Felt Soles For Your Soul

[Outside Bend]

JD-

I'm not sure your proposal would really help. For one, it wouldn't prevent an out-of-stater from fishing infected waters, then legally coming to MO streams and fishing uninfected waterways using infected gear. And if you think banning felt is a serious government intrusion, wait until DNR has to catalog, inventory, and monitor every river, lake, stream, ditch, wetland, reservoir, and private impoundment in the state to ascertain the distribution of didymo. The associated regs book would be enormous and ever-changing, as new instances of didymo were found. An outright ban on felt is easier and more effective.

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.

I'm not sure it's verified, but there was an earlier post where someone said didymo had been present in Taney. From what I've read the stuff requires pretty stable environmental conditions to take off, which is why it's commonly found below regulated tailwaters and in spring creeks. My guess is the sometimes drastic changes in flow, water quality, and water temperature below Table Rock make it hard for didymo to colonize.

ness-

Folks in YNP are talking about supplemental stocking of cutthroat to augment natural populations, partly because whirling disease has wiped out many of their spawning streams. Hatcheries throughout the country have had to be fitted with disinfectant technology, costing taxpayers and sportsmen millions. Some western rivers saw a 90% decline in fish populations, and some still haven't completely recovered. I don't think the affected guides, tackle shops, lodge, resort, and motel owners, RV rental companies, campgrounds, restaurants, and other tourism-dependent businesses would like to relive those days again. Sometimes we do blow things out of proportion. Other times we too quickly forget lessons of the past.

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...

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.

TF- The only reason I advocate banning felt is that folks like you deny it has any issues, even when the science indicates otherwise. Most folks I've met don't want to be told they can only use rubber soles. They also don't want to spend the time religiously cleaning their felt soles so as to prevent the spread of invasives. Most folks I've met clean their felts as often and as thoroughly as a truck stop toilet seat. I'm just saying you can't have it both ways. Other groups (extraction industries, ag companies, etc) must bend over backwards as environmental stewards, but when the ball's in our court and we have to change our behaviors to benefit the ecosystem we're exempt? That sounds like utter hypocrisy to me.

It's ridiculous to expect a scientist to accidentally be present to document the very first instance of didymo being introduced to a new stream- the chances of it happening are astronomically small. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who wants his legacy to be "the guy who intentionally introduced didymo to stream XY." When you set the bar unreasonably high, there will be no evidence to convince you felt soles spread didymo. It's not academic skepticism, it's blatant denial.

If anglers aren't spreading didymo, what's the alternative explanation? It's just coincidence that an organism undetectable to anglers rapidly colonizes world famous fisheries at a time when felt soles and international fishing travel are rising in popularity? It's just coincidences that these organisms appear at fishing access sites, or in streams where fishing is allowed, but are absent from nearby streams where fishing is banned? That's too coincidental to be coincidence, unless you have a plausible alternative explanation.

There's substantial evidence felt soles can harbor didymo, substantial evidence that felt soles can transport didymo, substantial evidence that felt soles can introduce didymo to new streams, and substantial evidence that felt soles are difficult to effectively clean and disinfect, especially compared to other gear. So why not eliminate felt? Instead of waiting with are thumbs up our bums waiting for some burning bush to tell us what should be intuitively obvious, we could go with what we know, and do something proactive to slow the spread of an ecologically damaging organism. If the research concludes that felt soles have no impact on the spread of didymo, the ban can always be repealed, and folks can go back to wearing them. Until we know conclusively, what's the harm in being a little cautious?

[troutfiend1985]

Here, let me help you...

After 36 hours (not five), and two thorough cleanings, there were still live didymo cells present in felt soles, while none were present on rubber soles. To me, that's pretty substantial evidence that felt soles are tougher to keep clean than rubber. You may disagree if you like, but I tend to concur with the study, 290 is significantly more than zero.

I'm sure Simms and Orvis are deep in the pockets of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. It would be ridiculous to blindly accept that New Zealand's South Island has been severely affected by introductions of didymo, and that perhaps managers and researchers want to simply gain a better understanding of the organism, its mode of transport, its means of introduction, and how to manage it.

And who says this is a boon to the wading boot industry? Redesigning boots, developing rubber compounds, retooling factories, replacing cheap materials like felt with expensive materials like rubber- those are all costs, and these businesses were not required to do it. They are looking out for their self-interest- their businesses rely on healthy fisheries, and healthy fisheries are jeopardized by aquatic invasives like didymo. Farmers don't make money when there's no crops to be had, turkey call manufacturers make no money when there's no turkeys to be shot, fishing boot manufacturers don't make money when there's nowhere to fish without encountering giant mats of algae. It makes business sense to look out for your long-term interests.

You seriously can't figure out why a scientist wouldn't want to put didymo-laced boots into an uncontaminated waterway?

One.

Because if there are live organisms on the felt, and the felt is being moved from stream to stream, it stands to reason the organisms are being moved from stream to stream, too. Felt can transport didymo, we don't want to transport didymo, that's why they're advocating we ban felt.

I don't see the variables of moon phase and coarse woody debris by size class, because they're not relevant to whether felt soles transport didymo.

If you're only spending 20 minutes fishing in your felt-soled boots, you may have a point. But an 8, 10, 12, hour day soaking in the river is going to allow didymo infested water to penetrate much deeper into a felt sole than a 20 minute soak in disinfectant. The outer layers may be clean, but the inside's still dirty, and the next long soak on a fishing trip will bring contaminated material into contact with the stream.

Luckily your shoe laces, wading boot uppers, and waders themselves aren't made of felt, nor should they be spending the bulk of their day in contact with stream sediment. Those materials have less surface area, less interstitial space, and are much easier to keep clean and disinfected than the felt soles.

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.

[FishinCricket]

The primary way for didymo to be spread is by anglers, kayakers, canoeists, tubers, boaters and others engaging in water-based recreation

There you have it, folks.

Case (and fishing season) closed.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I don't know enough about it to be sure either. If there is evidence that felt soles are a primary cause of the problem then I'll give them up, and banning them would definitely be the right way to go.

Chief, you're sure good at trying to get people on your side. I'm about 80% of the way there, but then you start. Insulting everyone who is not entirely on board with you is not going to get anybody on your side.

If you can provide some evidence, then I'll be on board 100% inconvinence or not.

Thank you. I was hoping someone would actually cite some research instead of relying on insults and unsubstantiated claims.

Your funny OTF. That is why I like you.

[laker67]

Any of you trashing any size 12 simms or chota with felt, I would like to make a standing offer of 5 bucks. If I can buy several pair, then I can have a designated pair for each creek that I fish.

[FishinCricket]

Any of you trashing any size 12 simms or chota with felt, I would like to make a standing offer of 5 bucks. If I can buy several pair, then I can have a designated pair for each creek that I fish.

I gotz a feelin' that none of these fellas wears anywhere near a size 12.

[FishinCricket]

Your funny OTF. That is why I like you.

Agreed...

[Outside Bend]

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.

... 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 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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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.

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?

[Greg]

I for one can attest that my Simms Vibram soled boots offer nowhere near the traction of my super cheapo Red Head felt soled waders.

Bingo. I just looked at discussion on another forum regarding an article written on felt vs the new sticky rubber. In some situations the rubber was as good or better. In some situations it was much worse. In fact it sounds like it's much less stable on algae covered rock bottoms.

All the talk about "improving your wading skills" makes me laugh - I'd be willing to bet most of us on here have pretty good wading skills. I've been wading and fly fishing over 30 years I think mine are more than passable. Very true that you could also fall and break something even with felt - but is it as likely? Especially where some us wade? I don't think so. To me it's all about the odds of getting seriously hurt. I'd rather those be low.

I think I'll stay with felt for now - and disinfect it after each outing.

Greg

[jdmidwest]

Fine, in that case then, YOU are allowed to travel the globe and wade in far away streams in the same set of boots....the rest of us with our felt soles will fish predominantly in our own region, and IF we travel to fish in another time zone we'll buy a pair of non-felts to wear while we are there. The point is not whether or not felt is capable of hosting organisms, but that the BANNING of it is unpractical.

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. Is there some underlying reason someone would want to hold on to the felts? Other than economics of having to buy a new pair of boots. It does not seem like many on here deny the fact that they will transmit organisms. I don't deny it and don't want it in my part of the state.

BTW, I don't travel the globe for fish, I seem to find plenty of them around here. I find it hard to justify a trip to Taney or Mtn Home these days with all of the good fishing I have been doing locally.

And thanks for confusing Jon with me, I would have posted the same thing, but really, the government does not care to help us.

Funny how some on here only pick and choose the posts and not seem to read the whole thing.