Mdc "open House Forums" On Didymo To Be Held

[Matt Tucker]

I spent Friday / Saturday with my 8yo daughter on Dry Run Creek off of the Norfork River and the Diddymo is definitely present on this little kid's only hatchery outlet, as well as in the river below. Not one place did I see a single sign about angler education on the topic. Perhaps rather than rushing to ban felt, states should first look to educate the anglers. Sure, I got home and gave both sets of wading boots a bleach bath and they are laid out in the garage to dry, before we head back down there again); but what about the 8 other cars that I saw down there....it has to start with angler education. I truly do hope that this is what the MDC meetings are about.

I may be outnumbered on the topic, but I don't really agree with the "ban felt soles" logic. What is going to stop the algae from adhering to all the nooks and crannies that are in our wading shoes, or our waders around our gravel guards, or our nets; or even our watercraft (whether is be a drift boat, jon boat, canoe, or kayak). Lets also not forget about all the incidental transfer from wildlife. The issue isn’t as simple as banning felt bottoms and the problem goes away. The issue is angler education (how to avoid incidental transfer on all the other items us fisherman take to the water with us) and most importantly how to rid a system of didymo once it is present. Remember the zebra mussel issue.....

I won't attend any of the MDC meetings, because they just aren't convenient to me (much like another poster above). If the meetings are more educational in nature, than I would think the MDC would want to contact the various fly-fishing and smallmouth alliance clubs through-out the state in an effort to do going workshops on the topic.

All that being said, I did just order a pair of Korker Redside boots, my old simm's L2 have finally bit the dust. I went with the kling-on rubber and kling-on rubber w/ studs....but i did order the studded felt, just in case.

--Matt Tucker

[Outside Bend]

We've been on this merry-go-round before, but I do think it's an important topic, so I'll try again...

I may be outnumbered on the topic, but I don't really agree with the "ban felt soles" logic. What is going to stop the algae from adhering to all the nooks and crannies that are in our wading shoes, or our waders around our gravel guards, or our nets; or even our watercraft (whether is be a drift boat, jon boat, canoe, or kayak).

The logic is easy- felt carries invasives. Remove the felt soles, and you remove one way invasives get into the stream.

Nothing's keeping didymo cells from attaching to your waders, nets, or other gear. But felt soles are MUCH, MUCH tougher to clean, to get a 100% kill, than those other pieces of equipment. Studies have shown that after repeated washings, there are still viable didymo cells in felt soles. If they're there, they can colonize another stream.

Lets also not forget about all the incidental transfer from wildlife.

I've always though this was a silly argument. If waterfowl absorbed water, they wouldn't fly. Not only that, it doesn't explain the distribution of didymo- why it appears predominately in destination trout fisheries, why it appears on streams where fishing is allowed but is absent in nearby streams where fishing isn't. Either this wildlife are following anglers around like the Pied Piper, or they're not a major vector for transmitting didymo.

Even ignoring all that, it seems silly to make the argument that, since we can't control one way didymo may be spread, we shouldn't bother controlling one way didymo is definitely spread. We can't control the impact wildlife has on our fisheries, but we CAN control the impact WE have on our fisheries. And if we can, why shouldn't we?

The issue isn’t as simple as banning felt bottoms and the problem goes away.

Absolutely no one is saying that banning felt soles will eliminate the problem, just that they greatly alleviate it.

The issue is angler education (how to avoid incidental transfer on all the other items us fisherman take to the water with us) and most importantly how to rid a system of didymo once it is present. Remember the zebra mussel issue.....

I respectfully disagree- the issue is keeping didymo from invading our streams. Certainly education plays a key role- teaching anglers how to clean all their gear. But felt soles can't be cleaned effectively, period. The risks associated with didymo, whirling disease, and other invasives, is just too great to keep doing things the way we have.

We don't know that there IS a way to rid a system of didymo once it's present, at least without destroying that system in the process. What we DO know is what WE can do to keep it from getting there in the first place.

To me, there just is no flip side, there are no benefits to having didymo in streams, there are no benefits of felt soles which outweigh the potential damage to fisheries, there are no disadvantages to rubber soles which can't be overcome by careful wading. It's really that simple.

[flytyer57]

1) Didymo mostly covers the bottom of the stream. It's called "rock snot" for a reason. It clings to rocks.

2) Most anglers while wading are in constant connection to the rocks mentioned above with the bottom of their wading boots.

3) Some waders have felt soles which are on the bottom of the shoe. The bottom of the shoe is in most contact with the bottom of the river, where the didymo settles and lives.

4) There are pores in felt soles like a sponge. Once the didymo gets into those pores of the felt, they are hard to remove. Much more harder than removing it from the nooks and crannies of boot and wader seems.

5) Felt soles take a long time to dry. Since didymo is dependant upon moisture to live, if those felt soles are not dry when you go fishing again, those didymo cells could leech out into the water you are fishing now and spread to new waters.

6) Do you want to be the angler responsible for introdcuing that didymo to new waters? Or will you take every precaution you can to stop the spread of didymo and other invasives? As sportsmen, outdoorsmen, people who care about the places we fish, I would hope we all would do whatever it takes to stop this stuff, even if it means giving up the felt soles.

[snagged in outlet 3]

Just some facts here so we are all on the same page.

Diddy had been in The White for years, 15 years or more. I seem to remember John Wilsonm saying a biologist in AR said it was documented in 1976. Before anyone knew what was happening with the stuff it was being transferred by fisherman everywhere. How do I know??

Because myself and my buddies were fishing in the White and then going to other places during the same trip. We would make round trips fishing the White, Norfork, Taney and then a trout park on the way home. Trust me all the waters in MO have been exposed to diddy for years now.

Don't forget Crane and Roaring River, we hit those too. We.ve fished em all. We've been doing the whirlwind tours for 25 years easily.

We've hashed this out here before. We've discussed on AR forums going back to 2005 easily. Banning felt is joke.

Having said all this, it doesn't mean that the right conditions could cause a bloom at any time. Therefore I care for my equipment.

I use a pair of pattaguchi wading boots in MO and Simms in AR. My equipment is dried after each trip, mainly because it's good for the equipment, but also for diddy.

SIO3

[snagged in outlet 3]

I looked through the environmental posts and John said he remembers it back in the 1980's

I still think someone said it was around in the '70's.

[Gavin]

I'd agree with Pete...Didymo spores have been transported to Missouri before. Yet we dont have it......Banning Felts, wash stations, might slow it down a bit...but it will find a way to thrive if the conditions are right. I'm surprised that there isnt more being done about it on the White.

[troutfiend1985]

Doesn't banning felt just scream "unenforceable" to anyone? I mean MO isn't setting any records for enforcement spending, and it would seem that an agent would have to go around to everyone in a stream that is wading and say "hey, let me see the bottom of your boot" in order for this ban to work. And if a ban is put in place, it would be more enforceable in the trout parks and taney, less so on less crowded areas.

But, these wader washing areas that are going in at the trout parks and taney is a good idea. I wonder how much one of those costs, and how effective they are? I

[snagged in outlet 3]

How long will the line be to clean your boots on opening day?

I just don't think banning felt is doing anything. Education is probably a better option.

Pete

[Outside Bend]

Guys-

Didymo has already demonstrated its ability to adapt to and colonize habitats very different from those in its native range. Just because it hasn't taken hold in Missouri streams doesn't mean it won't.

My guess is that if MDC felt didymo wasn't a threat, they wouldn't go to the trouble of scheduling meetings and proposing a ban on felt. If the agency in charge of the state's fisheries is worried about didymo, it seems to me the anglers using those fisheries ought to be worried about it, too.

Here's what AR Game and Fish managers have to say about didymo's effects on fish condition below Bull Shoals:

"The relative weight of brown trout below Bull Shoals dam in November 2006 was the lowest that has ever been recorded. Relative weight for both brown and rainbow trout have been falling in Bull Shoals tailwater since 2004, which coincides with the appearance of the invasive algae, didymo. This decrease in relative weight has been documented in other trout waters around the world where didymo has occurred. It is believed that blooms of didymo in upper Bull Shoals tailwater have had the predicted detrimental effect on trout forage and trout foraging. "

Is this really a game of roulette we want to play with our fisheries?

Troutfiend-

The chances of being caught without a license in MO are pretty low, yet most folks still buy the license. The chances of folks being caught using bait in a Blue Ribbon section, or keeping too many, or keeping undersized fish- they're all pretty low. That doesn't prevent us from putting those regs on the books, and often times just the possibility of being caught in the wrong keeps folks honest.

[Outside Bend]

I just don't think banning felt is doing anything. Education is probably a better option.

Pete

I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on this.

Despite the unequivocal fact that didymo has altered many fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, folks still don't believe it's enough of a threat to justify changing some of their habits.

Despite the unequivocal fact that didymo has spread to popular fishing streams throughout the world, folks still don't believe it's anglers spreading didymo.

Despite the unequivocal fact that felt soldes can carry didymo cells from stream to stream, folks still don't believe there's an issue with felt soles.

Despite the unequivocal fact that felt soles are the most difficult piece of fishing equipment to clean and disinfect, folks still don't believe felt soles present issues unique issues not found in landing nets, waders, bootlaces, etc.

The fact that this conversation is still going on is Exhibit A in how the educational messages of various state and federal agencies as well as a number of NGO's isn't working- if it were, we'd all be on the same page. IMO we've tried the education route, and it's got us about 30% of where we need to be. Sometimes you need the carrot as well as the stick.