troutfiend1985

Thanks for the info there OB. Couldn't agree with you more about letting the MDC decide what happens to our wildlife instead of a single citizen. Like you said there has to be a balance, and what is happening right now is just not a vaible long term plan. Hopefully there will be some action on the part of MDC, but I think that we as citizens have inform the MDC of our concerns. Does anyone know if this was a farmer in this situation?

I think I'm going to call my local rep. Probably won't do anything, but it will at least let someone know that this is a crying shame.

My point is that MDC gave into commercial pressure, not that they did this for sales tax. It's called lobbying. Keep rocking those lebrons, I'm not sure how that is really relevant, unless you think people are going to substitute structured wading boots for basketball shoes. I can't wear metal spiked golf shoes because they transfer diseases from course to course, and because folks who don't know how to walk in them tear up greens. Now I can't name a single course that allows them. It's an identical issue. We're smart enough to figure out that a certain type of shoe causes a problem. Is it the only cause? Probably not. Is it the easiest one to fix? You bet. Bad analogy. Golf spikes were a voluntary ban and they were not banned for the primary purpose of spreading diseases. Rather there was A. an acceptable alternative in spikes when the black widow spike came out, B. metal spikes tore the crap out of greens and golfers hated spike marks, C. the ban was largely from within the golfing community, rather than a state actor, D. the ban was a simple one to adapt to in that the next time you changed your cleats you just chose the soft spike(20 dollars) as opposed to a whole new shoe($80 plus, or $5 for those sweet Lebrons), and E. while golfing you are not wading on slippery rocks, thus there is no legitimate safety concerns. Really, your point here goes counter to your argument, because the change over to soft spikes only took effect when there was an acceptable substitute for metal spikes. Whether "big brother" is too big or sticks its nose in too many issues is beside the point. Your tax dollars support a regulatory body that does its best to protect your resources. You don't pay enough tax dollars to have the best minds in the world doing the work, so you get blue collar folks who have the same interests as you for the most part. What's the big deal? I agree with you on the regulatory issues, in that a state has the authority to set and enforce reasonable regulations. But here the problem is the enforcement part. And this is where neither you, myself, the guys on this board or anyone I have talked to on the MDC has an answer, because, absent tax increases, there is no way to put the necessary amount of agents in the field to make this a viable and enforceable ban. One agent in Missouri has 450 miles of enforcement area. This is the big deal, because if felt is to blame, and it only takes one cell to transfer this stuff, and Arkansas with its proximity to our streams has not banned felt, then we have not really done anything except given the good ol' college try.

Nessy, the problem is with the law itself. You're right, it's hard to prove endangering livestock or humans, but that is not the flaw of the MDC, it's a flaw in their statutes. However, I would think that a different law, one which flat out bans killing of mountain lions unless grave bodily harm is imminent and shown would suffice. Obviously, a lot more thought has to go into than a 2 minute posts allows, but there has to be some sort of burden switch here, like in criminal cases where a person wants to claim self defense, it is on the defendant to prove that it was self defense, not the prosecutors job to shoot it down preliminarily. Anyways, we may never have a good standard unless MDC prosecutes one of these things.

At some point in time MDC needs to press charges. You cannot possibly tell me that every single one of these shootings was justifiable. What the hell? I see thus I shoot? This is a black eye to MDC that is the size of Jupiter, and something needs to be done. Either enforce the law or take it off the books to make room for the felt ban.

lol, that would suck to get waders into.

No, I see your logic. But the whole 20 days out of one thousand probably gives my boots time to dry And hopefully, one day, I can spend more time on the stream.

Probably a little of both. JD, banning tourists from our streams would violate the Federal Constitution."The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." So I think I'll buy new boots before violating peoples rights, just my way of balancing out things.

OB I know, it's just mind boggling to me that MDC still is inactive about the whole enfocement thing. I'd still be against this ban if we had adequate enforcement, but for more selfish reasons and I would probably have shut up about it a long time ago. I'm just burnt on the whole idea of the people who abide by the laws get the shaft. 80 dollars right now is a lot of money to me, and of course that means that my fishing is limited anyways. But I think I'll flip if I see an idiot wearing felt next spring. I'm well aware, and my girlfriend will tell you, that when a law student gets pissed off about something law related someone is bound to get an earful. So with that, I waive my white flag in surrender. We should start a page on rubber boots your guys reccommend, because vibram ain't happening. I'm thinking that sticky rubber from pantagonia may be my next pair.

Well, I think education alone is doing something about it. Whether or not MDC enacts a ban, if that is what you're driving at, makes no difference to me. You can have critics say "look they should've done something" but the fact of the matter is nothing would change without a ban or with a ban. Nothing has really changed now, or on March 2012. Why? Because it is still up to the individual to make the choice to abide by the rules and regulations that our state conservation department sets forth. Whether people discard of their felt, just as if they abide by a slot limit, depends ultimately on the person conducting the activity. However this time education seems more important than ever because you have to convince people to bust out their pocket book, and the mere fact that trip to the White, and a subsequent trip to Taney can ruin it all presumably. The ban is neither the saving grace of MDC, nor is it pie in their eye. If MDC bans felt, but still lacks enforcement which is adequate, then the ban is merely a tax on the honest(and yes, I know that MDC agents hide in camo, and that binoculars are powerful, but in all reality the one agent per county policy is still not enough). So this really puts us back to square one with new dance shoes. Not everyone will follow the rules, it only takes one cell of this stuff and there are a fair number of people that were already cleaning shoes and heeding the warnings. Someone said that this situation is like a condom, and that it would be irrational to not use a condom if it had only a 90% chance of preventing pregnancy. But that is off point. Let's frame it a little different. This is like a less than clean woman, and one would be a fool to sleep with her, not use a condom OR shower, and then track it back over your own sheets. But this same situation happens regardless becuase people will do stupid things. People would still do this even if we made it illegal to sleep with a person who has STD's even though it puts their own health at risk. So I just don't see the ban as doing much other than taking the blame off of MDC's shoulders, and that if a MO stream(god forbid) does get didymo, we can all point and say that person should have known better. So having said that, I'm thinking about the Riverwalker Series from Pantagonia for this spring, any thoughts?

Laws of probability my friend, and no, they aren't stealth bombers with invisibility cloaks off of Harry Potter. I have seen agents before at Bennett, James A. Reed(and any KC Urban lake for that matter) and Taney, but needless to say their presence in rural areas is lacking. Just ask the local poacher, he probably knows their schedule. I would at least have seen one in the last couple of years Chief, somehow or someway after all I'm not that lucky And anyways, you punt on the issue of enforceability, despite painting the walls red on other forums when we discuss C&R regulations for white ribbon streams, but I know that people are more willing to strongly advocate for something that they truly believe in, and there is no shame in that. However, if you think someone can spot felt waders from 100 yards out, I think you're mistaken, my boots have black felt and I have seen more than one pairs of them around. How are you going to tell the difference between felt and rubber, wait for a wading angler to fall? OB does a nice job on pointing out the logic for the ban and that is an commendable act. However, if somehow my love for the outdoors is in question, and people think that I must not care about the outdoors because I oppose this ban, then I cannot say anything more than you are as wrong as the sun is hot. Supporting this regulation or not, I doubt too many people frequent this page of the forum to define their hate for wildlife or their lack of concern for how things are going. In fact, if one didn't care about the management of our streams and forests we probably wouldn't waste time reading each others posts in order to continue a debate. Look, my side of the argument lost on this one, and that is fine. I hope that the ban takes effect and carries out the goal and intentions of those who deliberated and enacted such a law BUT HERE IS MY BIG QUESTION, HOW IS THIS REGULATION ANY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER REGULATIONS THAT MDC HAS, AND WHY WILL THIS BAN BE ENFORCED MORE EFFICIENTLY? I just want to know, honestly. I emailed the MDC yesterday about this and I am waiting for a response. Achilles has a heel boys and girls, and apparently the enforcement issue is MDC's heel, at least from what I have seen in our backcountry streams. Tight lines guys.

I first started trout fishing in Kansas City at the winter trout ponds. I would use corn as bait, but I would chum the area by throwing handfuls of corn into the area I was fishing. I always caught a ton and it was a blast. However, I started chumming and releasing(Hey, I was 17 and dumber than a box of rocks) and nearly got into a fight with a bum who was mad about my practices. Never have used corn since, but for some reason this story made me think about it.

Wouldn't you have to get the fish certified? One way or the other it is a really cool story, and you had a lot of skill to pull in a fish like that on 4lb test. Hat's off man, that is one to brag about.

"You can't hardly hide the fact that you're wearing felt if an agent wants to check you." Point well taken but you have to have an agent to check a person. At a trout park or Taney, this may not be so hard. But at a small blue ribbon stream, well I can only go off what I have seen and that is 0 agents so far despite the fact that I have made over 20 trips to these streams in the last 2 and a half years. And that is why I am saying that this is a statute that's only enforcement is fear of law abiding citizens, not the poachers and the like. Yes, I understand the idea, better to try and fail than to do nothing at all. But the difference is the monetary aspect of this regulation. Enact a C&R area, and those who wish to keep fish generally have an alternative area to do so. However if you want to wade, you are going to have to pony up at least 65 dollars for a cheap pair of boots. And if you want to get a pair that lack the words "death trap" and "ankle breakers" in their reviews, you're probably looking at 170 dollars. And for those people who brush away 100 dollars as if to say no big deal, good for you, I guess the economy hasn't hit you too hard yet. There are feasible alternatives to a full ban, but the overlords want a ban and they are getting one. I hope they get that ban to work, but I have a feeling that the enforcement issues that continue to plague Missouri aren't going away anytime soon. My last words on this. Zane Mirfin’s less than encouraging reply follows: found at http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/print.php?art_id=6896&pid=news “Felt sole replacements are terrible. It’s not only dangerous and makes fishing less fun but tough on the body with joints and hips — no cushioning! It’s a bloody unmitigated disaster — far worse than the Didymo they’re unsuccessfully trying to prevent spreading (fat chance, because I did some research that shows algae and weed species in freshwater are common across the Pacific Islands — spread by waterfowl!). BTW this guy is a fishing and hunting outfitter in New Zealand, just thought it was an interesting take.

Al, you are right in that there is never a convenient time to ban a thing like felt. However I disagree with some of the other statements you have made. The lack of enforcement already in place in MO leaves a real question to me on how effective a ban will be in MO. I doubt that people are going to be willing to spend 80-120 dollars to buy conforming boots, when they are already unwilling to follow simple regulations such as C&R or no artificial lures. There is a tax, but that is a trivial thing to point out, outside of this being a tax on those who wish to follow the rules. Following OB's logic, it only takes one. However for some reason we're applying stitches to a nonexistent wound, in that the White River has been infected with Didymo for years, yet Taney and all other streams in Missouri, despite their proximity to BSD have remained clean. Point to what you want, there is something to be said for the fact that MO has not had didymo reported in any stream as of yet. That is not a “straw man” argument, instead it is a fact that cuts into the heart of a “needed” regulation. What do we need to regulate, the non-existence of a substance in our streams by banning felt instead of installing washing stations at these streams? I'm perfectly willing to buy rubber soles, if I was convinced that banning felt would actually decrease the possibility of spreading didymo. The timing of this sucks, not because the bill will pass this year, but because of the companies pushing new lines of rubber soles, and then at the same time saying "by the way, we still sell felt despite our feelings of felt." Hypocrites. Yes, I am all for conservation, but come on, is this ban going to make a difference? Really? If all it takes is one pair of felt boots, then are you assuring me that all fisherman will follow this rule? To me, this seems like the ultimate unenforceable rule, in that you either have to tell everyone to lift up their boots, or that MDC continues doing what it's already doing with other regulations with an inability to effectively enforce what they already have. It seems that if anything, this is MDC submitting to pressure from this "new push" of companies with a vested interest in eliminating felt boots (for new sales of products) . Look, didymo has been in the US for a long time, this is not a new thing. Why enact a ban now, as opposed to when the White River was first infected? The timing stinks and the timing coincides with this company push for Vibram and which, coincidentally , aligns with our current economic state. Including Missouri there are only 5 states, along with NYC, that have enacted this ban, and that is a substantial minority. You would think that Montana, Wyoming, California, Washington and Oregon would be dying to enact a statute like this in order to protect their streams, but they are either silent on this issue or similar bills have died. In Oregon the bill died of safety concerns, which I see as a legitimate reason. Unless the state also increases the amount of boots on the grounds, then this is a "texting statute" whose success depends on the fear of the public, rather than the enforcement of such laws. No didymo has been reported into the streams of MO.