Felt Soled Waders Banned In Mo Trout Waters!

[Outside Bend]

What are they gonna check the waders on every fisherman out there. I highly doubt it.

No, just like they don't check licenses, creels, or any other regulation for every single angler. If you have a significant enough enforcement presence though, many folks will abide by the regulation.

[Idylwilde]

The way I have it is The Concessionaires at the Three State Owned Trout Parks voluntarily decided to stop selling felt sole boots in the Park Concession stores. The were not ask to do so It was a voluntary thing.

[ozark trout fisher]

Well, I must say this is very inconvenient. But if this is really going to help stop the spread of didymo into our trout streams, then it's worth it. I've never retired my pair, just because I do not use them out of state, period, to insure that I am not spreading didymo. But I understand why the MDC did this. (Heads to bass pro to buy some new wading boots)

I agree with Outside Bend though. If they are going to ban them on our trout streams, then they should ban them everywhere. It just begs the question, do they only think our trout waters important enough to protect with this ban?

[Idylwilde]

You might want to look at the Korkers they have so many options to help is the control of stuff being carried from one location to another like, almost instant dry boot, no laces to gather up stuff, quick change soles so you can take them off and clean them with hot water & soap before your next outing, Two type of soles 1 felt 1 cleated in the box.

Had a pair for a year and love them!

[stlfisher]

I am fine with the ban. There are many things that affect our streams that need attention besides this issue, but this seems like a logical start.

[ozark trout fisher]

Just one other thing. Whatever your feelings on this, it is kind of an important issue to trout fisherman. I think that the Missouri Department of Conservation has an obligation to get more information out on this. So far it is only that one little paragraph in the August 2011 Conservation Action page. No press release on this, at least that I can find, and I have carefully searched the MDC site. The information we have isn't enough. We need to know when this ban takes effect, and exactly what the specific trout waters are.

So if anyone from the MDC should happen to be reading this, I think we all would really appreciate a press release on this thoroughly explaining these issues.

[Danoinark]

Well, now I have a use for those old black canvas low quarter Converse All Stars that have been gathering dust in the fishing closet......

Dano

[Idylwilde]

The MDC had meeting at Montauk about three months ago and left all kinds of flyer's and survey form at the Fly shops and nobody seems to want to learn about it I know the shop has survey and info form the left on the counter and only two was filled out. And only a handful of anglers ask about it. First they need to find a way to get the anglers wanting to care about it so they will pay attention to it. I went to the meeting at montauk and their were only 5 people at it. They had a display and power-point program.

[laker67]

Why not educate yourself on the issue at hand before forming an opinion?

The facts haven't changed. Didymo still threatens our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. It's still easily transmitted by felt-soled wading shoes, and there's still no way to effectively clean all the live didymo cells from those felt-soled wading shoes. You guys keep deflecting the issue to waders, boot uppers, laces, fly lines, etc, and it's still a red herring- their are plenty of ways to effectively clean and disinfect those gears.

I will respect your opinion whereas you obviously do not mine, but that's ok. But I am curious, which Columbia are you from?

[troutfiend1985]

And the language doesn't at all seem vague to me- if the sole of your boot is made of a porous material, it's banned. I'm sure they'll define what they mean by "porous," in the Wildlife Code glossary. It's a shame it only applies to trout waters, though.

The "porous" or "matted" terms, from what they have right now, is ambiguous and needs a definition. You admit that by stating "I'm sure they'll define what they mean by porous in the Wildlife Code," Yes, hopefully they do define this as right now it seems to cover a broad amount of categories, one might even consider this vague (not clearly expressed, not having a precise meaning).

This really seems like a King Solomon approach by not banning it statewide, and to me that is a crock of crap. Either this stuff is a real threat, and we should ban felt in all state waters, or it's not. I have a feeling that the MDC has failed in accomplishing anything by limiting this ban's affect to "specific trout waters." And there is that whole enforcement thing again, making this a tax on people like us who do abide by the rules. I once again go back to my original statement that this is a piece of crap because of the lack of enforceability, MDC splitting the baby in half, and the weird wording of this.