Felt Soled Waders Banned In Mo Trout Waters!

[Outside Bend]

The choice to make our own choices is kind of a big one for ME. Some people choose to do most or all of their fishing within their respective region and now have to pay a price (monetarily and in their safety) or be inconvenienced because of guys that choose to travel all over and fish a different river every week.

Because it's no longer just the jet-setters spreading the stuff, it's become established in our region.

Truck stop prostitutes carry protection...why can't fishermen be trusted to do the same, without government intervention?

Because in the absence of government intervention, fishermen haven't protected the places they rely on for their sport. We've tried that approach and it's failed, so it's time for something new.

[Outside Bend]

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.

You're right in a sense- there really hasn't been much data collected on the impacts of didymo on fisheries- most of the research at this time has been devoted to how it's spreading, why it has suddenly become so prevalent, how to eradicate it once it's established, etc. Some studies in NZ indicate didymo blooms reduce the numbers of large aquatic invertebrates, but that small ones become more numerous. Big food items are more calorically valuable for fish, but higher abundances of small prey items may offset it. There have been a few studies on effects of didymo on spawning substrates for trout redds, but in stocked systems like we have in MO it may not be a huge issue. The truth is we don't know all the effects didymo will have, but they're somewhere between practically none and irrevocably altering our fisheries. Again, why take the gamble?

At minimum, it's an aesthetic issue- but that's not to say aesthetics aren't important. Lots of folks want to fish in visibly clean water, lots of folks visit Ozark streams not to fish but to simply enjoy their surroundings. If the city of Lebanon started stocking their strain of brown trout in the springs at Bennett I don't think you'd have 5000 folks there March 1, waiting breathlessly (well, maybe breathlessly), for the chance to tie into a corn-fed trophy and get the obligatory grip-and-grin.

[Outside Bend]

Let me see, none of this substance exist in Missouri, can't grow in warm water streams

No one thought it could be established in New Zealand or Arkansas either, those systems are pretty different from it's native habitat. But unicellar organisms are pretty adaptable critters, and are always capable of surprising us.

[Outside Bend]

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.

But isn't reducing the chances of a didymo infestation by 90% better than doing nothing to reduce the chances of a didymo infestation? To steal wrench's analogy, it's like saying condoms are only 90% effective, so I may as well be using nothing at all.

[Mitch f]

But isn't reducing the chances of a didymo infestation by 90% better than doing nothing to reduce the chances of a didymo infestation? To steal wrench's analogy, it's like saying condoms are only 90% effective, so I may as well be using nothing at all.

Man, I think this thread really woke you up!

[fishinwrench]

Ya gotta give OB credit, he has addressed a lot of slanted questions intellectually and still hasn't called anyone a flippin idiot... and that's better than I coulda done. Your points are all good, OB.

I think for myself personally, a ban on felt will be a tough pill to swallow because I don't like someone telling me what to do when I know that I am causing no harm, and in essence care more about the streams than the ones making the rules do.

[jdmidwest]

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.

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

Its the tourists that brought the stuff in, so why not ban them.

Its not the boots, its the people that wear the boots and go different places. The logistics of banning the use of felt soles on certain streams would be as simple as the regulations for the different areas, blue, red, and white ribbon. One big sign and all of the accesses and public statements about a ban on felt soles on an infected stream would not be any harder logistically than to ban it on all of them. But, as the brief statement in the article posted says, which streams other than the trout parks, will be posted later. So it seems, by that wording, they will only be banned in certain trout water, not statewide.

[troutfiend1985]

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.

"You can't hardly hide the fact that you're wearing felt if an agent wants to check you." Point well taken but you have to have an agent to check a person. At a trout park or Taney, this may not be so hard. But at a small blue ribbon stream, well I can only go off what I have seen and that is 0 agents so far despite the fact that I have made over 20 trips to these streams in the last 2 and a half years. And that is why I am saying that this is a statute that's only enforcement is fear of law abiding citizens, not the poachers and the like.

Yes, I understand the idea, better to try and fail than to do nothing at all. But the difference is the monetary aspect of this regulation. Enact a C&R area, and those who wish to keep fish generally have an alternative area to do so. However if you want to wade, you are going to have to pony up at least 65 dollars for a cheap pair of boots. And if you want to get a pair that lack the words "death trap" and "ankle breakers" in their reviews, you're probably looking at 170 dollars. And for those people who brush away 100 dollars as if to say no big deal, good for you, I guess the economy hasn't hit you too hard yet.

There are feasible alternatives to a full ban, but the overlords want a ban and they are getting one. I hope they get that ban to work, but I have a feeling that the enforcement issues that continue to plague Missouri aren't going away anytime soon. My last words on this.

Zane Mirfin’s less than encouraging reply follows: found at http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/print.php?art_id=6896&pid=news

“Felt sole replacements are terrible. It’s not only dangerous and makes fishing less fun but tough on the body with joints and hips — no cushioning! It’s a bloody unmitigated disaster — far worse than the Didymo they’re unsuccessfully trying to prevent spreading (fat chance, because I did some research that shows algae and weed species in freshwater are common across the Pacific Islands — spread by waterfowl!). BTW this guy is a fishing and hunting outfitter in New Zealand, just thought it was an interesting take.

[Kevin B.]

But isn't reducing the chances of a didymo infestation by 90% better than doing nothing to reduce the chances of a didymo infestation? To steal wrench's analogy, it's like saying condoms are only 90% effective, so I may as well be using nothing at all.

Bad analogy. The analogy works better for C&R restrictions, slot limits, or creel limits. Even if those restrictions are violated by 10% of the population, it will greatly reduce the total take. However, (and maybe I'm misunderstanding how didymo is spread), 10% non-participants in a felt ban will still result in transfer assuming felt is a significant transfer risk. Let's say 1000 waders a year go from didymo-infested waters to Taney. With 10% non-compliance, that will be 100 waders in felt. If there is a 1% transfer risk for any individual, those 100 people will give us about a 60-65% chance of transfer any given year.

Now, if it takes an overwhelming/concentrated transfer (multiple transfers in the same location in a short-time), then I can see the ban being more effective and I support it. If it can be spread by a single instance, then the ban will be ineffective in stopping the spread and only mildly effective in slowing it. Like I said earlier, I'll abide by the regulations and am not stressing about it. However, I think regulations need to be figured in cost/benefit analysis and think it is worth debating whether there are significant benefits. If it DOES significantly reduce the chance of spread, then I'm okay with the cost of a new pair of boots. But I'd like to see it be more than a "feel good" regulation and one that is actually effective.

[Quillback]

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.

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

The logistics aren't that bad, there are relatively few streams infected with didymo. None in MO that I can find. Probably the highest risk of didymo being introduced to a MO stream would be from a fisherman coming from one of the infected areas in Arkansas to fish in MO. Only catch is that the MDC can't set regulations for AR.