Felt Soled Waders Banned In Mo Trout Waters!

[Chief Grey Bear]

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

Would you rather the watershed pay the tax?

But let's say you bought a $100 pair of feltless boots. You wear them out in 5 years.(Which by the way you won't do that fishing 20 days out of a 1000 ) That would average to $20 a year. Less than you will spend on gas per trip.

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.

Very true. But why take the chance at being the one???

[troutfiend1985]

Would you rather the watershed pay the tax?

But let's say you bought a $100 pair of feltless boots. You wear them out in 5 years.(Which by the way you won't do that fishing 20 days out of a 1000 ) That would average to $20 a year. Less than you will spend on gas per trip.

Very true. But why take the chance at being the one???

No, I see your logic. But the whole 20 days out of one thousand probably gives my boots time to dry And hopefully, one day, I can spend more time on the stream.

[jdmidwest]

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.

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.

But banning felt soles impacts everyone, residents and tourists, so your theory on that is out the window. The idea of banning them on only the streams that are currently infected makes the most sense. But, if it was the only way to spread the organism, it would be the perfect solution. Unfortunately, there are numerous ways to carry it from one place to another. Maybe on the wheels of the stocking trucks as they move from stream to stream while doing the fish stocking. How about the boats, rafts, tanks, nets, and trailers that Fish and Game uses to stock, they could be a possible transmission mode.

True, MDC has numerous locations. But you and I know well that there will be signs at every point of access warning against the felt soles. Just yesterday, on the Diversion Channel Access, I saw a nice full color graphic on invasive species, another sign on horsepower limits, a full bulletin board for area regulations, a ballot box for surveys that was booby trapped with a wasp nest and no survey forms, numerous MDC Area Zone Markers, a sign that stated use only during the hours of 6am til 10pm to keep out party animals, and another sign that I don't recall what it said. It will result in more than just a line in the rule book that you have to look hard for at most vendors. This will only impact certain trout streams, not others from what I have read. It will not be a "statewide ban" affecting all streams.

[Chief Grey Bear]

But the whole 20 days out of one thousand probably gives my boots time to dry And hopefully, one day, I can spend more time on the stream.

You got me there!

[Chief Grey Bear]

But banning felt soles impacts everyone, residents and tourists, so your theory on that is out the window.

The impact on the human is easily absorbed. Not so much the case with the environment.

[jdmidwest]

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.

That part was just a joke, much like the banning of felt soles because they are just one of the known factors of transmission. It has been proven that tourists transmitted it, so using the same reasoning, tourists should be banned.

[jdmidwest]

The impact on the human is easily absorbed. Not so much the case with the environment.

True, but is it really a solution that will prevent the spread? If not, it is futile.

[drew03cmc]

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

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.

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.

Show me where I said the White River "caught" didymo. You can't because I didn't, but you almost certainly will try. If you are going to try to tell me I said something, make darn sure it is what I said. For example, when your body is primed for infection, it takes less of the bacteria or virus, whichever it is, to cause a successful infection, correct? This is the same way with the river system and didymo. When water temperatures were higher, as they were pre-dam, the river is almost impervious to a coldwater organism regardless of how much of the substance is placed in the river. If the water temperature had nothing to do with it, why is there no didymo in ANY stretch of river holding predominantly smallmouth? Simple, the conditions are not right.

It is shady because the state knows they are going to rake in the taxes from everyone who gives a darn buying rubber soled boots rather than nursing their old felts through another year. Don't think that the money had nothing to do with this.

[Chief Grey Bear]

True, but is it really a solution that will prevent the spread? If not, it is futile.

I am not sure we will stop the spread. And it could be for different reasons. But it wont hurt to try.

[eric1978]

I think everyone should have to wear these.