Felt Soles For Your Soul

[Outside Bend]

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.

Troutfiend, I like you, and I don't mind debating this, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality that a tailwater is not a spring creek, and vice versa. You can't compare species between the two, because you're not taking into account the vastly different habitat characteristics. It's like saying a bluegill ought to do as well in a farm pond as the Gulf of Mexico because hey, they're both wet. By your logic, you could argue Crane is a poor trout stream- it has lower numbers of trout, fewer large trout, and fewer trout species. You're not looking at all the variables. It's unreasonable to assume a species which thrives in a tailwater would thrive in a spring creek, but it is reasonable to assume a species which thrives in one tailwater would thrive in a tailwater with similar characteristics.

If you want to stand on the proximity argument, fine. Bull Shoals is closer to Norfork than to Crane, and by you're logic it's even more likely an angler would move from BS to Norfork than from BS to Crane. And Norfork has didymo.

You hold up the absence of didymo from smaller streams as evidence it's not being spread by anglers, yet say nothing about the spread of didymo throughout many mid-south tailwater fisheries. If you can explain how the spread of didymo throughout those systems indicates it's not being spread by anglers, I'd like to hear it.

And again, no one's saying boats, canoes, kayaks, and other angling gear can't spread didymo. What folks are saying, again, is that there's no reasonable, effective way to clean felt soles and prevent them from carrying live didymo cells from one stream to another.

We know that didymo can be carried by felt soles, we know that felt soles can transfer sediment from one stream to another, we know that it takes a very small number of live didymo cells to start new colonies. We know there's some pretty significant correlation between angling activity and the presence and spread of didymo. You're right, there's still research that can be done. But instead of erring on the side of caution in regards to our aquatic research, you seem content to continue spreading didymo and other invasive species until all the research you believe is relevant is completed. To me that's an incredibly ignorant position.

I don't buy the expense of rubber soles argument, either. You can find decent rubber soles for 50 bucks or less, and to me it's like saying you'll chance getting the ol' lady knocked up because you're too cheap to spend $10 on a pack of Trojans. The preventative measure is far cheaper than the possible outcome.

[troutfiend1985]

Troutfiend, I like you, and I don't mind debating this, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality that a tailwater is not a spring creek, and vice versa. You can't compare species between the two, because you're not taking into account the vastly different habitat characteristics. It's like saying a bluegill ought to do as well in a farm pond as the Gulf of Mexico because hey, they're both wet. By your logic, you could argue Crane is a poor trout stream- it has lower numbers of trout, fewer large trout, and fewer trout species. You're not looking at all the variables. It's unreasonable to assume a species which thrives in a tailwater would thrive in a spring creek, but it is reasonable to assume a species which thrives in one tailwater would thrive in a tailwater with similar characteristics.

If you want to stand on the proximity argument, fine. Bull Shoals is closer to Norfork than to Crane, and by you're logic it's even more likely an angler would move from BS to Norfork than from BS to Crane. And Norfork has didymo.

You hold up the absence of didymo from smaller streams as evidence it's not being spread by anglers, yet say nothing about the spread of didymo throughout many mid-south tailwater fisheries. If you can explain how the spread of didymo throughout those systems indicates it's not being spread by anglers, I'd like to hear it.

And again, no one's saying boats, canoes, kayaks, and other angling gear can't spread didymo. What folks are saying, again, is that there's no reasonable, effective way to clean felt soles and prevent them from carrying live didymo cells from one stream to another.

We know that didymo can be carried by felt soles, we know that felt soles can transfer sediment from one stream to another, we know that it takes a very small number of live didymo cells to start new colonies. We know there's some pretty significant correlation between angling activity and the presence and spread of didymo. You're right, there's still research that can be done. But instead of erring on the side of caution in regards to our aquatic research, you seem content to continue spreading didymo and other invasive species until all the research you believe is relevant is completed. To me that's an incredibly ignorant position.

I don't buy the expense of rubber soles argument, either. You can find decent rubber soles for 50 bucks or less, and to me it's like saying you'll chance getting the ol' lady knocked up because you're too cheap to spend $10 on a pack of Trojans. The preventative measure is far cheaper than the possible outcome.

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.

[Phil Lilley]

From MDC -

To date, we have not found Didymo in any waters in Missouri. It has been found in the Arkansas tailwaters (Bull Shoals, Norfork, and Beaver).

You'll have to research it in Arkansas to find where it may be found there. May be Little Red Tailwater.

But it's not in Missouri - NOT in Taneycomo.

If you're fishing only in Missouri, you don't have anything to be concerned about.

[Outside Bend]

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.

That's qualitative information, and everyone has different experiences. I've fished many Ozark smallmouth and trout streams with rubber soles and had no problems. I've fished many Arkansas tailwaters with rubber soles and had no problems. I've fished many western freestone and tailwater streams with rubber soles and had no problems. The only time I've had a dangerous dunk was on the NFoW- in felts. But I'm not about to advocate we ban felt just based on my personal experience, or the experience of others.

2. Angler safety is at a forefront with me, followed by conservation.

Here we have to disagree. I put the health of our fisheries ahead of the minor inconvenience of avoiding a slick spot. Use cleats, use a wading staff, wade carefully. I've caught enough fish in rubber soled boots to know they're not an insurmountable handicap.

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.

Read the above posts. The reason the studies focus on felt soles is because the question is whether felt soles can transport didymo, not whether boats can transport didymo, or what variables allow didymo to spread.

3. If we are banning felt for the purposes of stopping didymo, the boats and float tubes need restrictions as well.

Read above posts. Didymo attaches to stream sediments. The bottoms of your boots ought to be spending more time in contact with stream sediments than your boat, canoe, kayak, float tube, etc. There's a greater likelihood your felt soles are going to pick up didymo more readily than those other avenues. The reason for the felt ban proposal is because there's no good way of ridding felt soles of didymo cells. That's no the case with rubber soles, waders, wading boot uppers, bootlaces, boat hulls, float tubes, kayaks, and the rest.

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.

You're still ignoring the fact that a spring creek isn't a tailwater, and vice versa.

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?

Not a lick. The science has shown didymo can be carried by felt soles. That it's not present in Bennett or Meramec doesn't mean didymo can't be carried around by felt soles. That it's not present in Bennett or Meramec doesn't mean it hasn't been introduced there. It may just mean Bennett and Meramec aren't hospitable to didymo.

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

Again, you're trying to say that a diatom should have the same habitat requirements as a trout. It's apples and oranges.

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...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.

Oh, okay. I just talked with Arkansas Game and Fish, who have found didymo in Dry Run Creek, the small C&R stream below Norfork Dam. It's heavily used by anglers, and it's too small for float craft of any kind. That really only leaves one option- I guess you'll need a new pair of boots.

If you're fishing only in Missouri, you don't have anything to be concerned about.

Aside from the anglers who aren't fishing only in Missouri, right Phil?

[laker67]

TF85 was making a comparison to streams in close proximity of each other. If indeed beaver has ditymo, then why would it not infect all waters downstream? In regard to Phil's statement about taney, I did not imagine or dream what I reported on taney. You can verify that by checking with Duffy, Darrell, Mike Curry and alot of the other locals that fish it on a daily basis. Ditymo was growing near number three outlet in 06.

[Phil Lilley]

I asked Shane about it spreading from below Beaver downstream and he said didymo doesn't like warm water so it wouldn't spread through Table Rock.

I know ppl said they saw it at KOA a year or two ago but MDC checked and said it wasn't. May be they saw something that looked slimy and thought it was. Did they show it to MDC?

As for it being at #3 in 06, I have no idea. I'll ask.

[laker67]

I asked Shane about it spreading from below Beaver downstream and he said didymo doesn't like warm water so it wouldn't spread through Table Rock.

I know ppl said they saw it at KOA a year or two ago but MDC checked and said it wasn't. May be they saw something that looked slimy and thought it was. Did they show it to MDC?

As for it being at #3 in 06, I have no idea. I'll ask.

Thanks Phil, I did not realize that it would not grow in warm water.

[Phil Lilley]

Got an answer from Shane-

I asked him about the 06 sighting.

Unless it was positively identified as Didymo by Dr. Rhodes at MSU or another phycologist, I seriously doubt it was Didymo. More than likely it was filamentous algae. Dr. Rhodes took some samples back in 2007 I think and did not detect any presence of Didymo. We also took some samples this year and I'm happy to report that no traces of Didymo were found. I know that the samples were good because lots of other types of algae traces were found (none known to be harmful though).

[ness]

Oh @#$%! Filamentous algae is coming! A/K/A 'Fool's Didymo'.

[laker67]

Got an answer from Shane-

I asked him about the 06 sighting.

Unless it was positively identified as Didymo by Dr. Rhodes at MSU or another phycologist, I seriously doubt it was Didymo. More than likely it was filamentous algae. Dr. Rhodes took some samples back in 2007 I think and did not detect any presence of Didymo. We also took some samples this year and I'm happy to report that no traces of Didymo were found. I know that the samples were good because lots of other types of algae traces were found (none known to be harmful though).

That's real good news, thanks again.