my family had waited to take me fishing until I was 10 and could control a fly rod, I'd probably have been into too many other things to get into it.  And six, the most important, the more people, including bait fisherman, which use the Little J the better.  Used public resources are generally better protected from people like Donny Beaver than unused resources.

Also, Donny Beaver has sited multiple times the great work he has done with the Little Juniata River Association to change the regulations from Trophy Trout to Catch and Release on the Little Juniata.  While I think that was an OK change, why would you team up with Donny Beaver to convince PFBC about anything?  Seems fishy.   I'd like to hear what the general opinion is out there.  I'd also suggest making sure Doug Austen, the PFBC Director, knows your opinion.  I've heard the issue will be before the PFBC commissioners in April.  It will be bad in my opinion if only the Little Juniata River Association and its few members are the only voices heard.  I believe Doug Austen's email is dausten@state.pa.us. The PFBC also has a comment section on their website at http://www.fish.state.pa.us/promo/form/web_emails.htm.  Not sure who gets the comments, so I'd suggest sending a message to Austen and the website comment.

anadromous.  Sorry for the Rosie picture.  It was funny at the time... maybe it needs changed.

I understand your point about it being different from what Beaver tried.  And I agree that the Little Juniata River Association is not saying that some people who don't have the money shouldn't be allowed to fish.  But, it is exclusionary to say artificial lures or fly fishing only.  There are a number of people who just wouldn't fish there if they changed the regs.  It's basically saying that if you don't fish like us (with a fly rod) you can't fish here.  The analogy is Beaver saying if you don't pay me $XX,XXX you can't fish here.  In my opinion, and we all have them, it is exclusionary.

And are bait fisherman really the big threat to the Little Juniata River?  As far as I can remember they've always fished there even when it didn't have special regs.  Anyone could keep fish.  Now it's all catch and release.  There just seems to be better ways of protecting the river than trying to decide who can and can't fish there.  Maybe we should limit the number of times a month any one person can fish the river.  Hell, maybe we should just stop fishing it like thedrake said.  It just seems ridiculous after all the money the state has put into keeping the river open to the public anyone would even conceive we should now limit which part of public should be allowed to fish it.

Like thedrake said, the Little Juniata was deemed a public stream.  I don't think it should be changed to fly fishing only (FFO).  I never said I didn't believe in any special regulations.  My personal opinion is that there are a lot of naturally reproducing trout populations in a lot small streams in the state which need protection.  I'm not sure making them FFO is the way to go.  Maybe closing them during spawning seasons or making them single barbless hook streams would be more beneficial to the fish.  You know as well as I do that there are a lot of fly fisherman out there that do a horrible job of quickly landing and properly releasing fish.  Or ones that fish over redds during the spawn.  The only reason FFO benefits a stream more than single barbless hook regs (or someother non-exclusionary reg) is because FFO limits the number of people that will fish it.  Is that really what we want to do with a stream like the Little Juniata?  There are many other ways to protect streams than to exclude a certain type of fisherman. 

no tina mad a me For the record I would like to see the LJ or any water in general to be selective harvest over 18 inches year round. Excluding, is not the right thing to do, nor deprive a fisherman/women of perhaps the biggest fish him/her has ever caught. The LJ is a gem of a stream that grows big trout let the fishermen/women fish.
Chris 

I fish the little J at least once a week, and much more in the spring/summer. I gotta say, the little J is in great shape right now. There are lots of fish, and plenty of big fish that will make your reels scream. There are people fishing it with bait every day, and believe it or not, there aren't dead trout everywhere with snelled hooks hanging out of their mouths. If there were, I would be the first to say no to bait.
 
I get the idea that the "studies" that have been done are objective rather than subjective. They were done with a point to prove. I read one study that says there is a 50% mortality rate with bait. We all know that is not true. I am sure that the mortality rate is higher with bait, but that is more likely because of the fisherman than bait.
 
I would estimate about 90 percent of the fishermen on the LJ at any given time are flyfishers anyway. I dont often see bait used.
 
With single barbless hooks, you can remove a hook no matter where it is. I cant really see the mortallity rate of fish caught on a barbless hook with bait being much higher than with barbless flies.
 
 

The exclusion arguement can be shot down pretty easily. They wouldn't be excluding people, just a type of equipment. Therefore, anybody who wants to can still fish there, they just need to change to lures.
The reasoning behind it can be considered valid too by what is already considered valid- To avoid live bait and invasive species releases.
 
Not that I agree or disagree, Just playing the devils advocate.
 
Something that may also be considered- Under certain classifications, tribs, streams and surrounding areas are aforded special protections from developement and use.
 
Without any insight into the motives of the LJRA, that would be my guess as to what is behind a push in that direction.
 

The playing of devils advocate goes back to Plato and some of his predecessors who developed the exposition of ethical axioms through rhetoric.
 
You responded exactly the way they intended, by exploring the possible impact of an action. It can also be used to develope an arguement by exploring points and counter points that may affect a decision.
 
You may not like it, but you are good at it.
 
 

what do we want for the LJ?  is it a river that can reach it's full potential or a river like any other.  PA already has a 1000 of them, let's try and see what can happen to a waterway.  CO, MT, ID etc all have many waters that are fly only of C&R only, look at what they are producing, puts PA to shame.  just because it's public water doesn't matter it can be restricted like so many other waterways, look at the yough, clarion allegheny etc.

PeteM - I really appreciate you post(s) and honestly want to hear other's opinions.  That's why I brought it up.  Being "devil's advocate" can sometimes come across as just wanting to argue, so I apologize I took it that way.  I obviously have my own opinion and I guess it stems from growing up on this stream and seeing guys that live in Barree, Petersburg, and Tyrone feeling as though changing the regs on this stream to FFO or even ALO is like taking the stream away from them... although I do understand the point that it's actually not completely excluding them.  They're not like a lot of people that have the means to drive to some other stream to fish or even pay for lures.  They are the guys that seine through a local stream to catch their bait and then go fishing (and trust me, this is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying lures or a fly fishing outfit).  If this happens, they'll have to find another stream to bait fish on and I gaurantee it will be further away and not as good as the Little J for these guys.  I too will have to find a different stream to take my young kids to teach them how to fish.

You say after thinking about it a little, it is essentially good, but FFO would be bad because of your brother.  This is really the issue for me.  Like thedrake said, it's drawing the line where it benefits you the most without really determining what's best situation for the fish and the public combined.  You are slamming Donny Beaver, but wouldn't it be considered conservation (tongue in cheek) if he were to limit the number of people who fished the Little Juniata (nevermind the stocking and feeding of hatchery raised fish)?  Hell, even Lefty Kreh (Spring Ridge Club Member) said in an interview that a certain amount of public streams need to be made private in order to protect them.  Maybe having to pay ridiculous sums of money is the answer to conserve the resource?  Where's the line going to be drawn.  You are drawing it at ALO, but no FFO because of your brother.  LJRA is drawing it at FFO, but they still want to fish.  Why not make every stream in the state ALO (how's that for Devil's Advocate).  I'm saying the public paid to keep the river open and every responsible fisherman/woman deserves to fish the river in the manner they choose.  Does that benefit me?  Not at all.  I don't spin fish and I'm sure making it ALO and/or FFO would cut way down on the number of people that fish it.

Why not look into alternative ways to help the stream?  It's like wanting to help the environment so you build a wind farm on your roof.  How about start with turning off the lights when you're not in the room or turning your thermostat down.

Again, I do appreciate your comments and they've helped me think through this.  Hopefully my comments do to.  I'm not saying my opinion is right... it's just my opinion.  But I do think that some of these organizations, LJRA and the Spring Ridge Club for example, are doing what most do... whatever benefits them the most.  It should be about the river.

ORIGINAL: anadromous

Drake,.
The Letort is flyfishing only, how do you feel about this?

 
I am perfectly fine with it. I fish a lot of FFO areas. The difference in the LJ case is that the commonwealth's (public's) money went to fight for it, and we shouldnt try to exclude them.

That designation does NOT make it public.

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.

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.
 

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. 

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