Felt Soled Waders Banned In Mo Trout Waters!

[bigredbirdfan]

Okay, so if you are not advocating just sitting back and doing nothing, what course of action are you saying we should take to prevent the spread of didymo? If you have some idea better than banning felt, then we would all be very interested in hearing it.

How about banning boats and trailers or maybe just human interaction with the water all together, afterall that's the real cause.

And since this is such a pressing issue why not now? Why do we need to wait until next year to get rid of them?

[Chief Grey Bear]

"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.

You spent 20 out of the last 912 days on a Blue Ribbon stream and you didn't see an agent??

But what you don't know is, how many of them observed you.

You probably enjoy our current tax code as well?

I can't complain. I don't mind doing my part.

And OB,

Keep up the good work man! It really puts into perspective how others view our outdoors.

[laker67]

Okay, so if you are not advocating just sitting back and doing nothing, what course of action are you saying we should take to prevent the spread of didymo? If you have some idea better than banning felt, then we would all be very interested in hearing it.

After reading everyone's comments and wondering what is good and what is bad. There seems to be a solution that no one wants to hear. Put a ban on all wading and all boating. Not likely to happen because of revenue loss to the state and recreational areas. We will see what takes precedence now. Stopping the spread or stopping the revenue. Lets just see how serious this issue really is.

[troutfiend1985]

You spent 20 out of the last 912 days on a Blue Ribbon stream and you didn't see an agent??

But what you don't know is, how many of them observed you.

I can't complain. I don't mind doing my part.

And OB,

Keep up the good work man! It really puts into perspective how others view our outdoors.

Laws of probability my friend, and no, they aren't stealth bombers with invisibility cloaks off of Harry Potter. I have seen agents before at Bennett, James A. Reed(and any KC Urban lake for that matter) and Taney, but needless to say their presence in rural areas is lacking. Just ask the local poacher, he probably knows their schedule. I would at least have seen one in the last couple of years Chief, somehow or someway after all I'm not that lucky And anyways, you punt on the issue of enforceability, despite painting the walls red on other forums when we discuss C&R regulations for white ribbon streams, but I know that people are more willing to strongly advocate for something that they truly believe in, and there is no shame in that. However, if you think someone can spot felt waders from 100 yards out, I think you're mistaken, my boots have black felt and I have seen more than one pairs of them around. How are you going to tell the difference between felt and rubber, wait for a wading angler to fall?

OB does a nice job on pointing out the logic for the ban and that is an commendable act. However, if somehow my love for the outdoors is in question, and people think that I must not care about the outdoors because I oppose this ban, then I cannot say anything more than you are as wrong as the sun is hot. Supporting this regulation or not, I doubt too many people frequent this page of the forum to define their hate for wildlife or their lack of concern for how things are going. In fact, if one didn't care about the management of our streams and forests we probably wouldn't waste time reading each others posts in order to continue a debate.

Look, my side of the argument lost on this one, and that is fine. I hope that the ban takes effect and carries out the goal and intentions of those who deliberated and enacted such a law

BUT HERE IS MY BIG QUESTION, HOW IS THIS REGULATION ANY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER REGULATIONS THAT MDC HAS, AND WHY WILL THIS BAN BE ENFORCED MORE EFFICIENTLY? I just want to know, honestly. I emailed the MDC yesterday about this and I am waiting for a response. Achilles has a heel boys and girls, and apparently the enforcement issue is MDC's heel, at least from what I have seen in our backcountry streams.

Tight lines guys.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Laws of probability my friend, and no, they aren't stealth bombers with invisibility cloaks off of Harry Potter. I have seen agents before at Bennett, James A. Reed(and any KC Urban lake for that matter) and Taney, but needless to say their presence in rural areas is lacking. Just ask the local poacher, he probably knows their schedule. I would at least have seen one in the last couple of years Chief, somehow or someway after all I'm not that lucky And anyways, you punt on the issue of enforceability, despite painting the walls red on other forums when we discuss C&R regulations for white ribbon streams, but I know that people are more willing to strongly advocate for something that they truly believe in, and there is no shame in that. However, if you think someone can spot felt waders from 100 yards out, I think you're mistaken, my boots have black felt and I have seen more than one pairs of them around. How are you going to tell the difference between felt and rubber, wait for a wading angler to fall?

If you think they are always in open sight, then you are sadly mistaken. And if you are not doing wrong, there is no need for contact. Get to know your local agent. Then ask if you can shadow with him sometime. You just may be greatly surprised. And please don't under estimate the today's binoc's.

OB does a nice job on pointing out the logic for the ban and that is an commendable act. However, if somehow my love for the outdoors is in question, and people think that I must not care about the outdoors because I oppose this ban, then I cannot say anything more than you are as wrong as the sun is hot. Supporting this regulation or not, I doubt too many people frequent this page of the forum to define their hate for wildlife or their lack of concern for how things are going. In fact, if one didn't care about the management of our streams and forests we probably wouldn't waste time reading each others posts in order to continue a debate.

Look, my side of the argument lost on this one, and that is fine. I hope that the ban takes effect and carries out the goal and intentions of those who deliberated and enacted such a law

Everybody loves the outdoors. Until they are inconvenienced.

The big question is, how would this discussion be if diddy was already in MO and the MDC did and was doing nothing about it????

[Outside Bend]

jdmidwest

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

While it's true tourists brought didymo to the system, it's not true that every tourist brought didymo to the system- you're basically punishing everyone for the actions of a few. Not to mention the economic impact banning fishing tourists would have on our state's rural economies.

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.

MDC owns hundreds of conservation areas and fishing accesses- creating, putting up, and maintaining hundreds of signs in perpetuity is easier than adding a few lines to the Wildlife Code? It doesn't even address private landings, boat docks, etc.

Kevin B.

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.

You're right Kevin, and I'm notoriously bad at math. But if no ban goes into effect, and 800 anglers a year are moving between Bull Shoals and Taney, aren't the chances of spreading didymo to Taney greater than if you have a ban and only 100 anglers in violation?

bigredbirdfan

My point was/is that with a wildlife code book approaching the size of a small text book the more regulations you come up with the less likely poeple are to abide by most of any of them. They don't take the time to read it as they should.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, pure and simple. It's your responsibility to read and understand the regs, if you don't, that's your own choice, and their are consequences for that decision.

How about banning boats and trailers or maybe just human interaction with the water all together, afterall that's the real cause.

It's already been addressed- boats and trailers and most other fishing gear can be cleaned and disinfected without much effort. That just isn't the case with felt.

And since this is such a pressing issue why not now? Why do we need to wait until next year to get rid of them?

To give anglers adequate time to prepare for the change in regulations. It's simply a matter of compromise.

And Troutfiend-

I completely agree that MDC lacks the enforcement manpower to enforce the ban at every trout park and access, much less in streams statewide. But simply putting the regs down on paper will push some folks to make the switch just to stay legal- no one wants to come back from a fishing trip with a ticket. If nothing else, the reg (and all the ensuing education and outreach) will help illustrate to anglers just how seriously didymo can affect our ecosystems, and help set the framework for an extension of our conservation ethic.

[troutfiend1985]

The big question is, how would this discussion be if diddy was already in MO and the MDC did and was doing nothing about it????

Well, I think education alone is doing something about it. Whether or not MDC enacts a ban, if that is what you're driving at, makes no difference to me. You can have critics say "look they should've done something" but the fact of the matter is nothing would change without a ban or with a ban. Nothing has really changed now, or on March 2012. Why? Because it is still up to the individual to make the choice to abide by the rules and regulations that our state conservation department sets forth. Whether people discard of their felt, just as if they abide by a slot limit, depends ultimately on the person conducting the activity. However this time education seems more important than ever because you have to convince people to bust out their pocket book, and the mere fact that trip to the White, and a subsequent trip to Taney can ruin it all presumably.

The ban is neither the saving grace of MDC, nor is it pie in their eye. If MDC bans felt, but still lacks enforcement which is adequate, then the ban is merely a tax on the honest(and yes, I know that MDC agents hide in camo, and that binoculars are powerful, but in all reality the one agent per county policy is still not enough). So this really puts us back to square one with new dance shoes. Not everyone will follow the rules, it only takes one cell of this stuff and there are a fair number of people that were already cleaning shoes and heeding the warnings. Someone said that this situation is like a condom, and that it would be irrational to not use a condom if it had only a 90% chance of preventing pregnancy. But that is off point. Let's frame it a little different. This is like a less than clean woman, and one would be a fool to sleep with her, not use a condom OR shower, and then track it back over your own sheets. But this same situation happens regardless becuase people will do stupid things. People would still do this even if we made it illegal to sleep with a person who has STD's even though it puts their own health at risk. So I just don't see the ban as doing much other than taking the blame off of MDC's shoulders, and that if a MO stream(god forbid) does get didymo, we can all point and say that person should have known better.

So having said that, I'm thinking about the Riverwalker Series from Pantagonia for this spring, any thoughts?

[Chief Grey Bear]

To give anglers adequate time to prepare for the change in regulations. It's simply a matter of compromise.

Atcually I believe the reason is due to the fact that March 1 is the date when the Wildlife Code goes into effect each year.

[troutfiend1985]

OB

I know, it's just mind boggling to me that MDC still is inactive about the whole enfocement thing. I'd still be against this ban if we had adequate enforcement, but for more selfish reasons and I would probably have shut up about it a long time ago. I'm just burnt on the whole idea of the people who abide by the laws get the shaft. 80 dollars right now is a lot of money to me, and of course that means that my fishing is limited anyways. But I think I'll flip if I see an idiot wearing felt next spring. I'm well aware, and my girlfriend will tell you, that when a law student gets pissed off about something law related someone is bound to get an earful.

So with that, I waive my white flag in surrender.

We should start a page on rubber boots your guys reccommend, because vibram ain't happening. I'm thinking that sticky rubber from pantagonia may be my next pair.

[troutfiend1985]

Atcually I believe the reason is due to the fact that March 1 is the date when the Wildlife Code goes into effect each year.

Probably a little of both.

JD, banning tourists from our streams would violate the Federal Constitution."The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." So I think I'll buy new boots before violating peoples rights, just my way of balancing out things.