I have the article and read it thoroughly since I just bought new boots. The boots in the test did NOT stack up equally all the time.
And I quote from the guide in the test who had the most time on the water. "I felt a slight advantage with the felt sole when wading on flat, sloping ledges and while walking on irregular of rounded stones that were covered in moss and/or algae"
They all agree rubber performed just as well in sand and small stones but so does any boot. I bought felt again because of the areas below Bull Shoals dam and the middle Norfork where ledge rock and large moss covered stones are the norm.
I also care for, and have cared for, my equipment in response to invasive species since it was first talked about. If I want to fish Bennett on the way back from The White, I bring my old boots that are completely dry and never got wet and use them.
I think we have real problem but what about guys going from The Norfork to the White in the same day? I know Diddy is already in both but where do you draw the line. I believe I found Diddy in Taney a few years ago but Phil told the MDC and they checked it out and said there wasn't. Since then a local guide published pictures of Diddy he found in Taney.
I think all these waters were cross infected for years before the big bloom happened on the White. Biologist said Diddy was present for years before anything was said about it spreading. In some waters like the Norfork, it just doesn't get out of control like it does on the White. For years guys have stopped at Bennett on the way back from The White before anything about cross contamination was talked about.
SIO3