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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

Thong only section for females.
 
Doc

I will  second the thong only section for females

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~!

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.