Outside Bend

But isn't reducing the chances of a didymo infestation by 90% better than doing nothing to reduce the chances of a didymo infestation? To steal wrench's analogy, it's like saying condoms are only 90% effective, so I may as well be using nothing at all.

No one thought it could be established in New Zealand or Arkansas either, those systems are pretty different from it's native habitat. But unicellar organisms are pretty adaptable critters, and are always capable of surprising us.

You're right in a sense- there really hasn't been much data collected on the impacts of didymo on fisheries- most of the research at this time has been devoted to how it's spreading, why it has suddenly become so prevalent, how to eradicate it once it's established, etc. Some studies in NZ indicate didymo blooms reduce the numbers of large aquatic invertebrates, but that small ones become more numerous. Big food items are more calorically valuable for fish, but higher abundances of small prey items may offset it. There have been a few studies on effects of didymo on spawning substrates for trout redds, but in stocked systems like we have in MO it may not be a huge issue. The truth is we don't know all the effects didymo will have, but they're somewhere between practically none and irrevocably altering our fisheries. Again, why take the gamble? At minimum, it's an aesthetic issue- but that's not to say aesthetics aren't important. Lots of folks want to fish in visibly clean water, lots of folks visit Ozark streams not to fish but to simply enjoy their surroundings. If the city of Lebanon started stocking their strain of brown trout in the springs at Bennett I don't think you'd have 5000 folks there March 1, waiting breathlessly (well, maybe breathlessly), for the chance to tie into a corn-fed trophy and get the obligatory grip-and-grin.

Because it's no longer just the jet-setters spreading the stuff, it's become established in our region. Because in the absence of government intervention, fishermen haven't protected the places they rely on for their sport. We've tried that approach and it's failed, so it's time for something new.

I'm not sure I'm following your scenario JD, but it seems as though you're saying tourists would be excluded from fishing places like the White River, where a large part of the economy is centered around tourists coming to fish. I just don't think it'd work out. Yeah, but the logistics of actually doing it are pretty staggering. The state would have to compile a database of every stream in the state, and whether or not they were infected. It'd require a ton of funding and manpower, neither of which is easy to come by right now. For the sampling to work, MDC would have to coerce landowners into participating, either by carrot or by stick, and that'd go over like a lead balloon. And in order for all that to stay current, it'd have to be repeated every few years. And there'd have to be some sort of reporting mechanism- anglers would have to tell MDC what footgear they're wearing and where they're going with it. I know some folks who are uncomfortable giving that sort of information out to their wives, much less a government agency

Sorry guys, I went fishing. It was fun. I got sunburned. I know that's what you said Drew, and it's still incorrect. The White River didn't "catch" didymo because it has cold water just the same as you don't catch the flu because of your body temperature. Having the suitable habitat sets the stage for the infection, but it doesn't cause the infection to occur. How is it any shadier than the state mandating that you MUST practice C&R on some stream sections, that you MUST use single-barbed hook, that you MUST quit fishing once you've kept your limit for the day, that you can't just go dumping your garbage or sewage wherever is cheapest and most convenient for you? MDC's role is to protect and manage the public's fisheries and aquatic resources, didymo threatens our aquatic ecosystems, and MDC is simply working to fulfill their mandate, even if it may be unpopular among some. I'm sure plenty of farmers, sewage treatment plants, ATV/horse people and others feel the same way you do, that MDC regulations are unfair and onerous. That doesn't mean we allow them to degrade the public's streams, though. I guess I still don't understand this sentiment that MDC should protect our resources only to the point where it becomes inconvenient for anglers.

You don't get an infection because your body temperature is 98.6 degrees drew, you get an infection because you're exposed to a pathogen. The White River doesn't have didymo because it's cold, it has didymo because it was exposed to didymo. The average angler spends about $80 bucks per fishing trip, and rubber-soled boots don't cost much more than that. If you're unwilling to give up a fishing trip though, start a penny jar. If you put one in every day from now until March 1, 2012, you'll have plenty of cash for a new pair of legal wading boots. If a penny a day is going to break the bank, you should probably rethink going fishing in the first place. It's not criminal, it's life. And just like your analogy, throwing a tantrum over how unfair it is won't change the facts- be it that you need Volume 2 by Christmas or that felt soles can infect fisheries with invasive species. No one forced you to buy felt soles in the first place, you made a choice. Choices have ramifications. Missouri's not the first place to ban felt soles, and the issue's been known for nearly two decades. If you bought felt soles knowing they were being banned elsewhere, but hoping Missouri wouldn't, I don't have much sympathy for you. The writing was on the wall, and you chose to ignore it.

It's not a question of whether dams are good or bad, drew. It's about whether anglers should be responsible for themselves and for the fisheries they portend to cherish. No one seems to have a compelling argument why they shouldn't. Yes, rubber soled boots are expensive, but expense doesn't absolve you from doing the right thing. It's cheaper to dump your old freezer off the nearest bridge than to take it to the dump, but that doesn't mean it's an acceptable thing to do. And while it's true wading in rubber soles isn't as carefree as felt, it's not insurmountable. It's time to bite the bullet- if we as anglers aren't willing to do something a little painful to protect our fisheries, how can we expect the CAFO's, farmers, aquaculture interests, big business, mining companies and the rest to give a darn?

No, but populations and fish condition have been declining in Norfork tailwater since didymo began blooming there. Pretty unlikely, given that didymo is a freshwater organism. Even if it could survive in oceans, nearly every Ozark stream was covered with seas about the same time, so there's no reason for didymo to be present in the White but absent everywhere else. And besides, if didymo can spend millenia locked in sediment and still be viable, there's no reason to think they couldn't persist in felt soles for a very long time as well, and be moved from stream to stream by anglers. Glad to see you've come around Right. The best defense is a good offense, an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure, and all that. If we can prevent didymo from invading our streams, we won't have to worry about how to eliminate didymo from our streams.

Not trying to offend anyone Bruegy, but the information's out there, and pretty readily available. When people keep bringing up the same issues which have already been addressed and expect some different answer, it can be a little frustrating. I empathize with the folks who oppose felt bans because of traction issues to a point. Rubber soles are different than felt, and it's true you have to wade differently with them. But it's not insurmountable. Just like any other piece of equipment you've ever owned, be it a fly rod or a car, you have to learn how to use them.

Very cool- I was up in the Driftless area this past spring and loved it- amazing how gracious the landowners usually are about letting you fish "their," trout streams. Thanks for the post!

It's been addressed, see above post. It's been an issue for nearly two decades, and a quick search on google scholar reveals more than 2500 documents on invasive didymo algae. . Studies in New Zealand show the didymo there came from western North America. And given that the White was was a warmwater system prior to being dammed, and thousands of miles outside the native range of didymo, it's astonishingly unlikely the diatom was ever historically present. Because (and hold your breath for this one, folks...) there's a lot of public outcry when felt bans are proposed. When you're a state agency who's funding is derived from happy anglers, be it by license sales or by legislative appropriation, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. It's not a scientific decision, it's a political one. Uh...our very own MDC has banned boats from impoundments like Blind Pony, in order to prevent zebra mussels and other aquatic critters from being spread into their hatchery operations. Personal responsibility and stewardship of our fisheries isn't enough? You genuinely believe the state should have to shell out millions in hatchery renovations, disinfectant equipment, well drilling, and associated upkeep and employment costs because you don't feel like shelling out an extra $50 for wading boots?

Yes, just like emerald ash borers could be spread by tornadoes or hurricanes, and just how zebra mussels could be spread by floods. That doesn't absolve sportsmen from being stewards of the resources they claim to care so dearly for.

You're welcome to your own opinion Laker, but when you enter a conversation claiming: It indicates a certain level of ignorance about the issue. Look, you're trying to use the slippery slope- that a ban on felt soles could lead to a ban on clothes, gloves, waders, boots, etc. But A doesn't follow B- felt soles don't behave like those other pieces of equipment. For one, they're CONSTANTLY in contact with the stream bottom, unlike your hat, gloves, waders, boot laces, fly line, etc. The design of felt (it's just matted, compressed wool- fibers randomly oriented throughout the material), also makes it tougher to keep clean than woven cotton or synthetics, braided boot laces, plastic boot soles and fly lines, leather or plastic boot uppers, etc. The random orientation of felt fibers means there's lots of interstitial spaces for critters to hide, and means there's no easy pathway for disinfectants to move through the material and ensure a complete eradication of any nuisance organisms. Felt's NOT the same as the other materials your fishing gear is made of, which is why felt is being singled out. It's nothing more elaborate than that.

No, just like they don't check licenses, creels, or any other regulation for every single angler. If you have a significant enough enforcement presence though, many folks will abide by the regulation.

You're absolutely right, it's tough keeping clothes, gloves, and hats clean. Here's a link though, that may help you out: Proven clothing disinfectant method. If your fly line is absorbing water and sediment from the stream, you may have bigger problems. Why not educate yourself on the issue at hand before forming an opinion? By the way, are wader "boot laces" suspect, or is that something they just conveniently overlook? No, because it's much easier to disinfect a boot lace than a felt sole. We've been over this already. The facts haven't changed. Didymo still threatens our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. It's still easily transmitted by felt-soled wading shoes, and there's still no way to effectively clean all the live didymo cells from those felt-soled wading shoes. You guys keep deflecting the issue to waders, boot uppers, laces, fly lines, etc, and it's still a red herring- their are plenty of ways to effectively clean and disinfect those gears. And the language doesn't at all seem vague to me- if the sole of your boot is made of a porous material, it's banned. I'm sure they'll define what they mean by "porous," in the Wildlife Code glossary. It's a shame it only applies to trout waters, though.

I've spent a lot of time wading the St. Francis, the Castor, the Black and their tributaries and haven't had any issues with using rubber soles- they've performed pretty comparable to felt for me. They certainly haven't prevented me from getting where I need to be in order to properly present a fly. Yes there's a learning curve with them, and you do have to be a bit more careful- but like many other facets of the sport, safe wading is a skill, and sometimes the issue lay more with the user than with the gear. You shouldn't blame the rod if the angler is a bad caster, for example. Besides, there's only a relative few bouldery, high-gradient streams you're worried about- most Ozark streams have the finer gravel and cobble substrates that are no problem for most waders. For the majority of Ozark waters rubber soles will work just fine for the average wader, and have the added advantage of being easier to clean- so why not use them? It's like saying I shouldn't use a 5 weight fly rod, because it's only for 80 or 90% of my fishing situations.

In my experience the issues with rubber soles have been way overblown. I've used rubber soles about 70 days this summer without falling, and last year spent about 120 wading streams in Missouri, Arkansas, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana in rubber soles, with no falls, no broken or lost gear to show for it. They haven't kept me from catching some very nice fish, either. While it's a good idea to wade more carefully in rubber soles, it's not like they're preventing you from getting to the fishiest spots on a river. And if you're worried about it- buy a wading staff. They're way easier to keep clean than felt soles.

Precisely- no matter how well you think you've cleaned your felt soles, they're still capable of transmitting didymo and other organisms that could put our fisheries in danger. It's like saying there's a responsible way of playing Russian roulette.

You may want to call the regional office in Springfield and see if there are any biologists or other folks there who'd like to come talk with your class. The Stream Team Program, and the James River Watershed Alliance (I think that's what it's called), would be other good options. There's also: The Missouri Chapter of the American Fisheries Society- www.moafs.org The Missouri Chapter of the Wildlife Society- www.motws.org Get in touch with those folks, and they may be able to line up some professional speakers for you. Good luck!

I'm headed down to Crooked Creek with some friends to do some smallmouth fishing, and have never been down there. Any particular flies or baits that stand out in your guys' arsenal for the stream? Thanks!

Good day.

They're pretty fast rods, which can be a real asset when throwing big stuff- I have one I use for smallmouth and big trout flies, and really enjoy fishing it. Like most any rod, what it can do is really more limited by the angler's casting style than by the rod itself- your best bet is to try one out and see if it matches your style.

X2- if the guy doesn't understand the mechanics of fly casting, how is he going to know his SUV is in the way? The guy was obviously interested and curious about the sport- what's so offensive about him asking questions?

I dunno about that- zebra mussels have been pretty effective at cleaning up pollution in the Great Lakes and other US waterways, and the population at LOZ is rapidly taking off. Maybe in a couple years the water in LOZ will be cleaner than it's ever been