Felt Soled Waders Banned In Mo Trout Waters!

[ColdWaterFshr]

How can something that doesn't exist be spread. Somebody answer me, please have the laws of physics changed?

Check my geography EG, but the White River system runs through Missouri, and the part that is infected is just a couple of hillsides away in Arkansas from pristine streams like the Current, Eleven Point, North Fork OF THE WHITE, etc, etc.

Its like having your kids go to a birthday party where you know half the kids have chicken pox and saying oh well, my kids will never get it because they've never had it.

[Smalliebigs]

See what happens when we screw with natural waterways? We disrupted the native smallmouth and created trout fisheries, not to mention creating a habitat conducive to didymo.

Andy, I couldn't agree with ya more brother....... thank you for the small beacon of truth.

[Kevin B.]

Anyone else have any points? Ones we haven't heard? From members who haven't waded in?

Don't know if they're ones we haven't heard, but I'm in the camp that it is an inefficient and useless rule, even if we grant that felt soles are a likely carrier of didymo. The reason is that if even 10% of waders that fish in multiple streams ignore the ban (and I think realistically 10% is a low estimate), then we are still back to square one.

I make it down to Taney about 5-10 times a year and (at least for now) it is the only place I've waded, so I know I'm not transporting anything. Would I go with non-felt soles if I was risking transporting? Sure (and I will when a ban on felt is in place as well), but I think a ban is likely to result in casual waders who want to stay legal buying new boots without protecting anything. Combine it with the numbers of people who will simply ignore the ban (or be unaware of it), I don't expect the rule to accomplish what it wants to. That said, it is what it is. In the scheme of things, it's not something I'm going to stay up nights worrying about.

[Mitch f]

I wonder now if they will ban neoprene waders, you can fall and get the slime on your knee too.

[ness]

Anyone else have any points? Ones we haven't heard? From members who haven't waded in?

Here's one, and I'm guessing I speak for hundreds of folks who haven't posted:

No big deal. I'll get some new boots if I have to.

[jdmidwest]

I wonder now if they will ban neoprene waders, you can fall and get the slime on your knee too.

Or the rock snot can come over the top of the boots into the neoprene if you are not wearing tight fitting gravel guards and stay viable to the next fishing spot.

What if you do what I do on occasion, leave the bootfoot wader in the boots and travel from spot to spot. I take the waders off to keep water off of the floorboard, but the boots fit tight enough that they all come off in one unit like a bootfoot wader. Water and other material can be trapped in them from one location to another.

[Quillback]

Seems it would make more sense to ban felt waders in the waters that have didymo.

[jdmidwest]

Seems it would make more sense to ban felt waders in the waters that have didymo.

Why not just quarantine the river and prevent anyone from fishing there unless they agree to fish that stream exclusively?

Banning felt soles in the actual streams that have been infected with the didymo does seem sensible. That would eliminate the need to ban them elsewhere, the transmission factor would be stopped, and maybe some would be happy.

[Outside Bend]

Sorry guys, I went fishing. It was fun. I got sunburned.

In typical OB fashion you pick and choose what to use. What I said was that the White River chain has didymo because the water temperatures, post dam construction, are now conducive to the spread of didymo.

I know that's what you said Drew, and it's still incorrect. The White River didn't "catch" didymo because it has cold water just the same as you don't catch the flu because of your body temperature. Having the suitable habitat sets the stage for the infection, but it doesn't cause the infection to occur.

Wow, you are even more condescending than you were before, but that is okay, I am used to it. Yes, new boots aren't THAT expensive, but for a state to mandate that you MUST wear rubber soles is pretty shady, and a way to get more tax dollars out of us.

How is it any shadier than the state mandating that you MUST practice C&R on some stream sections, that you MUST use single-barbed hook, that you MUST quit fishing once you've kept your limit for the day, that you can't just go dumping your garbage or sewage wherever is cheapest and most convenient for you? MDC's role is to protect and manage the public's fisheries and aquatic resources, didymo threatens our aquatic ecosystems, and MDC is simply working to fulfill their mandate, even if it may be unpopular among some. I'm sure plenty of farmers, sewage treatment plants, ATV/horse people and others feel the same way you do, that MDC regulations are unfair and onerous. That doesn't mean we allow them to degrade the public's streams, though. I guess I still don't understand this sentiment that MDC should protect our resources only to the point where it becomes inconvenient for anglers.

[Outside Bend]

Why not just quarantine the river and prevent anyone from fishing there unless they agree to fish that stream exclusively?

I'm not sure I'm following your scenario JD, but it seems as though you're saying tourists would be excluded from fishing places like the White River, where a large part of the economy is centered around tourists coming to fish. I just don't think it'd work out.

Banning felt soles in the actual streams that have been infected with the didymo does seem sensible. That would eliminate the need to ban them elsewhere, the transmission factor would be stopped, and maybe some would be happy.

Yeah, but the logistics of actually doing it are pretty staggering. The state would have to compile a database of every stream in the state, and whether or not they were infected. It'd require a ton of funding and manpower, neither of which is easy to come by right now. For the sampling to work, MDC would have to coerce landowners into participating, either by carrot or by stick, and that'd go over like a lead balloon. And in order for all that to stay current, it'd have to be repeated every few years. And there'd have to be some sort of reporting mechanism- anglers would have to tell MDC what footgear they're wearing and where they're going with it. I know some folks who are uncomfortable giving that sort of information out to their wives, much less a government agency