Mdc "open House Forums" On Didymo To Be Held

[snagged in outlet 3]

I never said OB was you Outside Bend.

I stated right off the bat I have two pair of wading shoes and if felt is banned. I'll comply.

SIO3

[Outside Bend]

Ok, and I had to admit that I was smiling while reading that. I think though, if we were really to get down to it, it would be more like this.

After having washed my boots with 5% bleach, and letting my boots dry(because I have two pairs ) I come in to your house. You still you tell me to take my boots off, I don't because as of yet I have tracked no mud into your house. Mud is not a new thing, infact it's old as dirt, but you're on the fritz because the HSN has been talking about a "clean house is a happy house" and "men who wear vibram boots don't get mud on their soles." I say, yes but I clean my soles of my boots and let them dry. I then tell you that the house is clean, I've been wearing boots like this for years and there's never been this mud in your house, but you're still unhappy. Because we're fishing buddies(and not the new odd couple TV show) I say fine, no more fights, I'll take off my boots. I sit my butt down on the sofa, and what do you know, I have mud all over my arse. "But HSN never said anything about a dirty arse" and I say that's because HSN wasn't trying to sell you a new type of toilet paper for your arse, they wanted to put new boots on your feet. And then to realize that I have dirt on my socks as well, because (in this hypothetical world we live in) socks track mud to through the boots, but people are only pointing to the boots as being the problem of messing up the house, even though the house you live in isn't messed up.

And you could have Act 2, where I come in without having cleaned my boots, muddy as heck, walk all over you brand new white carpet and not leave a mark. This would be basically SIO3 and why I keep saying that something doesn't add up.

Since words aren't working, I'll use pictures.

Troutfiend- you're still arguing against a position no one is taking- that felt sole bans will solve ALL the issues surrounding didymo and invasive species.

Until you guys can wrap your minds around that this discussion is just going to keep going around in circles.

[flytyer57]

I never said OB was you Outside Bend.

SIO3

No, but I wonder, who the hell is Don Paradise??????

[snagged in outlet 3]

[Matt Tucker]

I wasn't sure I would play much again on this.....because if it is a rule, i will comply....but for logic's sake, let's replace "Felt" and "diddymo" with "guns" and "criminals".

So using OB's logic, it would be like this:

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

Using the same logic then we could say:

Criminals use firearms to commit crimes. Remove the firearms and you remove one way for the criminals to commit the crimes.

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?

Using the same logic then, we could say:

Even ignoring all that, it seems silly to make the argument that, since we can't control one way crime may be committed, we shouldn't bother controlling one way crime is definitely committed. We can't control the impact criminals have on our society, but we CAN control the impact guns have in the crimes committed by criminals. And if we can, why shouldn't we?

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

Using the same logic, then we could say:

Absolutely no one is saying that banning firearms will eliminate crime, just that it will greatly alleviate a way in which crime is committed.

Further more we could go on to say that just like the vibram soles to replace felt, we have other means to replace firearms (we could use knives, spears, or bows). All are deadly and have at one time been used as protection and hunting devices and should sufficiently do the job; they just might not work as well as firearms and may require a little bit more careful use).

To me, the argument because we know something is bad, we should get rid of it, doesn't make sense.

--Matt Tucker

[flytyer57]

To me, the argument because we know something is bad, we should get rid of it, doesn't make sense.

--Matt Tucker

Yea, I like keeping cyanide laying around the house too when the kids come over.

Just because it's bad, why should I get rid of it?

You're right. It doesn't make sense.

[stlfisher]

Banning felt alone won't stop the spread, but it seems silly not to take precautions with the evidence we have. When I buy my next pair of wading boots I will buy something other than felt. In the meantime I will continue to clean my stuff thoroughly between uses. I am not sure I understand why many seem to be so against it. Just clean what your have and make your next purchase (when that time comes) something other than felt. Your not out any extra money and you have helped to keep your stream clean. Seems like everybody wins.

[Outside Bend]

I'm not sure what guns and criminals have to do with didymo, and I'll admit a few of your substitutions were lost on me (you can't commit a gun crime without a gun, and you can't transport didymo via felt soles if you don't have felt soles- those should be intuitively obvious). Moreover, there are some societal benefits to guns- but that doesn't mean guns NEED to be everywhere. There's a happy medium between complete gun bans and giving every man, woman and child a gun regardless of their mental capacity or other issues. Similarly, society derives value from vehicles- there's a happy medium between roadless or pedestrian areas, and allowing people to have free reign over their vehicles and ATVS.

There is no happy medium with didymo. Invasive didymo blooms present no benefits to ecosystems, economies, or society as a whole. Ten inches of didymo stalks blanketing stream bottoms present no benefits to ecosystems, economies, or society. Impaired native and sport fish communities present no benefits to ecosystems, economies, or society.

The same with felt- there's no happy medium. There is no gray area. There is no effective way to clean and disinfect felt soles, period. There is no way to effectively kill 100% of the didymo cells present on and in felt soles, benefit. There are no benefits to felt soles which outweigh the potential damage they can do to our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

If we start making exceptions, where does it stop? It's acceptable to introduce species via wading boots, but unacceptable to introduce species with a bait bucket? That's completely arbitrary. If it's acceptable for anglers to move invasive didymo from one place to another, what makes it unacceptable for other groups to introduce invasive zebra mussels, round gobies, spiny waterfleas, snakeheads, rusty crayfish, eurasian watermilfoil, common carp, northern pike, or whatever else they see fit? If it is acceptable for sport anglers to alter ecosystems and degrade fisheries, why wouldn't it be acceptable for commercial anglers or mining interests to alter ecosystems and degrade fisheries? If it's acceptable for anglers to use felt soles because alternatives are too expensive, what's to prevent CAFO's or municipalities to use the same argument to dump untreated waste into streams?

As anglers, we are not exempt from the burdens of protecting our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

[flytyer57]

If we start making exceptions, where does it stop. If it's acceptable for anglers to move invasive didymo from one place to another, what makes it unacceptable for other groups to introduce invasive zebra mussels, round gobies, spiny waterfleas, snakeheads, rusty crayfish, eurasian watermilfoil, common carp, northern pike, or whatever else they see fit? If it is acceptable for sport anglers to alter ecosystems and degrade fisheries, why wouldn't it be acceptable for commercial anglers or mining interests to alter ecosystems and degrade fisheries? If it's acceptable for anglers to use felt soles because alternatives are too expensive, what's to prevent CAFO's or municipalities to use the same argument to dump untreated waste into streams?

As anglers, we are not exempt from the burdens of protecting our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

AMEN

[duckydoty]

Open house forum today. It has been changed from the Dewey Short Visitors Center to Sheperd of the Hills Hatchery. Starts at 1 p.m.