Felt Soles For Your Soul

[eric1978]

The ones that are sticking to their felts seem to do so to keep from busting their butt on slick rocks, which in my experience, does not seem to make much difference.

Well I don't know what kind of buddy brand felt-soled boots you were using, but felt DOES work FAR better than any fancy Vibram sole...I have both. The rubber is worthless on slick rocks, hobnailed or not. I just about broke my ankle two summers ago walking on greased cannonballs with Vibrams...it was darn near impossible to stay upright. Visited the same stretch of river several months later with felt...no problem.

[jdmidwest]

Well I don't know what kind of buddy brand felt-soled boots you were using, but felt DOES work FAR better than any fancy Vibram sole...I have both. The rubber is worthless on slick rocks, hobnailed or not. I just about broke my ankle two summers ago walking on greased cannonballs with Vibrams...it was darn near impossible to stay upright. Visited the same stretch of river several months later with felt...no problem.

I don't know what you call "Buddy Brand", mine have been from Orvis, Cabelas, Hodgeman, and Simms. All seem to have the same dense white felt that loads up with mud and debris, freezes up in cold weather, and does not perform. My rubber sole waders are by Drake, but I have used Red Ball, Lacrosse, and Hodgeman. Majority of the slickest streams are waded in summer in Crocs which has a softer sole than rubber waders. Slickest rock are usually limestone or shale flat spots or shelf's on the Spring River and various warm water streams I smallie fish. Anything is worthless on the hard slick granites of the St Francois river systems, you just hunker down and skate thru the slick spots.

Maybe it is your sense of balance when you are wading that is causing your ankle probs, I have noticed you tend to lean to the LEFT.....

[troutfiend1985]

Why the White R. tailwater has didymo and Crane doesn't is irrelevant to whether felt soles spread didymo.

What effect flooding has on didymo is irrelevant to whether felt soles spread didymo.

Didymo's preferred pH level is irrelevant to whether felt soles spread the organism.

Whether didymo prefers large rivers versus spring creeks is irrelevant to whether felt soles spread didymo.

How many didymo cells are required to infect a new stream is irrelevant to whether felt soles spread didymo. And yes, it's one. They reproduce vegetatively.

They are interesting questions Troutfiend, but they have no bearing on whether felt soles can move didymo cells from one stream to another.

I'm all for it Troutfiend, I just don't think the vast majority of anglers with felt soles are going to spend hours detailing their boots after each fishing trip to make sure they're clean. There's no effective way to clean felt soles, that's the point.

Whirling disease was also spread via contaminated fishing gear. It's the law of unintended consequences- people don't mean to spread these things through fishing gear, but they do, and the implications can be far-reaching on ecosystems, on local economies, and on policy. Their are consequences for our actions, and we are responsible for the decisions we make. You can either face that or bury your head in the sand.

I don't know whether Crane has didymo or not, or whether the organism would behave differently in a small spring creek versus a large, regulated tailwater. I do know that the proximity of those two systems means it's likely infected gear is being used in Crane, and that the folks who are using that infected gear are gambling with the health of our fisheries because they don't feel like wiping their feet. To me that seems pretty inconsiderate, the height of selfishness.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Preliminary research on didymo, implicating felt soles and other fishing gear as vectors for transportation, would have already been a few years old by the time Simms announced they were producing feltless wading boots in 2008, and NZ had already implemented a felt ban. Isn't it possible these guys just saw the writing on the wall?

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.

[Outside Bend]

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.

Out of curiousity Troutfiend, why'd you pick Crane? A big regulated tailwater is a vastly different beast than a small spring-fed stream, and surely with this argument you understand there's a pretty big logical leap- the assumption that a species should behave similarly in very different habitats.

That didymo isn't present in Crane doesn't mean didymo isn't spread by felt soles, nor does it mean didymo has never been introduced to Crane. It may just mean the habitat in Crane isn't conducive for didymo to form large colonies as it does on nearby tailwaters.

You'd be much better served comparing between systems with similar characteristics, like Bull Shoals and Norfork. They're even closer to each other than Bull Shoals is to Crane. Then again, didymo has been reported in Norfork.

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.

You could compare Bull Shoals and Mountain Fork tailwater in Oklahoma. Although didymo has been reported from Mountain Fork, too.

That didymo has cropped up in all these very popular trout tailwaters just doesn't seem all that coincidental to me.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I'd like to ask one more question of TF'85. Even there was just a 1% chance that you would spread didymo into Crane from some other watershed that you fished, why take the chance????? Surely there has been enough posted here that would show that there is a great possiblility as to the risk of spreading didymo and well as other invasives?????

[strangercreek]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Trout Commander]

Admittedly I have not followed any of the links in this thread, I have not had the time to research the matter. I already own a pair of Vibram boots and am all for our fisheries being preserved. BUT, anywhere in any of these links does it discuss a comparison between cleansed/disinfected felt soles against the rubber alternatives (similar to the "after 36 hr" study performed in NZ? As already covered herein, since there is the likely hood that the average angler would not take the necessary steps for the disinfecting to take place, it would not totally eliminate the risk of spreading invasives, but I would consider most OAF contributors to be above the average when it comes to taking the necessary steps to preserve our fisheries (whether or not they support or oppose a ban on felt) and I have faith that those here with felt-soled waders would be willing to spend some additional time and effort in order to be able to continue to use their felts without (their or anyone elses) fear of spreading invasives - whether that decision be based on performance or cost. I know my self if I hadn't found the Vibram boots I have for literally next to nothing in the BPS outlet I would still be kicking around in my felts (and still bleaching before they were used anywhere other than Taney where I predominately fish).

[EddieRay]

Admittedly I have not followed any of the links in this thread, I have not had the time to research the matter. I already own a pair of Vibram boots and am all for our fisheries being preserved. BUT, anywhere in any of these links does it discuss a comparison between cleansed/disinfected felt soles against the rubber alternatives (similar to the "after 36 hr" study performed in NZ? As already covered herein, since there is the likely hood that the average angler would not take the necessary steps for the disinfecting to take place, it would not totally eliminate the risk of spreading invasives, but I would consider most OAF contributors to be above the average when it comes to taking the necessary steps to preserve our fisheries (whether or not they support or oppose a ban on felt) and I have faith that those here with felt-soled waders would be willing to spend some additional time and effort in order to be able to continue to use their felts without (their or anyone elses) fear of spreading invasives - whether that decision be based on performance or cost. I know my self if I hadn't found the Vibram boots I have for literally next to nothing in the BPS outlet I would still be kicking around in my felts (and still bleaching before they were used anywhere other than Taney where I predominately fish).

I'm not sure if any of the links give a straight-up comparison between rubber and felt. This link discusses cleansing and may be the same New Zealand study you are talking about. Read pages 30 - 31 of the .pdf for their conclusions and recommendations (numbered as 24 - 25 at the bottom of the pages).

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/didymo/didymo-decon-feb-05-rev-aug-06.pdf

[fishinwrench]

That didymo isn't present in Crane doesn't mean didymo isn't spread by felt soles, nor does it mean didymo has never been introduced to Crane. It may just mean the habitat in Crane isn't conducive for didymo to form large colonies as it does on nearby tailwaters

So have any of the studies yet determined what type of habitat does or doesn't tend to be conducive to didymo ? I'd look it up myself, but I am bias, so I'm sure I wouldn't find that info.

I'm trying (at the request of others) to spend less time worrying about things that haven't happened yet.

A person could eat himself up from the inside out worrying about things that could happen, but probably won't.

[troutfiend1985]

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.