troutchaser Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Hype and fearmongering? Yes, this is a bunch of neo-nazis wanting to control everything. Show me an IMPARTIAL test as to the effectiveness of these new rubber soles compared to felt. I do not want to see a Fly Fish America article, as they are not impartial. How about something from a university testing this issue? Are they getting away from boot laces too as they are porous enough to transmit didymo also. How about your gravel guards? What about your nylon net? I guess the boot soles are the only culprit. What can you say other than the same party line that TU tells people. Felt soles are the most effective sole on slick rocks, yet, some bleeding heart group wants to prohibit felt. Why don't they spend their millions on developing a felt material that does not transmit these types of invasive species. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying this stuff doesn't migrate on felt soles and waders. I agree that an unbiased study would be more convincing than a Fly Fish America article. We just need to think things through on this one. If you've got the dough for a pair of "new generation" rubber soles, I say go for it. I'll be wearing my felt ones for quite a while, though. Paul Rone
snagged in outlet 3 Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 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
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now