Felt Soled Waders Banned In Mo Trout Waters!

[Justin Spencer]

People from out of state won't know there is a ban just like they don't know there is such a thing as a blue, red or white ribbon trout stream. They will come in with their "legal" felt and wear them not realizing they are breaking the law. The ones that suffer are those of us from areas without diddymo. My felt won't leave my river, but chances are they won't leave my feet either

[exiledguide]

Where have felt soled shoes spread didymo in Missouri streams?

[fishinwrench]

And where has didymo decimated a fishery? I asked that earlier in this thread and nobody referenced a didymo disaster zone.

Sure it looks nasty.... so do condo's, blue pipes and concrete walkways. But where has the introduction of rock snot turned a kick butt fishery into anything less.

At least with felt, if we DO get the snot we will still be able to wade through it to catch the fish THAT ARE STILL THERE without busting our asses.

[troutfiend1985]

Not everybody is going to be conscientious about doing the extensive washing of wading boots that's necessary to kill it. So the only real solution is to ban felt. So at some point, you have to ban it. When do you do so? When is EVER a convenient time? And once you make the decision, which is certainly not an easy one (and to say it's a way to get more tax dollars out of us is REALLY a reach...I'd like to know just how that works) do you give everybody two years or so to replace their boots, knowing that in two years it might be way too late?

Yes, it sucks on several levels. The expense of buying new boots. The lack of alternatives that are as good on slick rocks as felt. But what other choice do we have?

Al, you are right in that there is never a convenient time to ban a thing like felt. However I disagree with some of the other statements you have made. The lack of enforcement already in place in MO leaves a real question to me on how effective a ban will be in MO. I doubt that people are going to be willing to spend 80-120 dollars to buy conforming boots, when they are already unwilling to follow simple regulations such as C&R or no artificial lures. There is a tax, but that is a trivial thing to point out, outside of this being a tax on those who wish to follow the rules. Following OB's logic, it only takes one. However for some reason we're applying stitches to a nonexistent wound, in that the White River has been infected with Didymo for years, yet Taney and all other streams in Missouri, despite their proximity to BSD have remained clean. Point to what you want, there is something to be said for the fact that MO has not had didymo reported in any stream as of yet. That is not a “straw man” argument, instead it is a fact that cuts into the heart of a “needed” regulation. What do we need to regulate, the non-existence of a substance in our streams by banning felt instead of installing washing stations at these streams?

I'm perfectly willing to buy rubber soles, if I was convinced that banning felt would actually decrease the possibility of spreading didymo. The timing of this sucks, not because the bill will pass this year, but because of the companies pushing new lines of rubber soles, and then at the same time saying "by the way, we still sell felt despite our feelings of felt." Hypocrites. Yes, I am all for conservation, but come on, is this ban going to make a difference? Really? If all it takes is one pair of felt boots, then are you assuring me that all fisherman will follow this rule? To me, this seems like the ultimate unenforceable rule, in that you either have to tell everyone to lift up their boots, or that MDC continues doing what it's already doing with other regulations with an inability to effectively enforce what they already have.

It seems that if anything, this is MDC submitting to pressure from this "new push" of companies with a vested interest in eliminating felt boots (for new sales of products) . Look, didymo has been in the US for a long time, this is not a new thing. Why enact a ban now, as opposed to when the White River was first infected? The timing stinks and the timing coincides with this company push for Vibram and which, coincidentally , aligns with our current economic state. Including Missouri there are only 5 states, along with NYC, that have enacted this ban, and that is a substantial minority. You would think that Montana, Wyoming, California, Washington and Oregon would be dying to enact a statute like this in order to protect their streams, but they are either silent on this issue or similar bills have died. In Oregon the bill died of safety concerns, which I see as a legitimate reason. Unless the state also increases the amount of boots on the grounds, then this is a "texting statute" whose success depends on the fear of the public, rather than the enforcement of such laws.

Where have felt soled shoes spread didymo in Missouri streams?

No didymo has been reported into the streams of MO.

[ColdWaterFshr]

You have to be a pretty twisted conspiracy theorist to think this is MDC submitting to pressure to help companies sell a few more boots.

Who knows if it will make a difference, but I think its important to at least make an attempt to prevent it. Go visit the White river when it is in full didymo bloom -- its ugly

The alternative of doing nothing and then regretting it later doesn't make any sense to me.

[fishinwrench]

No didymo has been reported in the streams of Missouri

Well then I have a better suggestion: let's ban the interstate transport of felt soled boots. Does that suit everyone?

If not then let's go to work banning other items of safety gear...ya know, seat belts, helmets...crap like that. Im sure an argument could be made that they too have their inherant bad sides.

Im sure that eye surgeons would go along with a ban of wearing sunglasses while weedeating and fly fishing.

The more I think about this felt ban the more rediculis it seems to me. If your are gonna wade on rock snot we want you to do it with rubber soled boots on....gimme a break!

Don't mean to sound selfish, but if Im sitting home too sore to fish or work because I got hurt fishing without proper gear, Im not gonna get much comfort from the fact that I helped make sure that everyone else didn't have to see some didymo while they are out fishing.

[Phil Lilley]

I'll wade in...

Like all businessmen, we have to deal with new regulations around almost every corner. The Health Department keeps us busy changing the way we serve coffee and keep our freezers and refrigerators. Glad that's all we do cause to do more means spending big money to keep thing legal. Our swimming pool- a lady drowns in another state and isn't found for three day in a public pool. The pool was cloudy in the deep end- that's what hid her body. Now, in Missouri, we have to close our pool is there's the least bit of cloudiness in the pool. We closed is several days this year by order of the H.D.. I could go on and on.

Knee jerk reactions by regulators to try to keep bad things from happening- but you know- bad things keep happening and will continue. Will some of the regulations save lives (fish and humans) ? Some will and some won't. But most hurt business and this will hurt businesses in the short run. The only business it will help is the shoe makers and shoe sellers, and again, short term.

I can see out of staters not coming to Missouri because of the ban and yes this will hurt our businesses and might even cause a decrease in license sales.

How is algea spread from one water system to another anyhow? What's the most common vehicle? How are Zebra muscles spread? Same? Then what are you going to do with trailers and boats that carry water from one system to another? Could a case be made that trailers and boats could be more of a danger to spread didymo than boots?

But there's no need to get all heated about it - we're going to disagree because it takes all kinds of people to run this world... MDC is going to do it regardless what we say- already did it sounds like. I do respects an opinion from the opposite side. It can't hurt, I guess. But it will hurt some of us in the pocket book- that's for sure, whether we have to buy new shoes or lose business because of it.

[Al Agnew]

Like I said before, didymo doesn't always thrive, and it doesn't always wreck a fishery. But when it does thrive, not only do you not want to fish there because it's nasty stuff and you can't keep it off your line and lures or flies, but it definitely does great harm to the fishery by smothering much of the bottom and thus the bottom organisms. So do you want to take the chance?

I very much disagree that this should be a matter of choice, because your wrong choice could possibly ruin it for everybody who wants to fish the stream that you contaminate. And before anybody else says what about the other soft materials that could carry didymo, or boats and trailers, felt is about the only material that is not only extremely porous and able to hold a lot of organisms, but it is also grinding on the bottom all the time and thus most likely to pick up stuff like didymo.

Montana, by the way, is probably going to enact a felt ban in the next year or two.

And banning felt is a lot easier to police than trying to stop poachers. You can't hardly hide the fact that you're wearing felt if an agent wants to check you. As for letting the poor country boys alone who are not going to be traveling all over the world...exactly how is enforcement going to know the difference. Stop the interstate transport of felt? Get real. If people can smuggle drugs across state lines all the time, I think they will be able to smuggle their wading boots, and once they get into Missouri, all they have to do is say they bought the boots here or borrowed them from their brother in law.

It's all a matter of risk. Is the risk of getting a bad infestation of didymo enough to put people through the inconvenience and expense of replacing their boots? And that's a very tough question. Apparently the commissioners have answered it to their own satisfaction, but the rest of us will probably continue to have different answers. I would hope, however, that they are looking at the science, because we here are mostly looking at it through the lens of what it will cost us in money and bruises.

[fishinwrench]

Which waterway is it that is so ate up with didymo that nobody wants to fish there anymore? And what waterway once had a good fishery, but no longer does, because of didymo?

Can't seem to get an answer to that one. Is that because the answer is "nowhere" ?

Trying not to come across like a smartass, just can't get behind this whole thing that has never happened and probably wont.

[jdmidwest]

Because they won't. LOL

I'm on the fence about this one. I love my felt, and I hate Vibram soles or any other rubber soles. They're worlds apart when it comes to traction on greased cannonballs and slickrock. You might as well be out there barefoot without felt. Rubber soles suck, studs or no studs, I don't care what anyone says. I've used them, and I've busted my butt with them and nearly broken an ankle several times.

On the other hand, if the only way to protect the streams is to ban felt, then I'm begrudgingly for it, because if you leave it up to the "people," they'll just do whatever they darn well please, just like they always do, and we all know it. I'll continue my habit of listening to scientists when it comes to matters of science. You guys can theorize all the conspiracies you want...this decision isn't about money, it's about preserving what little nature we have left in this country. I'm gonna take the biologists' word for it, bite my tongue, and deal with the PITA of rubber soles. That is all. (That's my new closer...thanks J )

No, the only way the government funded brains have figured out to date is to ban felts. I really don't think there has been enough thought on this matter. And did I mention the alternative boots were all more expensive than and of the best felts were before the hoopla? There have been other threats to the trout in the past, but none required an executive order to change our equipment.