troutfiend1985

Now see, I wonder if they could make a boot where the sole could detach, allowing people to have interchangeable soles for wading. You could have 3 or 4 of them. Go wading in stream A, change the soles, go wading in stream B, change the soles . . . Repeat the changing of the soles to allow the sole to dry. Just a thought. And it seems time kills this stuff, so it would work. Less restrictive than a flat out ban on felt IMO. Now hey, where is the enforcement junkies that I always see. "You can make it, but no one will enforce it. . ." It never fails, I oppose a regulation and the peanut gallery fails to show up

Chief, you know what I took your statement out of context and I am sorry. I was overly sensitive. Looking at this, I hope that one day I am smart enough to read before I write.

I would think a true expression of intelligence is to be able to express you point of view without resorting to insults.

I think this is what land owners are worried about. Shitter was full.

All right, last post on this thread and I swear by it. Outside, I have no doubt that this is nasty stuff, but that post you had ignores what is causing the spread of this species, and why MO is seemingly not getting didymo. You say there is a substantial difference between the water of spring creeks and tail waters, purportedly to show that spring creeks aren't conducive to supporting didymo. To me, it seems that is shooting from the hip in order to support you're argument. Look, I'm concerned about didymo, but I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath by sounding the hollow drum of media inflated concern. I know that this crap is nasty, don't want it in my stream. But, the more you look around on this sites which discuss didymo, the more the conclusion becomes clear that either 1. everything spreads didymo, or 2. someone has left some homework out. Yes, felt boots are tied to this, but so have boats, float tubes, kayaks, waders etc. That's a pretty sweeping conclusion, a catch all. It would be like the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" in that it states at best nothing but a truism. Really, all these things cause the spread of didymo, or is it that we really don't know and we are going to take our best guess? I'm done, but I have enjoyed it. Hope you have as well Outside. Until next time. . .

I voted yes, but I have a bias. I don't have land next to a stream, and I think that if we all had worked our whole lives to buy land buy a stream then I think we might have a different view. I just would like to know what the purpose of a yes vote is. Mine was that I want access to other streams, but I don't know if that is a legitimate reason to want a law like this.

I would be behind it, but you would have some hell from landowners.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the position of felt. I have no ill feelings to this and I enjoy open forum debate, personally I like everyone being concerned about the state of our fisheries. I hope I haven’t come off as a jerk, Chief and Outside I like both you guys . But I still stand on the idea that banning felt won't stop this. I know that I have been inconsistent with some of my statements, but I think I could some up my position in this manner: 1. The current rubber soles have not been proven as an acceptable alternative to felt from the aspect of angler safety. At best, there are varied conclusions, one guy says they work fine while the other says they are horrible. 2. Angler safety is at a forefront with me, followed by conservation. I am usually all for conservation, but in this instance I don't think proposing a ban on felt will have the necessary impact, if any, on stopping the spread of didymo. The reason is that the studies suggest one outlet, yet variables such as stream size and boat use seem to be thrown out the window. 3. If we are banning felt for the purposes of stopping didymo, the boats and float tubes need restrictions as well. If we I have not seen anyone state anything about the possibility of a boats causing the spread of didymo. All the connections are there, you have a small spring creek with no boats and no didymo, yet the large tail waters next door do have didymo. I haven't checked, but I am assuming that Bennett and Meramec don't have didymo, correct? These are heavily trafficked areas with large amount of wading fisherman who frequent other waters. If these waters don't have didymo then I have a real problem believing the smoking gun is at the end of my waders and not on the hull of a boat. Make a little sense? To me the logic is simple, 1. didymo has been located in mainly tail waters in MO and Ark region. 2. Trout need certain water characteristics in order to survive(water temp, ph level, food sources etc.)So while these tailwaters and spring creeks differ, there are some substantial similarities in water composition 3. So far, we have established didymo in areas frequented by boats, watercraft and waders within MO. 4. We have not established didymo within waters solely frequented by waders despite these waters being heavily trafficked by wading fisherman. I under stand your concern Outside, I respect you and can see your point. Felt is tougher to clean, but it seems that time + chemical solutions are effective at eliminating most of the didymo. You would have me on board if there wasn't the jump between 3 and 4 above, but I can't make that jump, and I haven't seen any offerings otherwise which convince me. Yes, I am be subjective and cynical. However, I don't see ignorance, rather I see criticism on a viewpoint.

Why Crane? I think this is a good question. I picked Crane because of the location next to Taney and White, the amount of pressure that it receives compared to its size and the small structure of the stream would seem to make it prone to invasive species. Chief, you are dead on with the fact that if I thought I was going to spread didymo into crane I would burn my boots. No doubt about it, but I’m not convinced that only felt is at issue here. Maybe I’ve been more of a devil’s advocate, but I have a hard time believing these “You could compare Bull Shoals and Beaver. Then again, didymo has been found in Beaver. You could compare Bull Shoals and Taneycomo. Then again, didymo has been reported in Taneycomo. You could compare Bull Shoals and the Little Red. Then again, didymo has been found in the Little Red.” And what do all of these have in common Outside Bend? Boats, Kayaks, float tubes, wading and tailwaters? If felt was the sole or major cause, wouldn’t neighboring streams be affected in the same general manner? So let’s run it through a reasoning process. Felt harbors didymo, the didymo harbored in these felt soles infects water sheds coming into contact with the felt soles. Felt soles are popular among waders, and there traffic has been proven to cause the transfer of the invasive species of didymo. The local waters that are affected by this didymo are tail waters and areas with heavy boat activity along with wading. The areas in close proximity that lack boat traffic and are not tail waters, but do have wading activity(and because of their proximity it is a reasonable assumption that those who frequent these tail waters probably visit other waters in the area). However, despite the use of felt on the tail waters and the same wading boots on neighboring waters, the neighboring waters lack didymo. Something here doesn’t add up. Is it the tail water? Is it the use of boats? Is it that spring creeks are not conducive to this invasive species(however I highly doubt that this holds water)? Regardless, there is a missing link in this theory, and I would highly caution jumping to sweeping conclusions until some of these questions have answers. If you want to switch to rubber, my hats off to you. I’m not bashing anyone for using rubber soles, I’m questioning whether this felt sole conclusion is out of proportion.

Absolute liability is the same as strict liability: "Liability that does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm" Blacks Law Dictionary

I don't see how Crane and neighbiring tributaries aren't relevant to felt sole boots transferring didymo. All relevance is the tendency to prove or disprove a matter at issue. Here Crane not having didymo is relevant as to whether felt is a major contributor to spreading didymo because it tends to show that wading fisherman from Taney or the White river have not infected the river with didymo despite having wading in a river that has didymo. There has to have been a few people that have made a side trip to crane after wading in either the White river or Taney due to the proximity of these streams. And that Crane has not been reported with didymo would tend to show that there is a gap somewhere here. Now, is this the best evidence on earth? Probably not. But does it go to show that something is unexplained? I see no reason why not. This is why it has bearing on whether didymo is transported in felt soles. Now, I'm not going to sit on this and this shoots down the theory of felt sole transportation, but come on Outside Bend, even you have to agree that something is going on here that is not explained by these studies.

Thanks for the post, I'm surprised that MO has a tresspassing ordinance of absolute liability. I would think that some form of notice would be appropriate in this instance, as even on highways the speed limit is posted.

All right, if we are going to ban felt soled boots, then lets ban these too: The primary way for didymo to be spread is by anglers, kayakers, canoeists, tubers, boaters and others engaging in water-based recreation can unknowingly spread didymo. see http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/54244.html To me, it seems that boats are a major cause of rock snot, so out with them too. Probably going to have to eliminate waders, the seams are hard to clean and harbor didymo. Hell, the uppers on your boots have stitching so we’re going to have to do something about that. Or, we could talk about effective cleaning, and how this will help prevent didymo in a less restrictive way than a flat out ban on felt. I’m not going to argue that felt soles do not carry didymo, they do. However those studies you refer to cannot explain how the White river is infected with didymo, but nearby streams are not infected when the same darn people wade in these rivers? Come on, moon phases and other b.s. you put in your answers, are not at least curious as to why none of these studies shows the effects on didymo after flooding, or if certain ph levels are more conducive to growing didymo or if didymo prefers large rivers as oppose to spring creeks? You agree with me that the felt soles do not harbor as much didymo after 36 hours, and you're not curious as to how much didymo it takes to contaminate a water shed? Is it one spore, or does it take many? Wouldn't it be nice to know some of these answers before we ban felt soles? I'm all up for conservation, have been the entire time I have been on this forum, but I am also very persistent about the least restrictive means needed to the reach a goal. Taking a prophylactic approach is great, but these studies leave a lot to be desired. As to your analogy about whirling disease. I don't think this is a "lets forget history moment" and equating whirling disease to didymo doesn't work. You are taking a different disease caused by a different invasive species, i.e. stocked trout, and then saying that the results will be the same with the current situation in didymo. What is the tying fact in your analogy? I fail to see one, other than mankind. However, mankind has been using felt how long? And how many MO streams are infected? What does this entail? I would like to point out that Crane, as far as my knowledge, does not have didymo. Yet Taney and the White river are in close proximity to this creek. I am still baffeled at how this relates, how can you explain that? Orvis and Simms do have a substantial interest in these line of boots. Think about, introducing a new boot that plays on eco guilt increases sales. How would this not increase sales, especially if a state actor bans felt, requiring rubber compound materials? How can you not wonder why DIDYMO IS JUST NOW BECOMING A MAJOR CONCERN WHEN THIS INVASIVE SPECIES IS NOT NEW? AND WHY DO THESE LINE OF BOOTS COINCIDE WITH A DOWN SALES MARKET? Do you think they just discovered a different way of putting rubber tread on these boots? Yeah, orvis may not have their hands in NZ's pocket, but why are they marketing this so hard? To increase sales by introducing a new line of boots in a slow market.

Well, I think I'm done with this one folks. I'll continue to use my felt soles. I have one for areas with didymo, and one for areas without. Tight lines

Real nice. Taking the high road I see? Instead of commenting on my first post, you'd rather take the easy way out and post a comment that has no substance. Way to counter a post there flytyer, I admire you analysis.

About dogma's. Perhaps this isn’t really a dogma, but rather that I see a some proponents of rubber soles here using a dog in the manger philosophy. “I have switched to rubber soles, felt provides no use to me, so therefore you cannot use felt either. It is my belief that these felt soles are the main cause of didymo. I believe this even though the statistical analysis does not prove felt soles to cause the spread of didymo by a preponderance of the evidence. But, I am sure that these organizations do not a financial motivation in making these determinations and thus I will accept them as true. Shame on others for not accepting my, and my peers, established opinion(or dogma if you will).” I’m hearing a lot of this, and all I want is some proof that felt soles cause, not harbor but cause the spread of didymo. A quote from a study along with is website address would really be convincing.

In their experiments felt soled boots that were examined 5 hours after use in infested waters contained nearly 3,000 times more live didymo cells than rubber soles (11,000 on felt vs. 3.9 on rubber). At 36 hours, a second careful cleaning yielded significant numbers of live cells from the felt soles and no live or dead cells from the rubber soles (290 on felt vs. 0 on rubber). So lets do a little analysis here, shall we? For sanity's sake, lets just accept blindly that this statement is conducted without monetary donations from either Simms or Orvis. First we can see that Didymo exists in both rubber soled wading boots and felt soles. After a period of 36 hours, rubber has none and felt has very little didymo left in it at all. From this, we can see that the amount of time from contact with the water is proportional to the amount of live didymo on the felt soled boot. However not at one point in this website did I find any statistical analysis of the amount of didymo spread from those boots to uncontaminated water. I would expect to see something on this analysis if this organization was conducting a full research project. All it would take is a fish take and some patience. Nowhere did I find any evidence at all suggesting the necessary amount of didymo to infect another water, and it seems that the organization was solely focused on showing the amount of live didymo on felt. And I didn’t see the variables of ph level and the affects on water temperature or flooding. This organization also mentioned these methods for cleaning: Felt soles present a greater risk of transfer than the other materials tested. • Soaking in a disinfectant solution is far more effective than spraying (spraying was deemed to be totally ineffective) • Even after 20 minutes of soaking, the disinfectant does not fully penetrate all areas of the felt sole • Complete drying of felt soles is very difficult – soles can remain damp for weeks • Heating the boots to 45°C (113°F) for at least 20 minutes will disinfect the soles I take special note of "Even after 20 minutes of soaking, the disinfectant does not fully penetrate all areas of the felt sole" My question would then be, is there a significant amount of live didymo present in the deep areas of the felt? And if so, would this live didymo be able to remain alive while escaping this deep area felt and do so proficiently enough to contaminate a watershed? These are the types of questions I have. From this, I will admit that it seems didymo could be transferred after coming out of the water and immediately(within 5 hours) going into another watershed. However, what about shoe laces, the uppers of wading boots and waders themselves? Before putting a ban on felt soles, these questions need to be answered. Don't take my word, look to this website http://www.stopans.org/Science_of_felt.php

Unfortunatley Chief that's not how it works. In fact, I don't know of any place in life, whether its business or the courtroom where the moving party, or a party that is offering a proposition, is allowed to say "Hey, I want you to change and also, I want you to porve that I'm wrong or you will have to change." If you want people to change then you need to offer a reason why and then try to convince people of this reason. Outside Bend, I think I would be more conviced when someone shows me why there are some streams that are heavily waded and affected with this stuff, and then other streams that are also heavily waded and nearby streams that are also heavily waded by the same people are not infected. Why is the White River below BSD infected, yet Taneycomo not? This part here isn't rocket science, and I'm not looking for undeniable proof. All I want is some form of proof that makes sense and ties together some of these loose ends. As soon as that happens, you'll have me on board.

Now hold on, we're crossing hairs. Speeding is a strict liability crime, thus your state of mind is not a defense. So in a speeding context, your theory works. However, tresspassing is an intentional crime by common law(I don't have the MO statute in front of me but I can't imagine it not having intent as an element). This makes the situation different. Yes, ignorance is generally no defense. However, in a situation where you actually do not know, nor is the area demarcatted, you might have a claim that you did not have the necessary intent to be convicted of the crime or tort of tresspassing. However, you would have a lot of arguing to do, and I am too lazy to look up the statute. But this is the reasoning I was confused about the area not being marked better. I wonder if MDC would mark out the area better?

I've been tying up some small midges. Mainly black and cream. Can't wait to get to test them out. . .

Not asking for "101% proof" all I want is reasonable evidence. I'm glad that you are passionate and want to protect your environment, and I'm not going to bash anyone for doing that. However, until I get some study, conducted by an independent group that links felt to the spread of this didymo, then I am not going to switch from felt. Not only that, but I am not in a financial position to go and drop 100$ at a whim. There needs to be some link, and when that link pops up, then I will switch on the condition that these rubber soles are acceptable. I understand the point about the traction that you are drawing, but I will decline to take that test. Any test that requires me to actively look for situations where I know that I will be putting my health in jeopardy is simply not worth it. Call me selfish, I don’t care.

So are you saying that vibram soles provide better traction than felt? My big thing with this idea of didymo is that 1. There isn't conclusive evidence that felt is the major cause of transporting didymo, and 2) I already have felt soled boots, and I'm not going to shell out $100+ to get a boot that may or may not stop the transportation of didymo.

Maybe I am ignorant and just lack sufficient knowledge in order to understand this situation(which I wouldn't argue against), but to me it would seem that almost all of our rivers and streams should have didymo if felt soled wading boots were the primary cause of its distribution. I have no doubt that didymo is invasive, and I would imagine that felt soled waders may play a small role in spreading didymo, but I just don't see enough proof that felt is the cause. I do doubt these companies intentions, and I would bet that some of the hype surrounding didymo involves the stock market and "eco-guilt." It's funny to me that didymo has been around for a while, and so has rubber soled boots but didymo is just now a big issue. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but something tells me that companies making these boots are hurting for money and looking to open a new market of boots in order to increase sales. And I think it is awfully funny that these new lines of boots coincide with an overall slow market. I'll stick with my felt, but I'll clean it just to make sure. Maybe I'm just wrong, but I'm still waiting for bird flu, Y2K, global warming, global cooling, swine flu. . . Just add didymo to the list.

Yes, you are right that you don't have to post your property, but I would think if I owned that property I would post a sign on there in order to let people know that they are tresspassing. Obviously the public/private line isn't well known, I never knew it ended at this particular area and most people on this forum did not know either. So Drew, you're right about the owners not having a responsibility to post, but I would think that an owner who is worried about their property being tresspassed on would post a sign.

Maybe I should put out there in hopes that a person who knows the people who own this property will tell them that you do not have the right to defend property with the use of deadly force. Also, I would think that a sign would be in order to make sure that we know when we are tresspassing.