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.

It was my understanding that Simms at one point canceled their felt boots line with some respect to didymo, only to reintroduce the very same line this year. Granted, Simms isn't MDC and the point is not the most relevant, but maybe it has something to do with Missouri being one of only four states banning felt. And you guys are right that I'm jumping the gun with criticism, and for that I am sorry. But trust me, while statutes with fuzzy words are good for lawyers, I as a citizen hate them. And this statute could really be a nice one to have simple and straight.

Point was that sometimes words have two meanings. Nessy, I love you man, but it is easier putting out one good statute at the begining than amending it later, and really this should be an all or nothing situation, and just ban the darn felt state wide, ex-nay the crummy part i.e. Porous and Specific Trout Waters.

First, I hope that the 25 Acres has some land bordering Crane, that would be pretty awesome. I love fishing more than typing, but right now time is limited. However, I've read those committee minutes, and I would have to disagree with the clarity. Yes, the intent is obvious, that felt should be banned. But what do you take away from those other words if they are indeed included in the regulation? Those fuzzy words are what scare me, and it should scare you too. A mere look at some of the statutes that we have passed in this nation shows that words are ambiguous, ("discrimination" in title 7, and how it was interpreted by the supreme court in United Steelworkers v. Weber). If banning felt is their intent, then ok, it is not going to make me happy but I appear to be the minority, which is fine. But if we are going to ban felt, then ban it. Don't put conditional limitations on it, ban the whole thing and put an end to what could be future litigation on "plain meaning" v. "legislative intent." Isn't that enough? And I'm not going out and interpreting anything the MDC hasn't made publicly accessible, these are awkward words to find on a website, and one would assume that a wording containing "ban on felt" is sufficient to ban felt. However that is not what that posting says, and while I am aware that it's not final, a key aspect in our society is the marketplace of ideas(yes, saying this in realization that Lilley is not a state actor and does not serve a public function). That's my gripe, and yes I do like to gripe especially on here.

The "porous" or "matted" terms, from what they have right now, is ambiguous and needs a definition. You admit that by stating "I'm sure they'll define what they mean by porous in the Wildlife Code," Yes, hopefully they do define this as right now it seems to cover a broad amount of categories, one might even consider this vague (not clearly expressed, not having a precise meaning). This really seems like a King Solomon approach by not banning it statewide, and to me that is a crock of crap. Either this stuff is a real threat, and we should ban felt in all state waters, or it's not. I have a feeling that the MDC has failed in accomplishing anything by limiting this ban's affect to "specific trout waters." And there is that whole enforcement thing again, making this a tax on people like us who do abide by the rules. I once again go back to my original statement that this is a piece of crap because of the lack of enforceability, MDC splitting the baby in half, and the weird wording of this.

This is a piece of junk, I really hope this statute does not read as this web posting does right now, because this is as close as vague for voidness as I have seen in a while. MDC really needs to define these terms; "specific trout waters" "porous" "matted" and hopefully they do this before too long. And we still have to talk about enforcement... Just another tax for the honest as I see. Think about it, if you were dropped in the middle of this from Mars, or Canada, would you know what this means? It could be spun by a creative person who had a dictionary, and I don't know if there is a MDC version of a "legislative process" which would give some background to the rules they enact.

I've always wondered why the Niangua doesn't fair better in terms of large browns. Seems that everything is there for a decent population of large browns, but maybe I'm missing something. It could also be that Crickets skills have become too advanced, and thus all the big browns have found new water

I've always wanted to get down to Barren, in fact I tried to get there this summer but I was distracted with Little Piney and Spring Creek. If you go post a report. I don't think I've ever heard someone talking about Barren as being an easy or productive place to fish, but that line has made liers out of more than one.

Nice report. Any chance you know of the material that the floating egg is made out of, or in the alternative where you bought it from. I'm sure Mic would want to know.

Hey, I was calling foul when we had that big argument about the felt sole ban a couple months ago, and my point was that this was another way to get more money for company's like Simms. Simms seems to have a little pie in the eye right now, pulling the line to protect the rivers, but then re-introducing the same line. I ended up researching the vibram, and didn't like them, and with my infrequent fishing (once a month if lucky) I figured I would wait until MO passes a ban on them. Seems like this is a bit of pinch to those trumpeting the felt bans, not that a felt ban would be the end of the world.

Where does the idea of enforcement come into play? I would have to think that this is a high priority on my list. My friend went down to Crane a couple of weeks ago, and told me that a guy at the city park told him that the best bait was live crawdads in this stream. Top it off, the guy said he knew it was against the regulations, did it anyways, and looked to be a person employed by the City of Crane to mow down the grass at the park. My friend called the poachers hotline, but I haven't heard any news back him. I've come to a realization that the only way things will get better is to fund an appropriate amount of enforcement agents to enforce our laws. It's common sense to me(although I am human, and thus prone to mistakes). But really, who is going to enforce these rules, these changes? Maybe one fisherman out of ten if we are lucky and have our cell phone on us. Call me a cynic, but the MDC has to want to change its ways before anything is going to get better in the trout fishing arena. Structure is great, but that is just calling for poachers. Gavin, I've seen limb lines on blue ribbon streams before, and yes there are some big trout in our wild waters. But still, the problem remains with the approach that MDC takes to enforcing its own rules and regulations. I still have not been checked for a license at a trout stream, only at James A. Reed a couple of years ago on a regulatory stop. Outside of this, I really haven't seen the necessary amount of enforcement for new rules, much less the rules currently applied. Really, the White Ribbon Streams as they are right now are a complete waste of resources. Either do something to change this, or abandon them as I have yet to see the purpose of what MDC and their wild west rules are trying to accomplish. And this is a pity, because these could be nice fisheries if someone in the MDC had the guts to make a change about how these areas are handled. I’ve got it on good word, plus from my own experiences, that there is some wild production in these streams. Yet, when I email MDC about this, all I get is a response telling me that they will take it under consideration. In other words, we’ll throw your email in the garbage because the hatcheries make us too much money to change the ways we are handling things currently. The Blue Ribbon streams, from what I have seen, are doing ok. You could make some changes to them, but I still think that enforcement is the only way these streams will get better. Yes, I'm on a rant, but really, MDC has some very weird ways in handling issues.