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.
 

Just to be clear, I do believe fishing with bait is more harmful to trout that using a fly.  That's not the discussion here.  The discussion here is, does bait fishing deserve to be banned from the Little Juniata?  I'm not sure what the LJRA's ultimate goal is, but if it is to protect the stream and its trout, I think there are better ways of doing it than limiting the number of people who use the resource.  PeteM - Your non-exclusionary argument is exactly the type of thing these guys would say.  The reality is, not everyone can or wants to get into fly fishing.  Why should they be told they can't fish a public river with their bait or even spinning gear?  Is it to avoid the release of invasive species?  How about the LJRA tries to get the selling or use of invasive species banned.  Or is it because FFO designation will limit development of the valley?  Isn't there a better way to do those things.  Are we fly fisherman so stuck up that we think we're better at conservation and deserve an "open lane to free traffic?"

Bottom line for me is, unfortanately any kind of fishing is a blood sport.  We're all killing our fair share of fish.  Most of us try to handle fish responsibly, but there are some that don't.  A number of those people have spinning rods in their hands and a number have fly rods.  I've seen them both.  Also, there are a number of ways to protect and enhance the Little Juniata.  I love seeing the team of Boy Scouts doing clean up projects along the river and always go out of my way to thank them.  I bet a bunch of those kids don't fly fish.  Should we really tell them or their parents if they want to fish the public river they just cleaned up they'll have to go invest in some fly fishing gear or at least pay for some lures/spinners?  Or maybe we can tell them to go fish some other put and take stream that has no bug life and the fish won't be around come June or July.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate.  This is really my opinion.  I'm not sure why some people have the desire to post replies that aren't even their own opinion under the guise of "devil's advocate."  I'm all for hearing others opinions (otherwise I'd have never posted this topic), but I'm not going to continue to debate potential motives of the LJRA or its members.

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.
 
 

Also, on the examination of motives-
 
Why would you do that? To determine whether or not something is essentialy good or essentialy bad.
 
Cases in point-
1. Donnie Beaver and the SRC attempting to limit access to the Little J.
 Donnie claimed to be an environmentalist who wanted to save the Little J from developers by buying the land surrounding it. That in and of itself would not be bad. It got ugly when he tried to close off access to the river and sell membership to use it. He tried to exclude the general public from using something that had already been determined to be public. He did this by charging a membership fee that represents the cost of a decent house and more than what many people even make in a year, plus a huge maintenance fee. He engaged in a strategy of exclusion that was motivated  by profit, and proved to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
 
Had he actualy wanted to do something for the good of the general public, he could have deeded the land to the state with a clause that it would forever be used as public land, but he didn't.  No surprise that everybody thinks that the guy is a schiester and a jagoff.
 
It was determined that what he was doing was bad.
 
2. A Stewardship Group that wants to change fishing regulations on a stream system.
 
They have proposed that they would like to have a stream designated ALO, possibly FFO.
 
Why would they do that?
 
Does this exclude anybody?
No. It excludes the use of certain types of lures or equipment. From a purely dollars and cents standpoint, I would have to consider the difference in expense of multiple purchase or total cost of live bait versus artificial lures. On fly fishing gear versus spinning gear I would say that they are on par, because you can get a reasonably priced outfit of either type.
 
Are there any benefits to this change? Possibly. There have been some studies that have shown mortality rates to be lower from fly fishing, which would benefit the fishery. Having no bait buckets and bait bucket dumping would eliminate the possibility of invasive species encroachment from that channel, thus helping to preserve the ecological ballance of that system.
 
It would seem that there is no profit to be gotten, no exclusion, and it could benefit the fishery.
 Is this essentialy good, or essentialy bad?
 
So, when you examine motives and some of the factors involved in making a decision, it helps one to more fully understand a decision.
It makes for a more solid decision that is grounded in reason rather than just blurting out-
 "It stinks because I don't like it and I said so!"
 
As for the idea that it is just fly fisherman being snobby and wanting more for themselves, thats a matter of perception rather than a matter of fact.
 
My opinion- After thinking about it a little, I'd say it is essentialy good. An FFO designation would be bad though. People with disabilities like my brother who is a quadruplegic can't cast a fly rod, but can spin cast. He can't bait hooks either.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

Let me once again point out that the overall numbers of people fishing bait on the little J is actually very low. Like I said before, I fish it at least once each week, and more often when spring comes along. I also guide on the river, and never get crowded out by baiters, and rarely see one. Unlike a lot of people, I have formed this opinion based on what I actually see.

RIZ, are you saying that the rivers in the west are "putting us to shame" because they are FFO and C&R? The two areas are different in climate, etc... I could see C&R, but not so much FFO Being a major factor.

Like I said earlier, I havent touched another rod besides a fly rod in plenty of years, but i'm not going to get a holier than thou attitude about it. I dont deserve to fish that river any more than anyone else, and i'm not going to pretend to, just to have a few less people fishing around me.

Spring Creek in State College is a good example of what C&R can do. Look at how many fish there are in the creek, there is a more dense population of trout in that creek than anywhere else i've ever fished in PA. That being said, it is mostly open to all tackle.

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.

"Right back:
But how many fishermen C&R with bait?"
 
I and many others I know do it all the time. Bait fishing does NOT = gut hooked fish.

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.

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