Felt Soled Waders Banned In Mo Trout Waters!

[Idylwilde]

May I ask where the ban on felt is written into law in the State Of MO? That is the violation code? What is the date it goes into effect? I can't seem to find it.

[laker67]

I will stand by my original statement, that there is a lot more to consider than just felt. I.e. boot laces, cushioned insoles inside the boot, the boot material, padded boat rails, even anchor ropes, and corded stringers. If these other materials are so easily disinfected, as someone stated, then why not felt as well?

[copfisher]

These just look like committe minutes. I think those interpreting the wording are jumping the gun before the actual reg's come down. (http://mdc.mo.gov/about-us/regulations/process-adopting-regulations). Those unhappy with this proposal have an opportunity to voice their concern, besides in this forum. (See link, we're on step 4 in the process).

In any event, the committe minutes seem pretty clear to me as an attorney. The intent is obvious--no felt shoes in MDC trout waters.

I think everyone is overlooking something I find way more exciting:

From the committe notes, "Approved the purchase of 25 acres in Stone County as an addition to Wire Road Conservation Area (CA)." Of course, the location of the 25 acres will be important but I see this as a good thing--at least the MDC is willing to put resources towards Crane.

[ozark trout fisher]

I've got no problem with the proposal. I just want the MDC to put some information out on this. They are generally pretty good about getting press releases out on this kind of thing, and I wish they would do that here.

[ness]

Simmer down boys. There'll be some official rule-making before any of this goes live. Like copfisher said, these are just things they've decided on at their meeting. Stay tuned.

And...I too caught the Wire Road purchase. WRCA doesn't all front Crane, but it would be nice if they added to it at the lower end.

[3wt]

Pretty preliminary info, don't expect any clarification for a while. But I'd spread the word for people to start saving their pennies for a new pair of boots.

[moguy1973]

We need to know when this ban takes effect, and exactly what the specific trout waters are.

According to Jim at MDC off their Facebook page, he says this goes into effect March 1, 2012. He didn't mention what waters it pertains to though.

[Brian Sloss]

I gave up felt two years ago and it did kind of suck at first, but then I reminded myself that I did just fine for years before felt and got over it. I don't even miss felt anymore. I am happy with the move to ban felt. If it makes us even a little less likely to get that nasty stuff in our rivers, it is well worth it.

[Matt_MO]

According to Jim at MDC off their Facebook page, he says this goes into effect March 1, 2012. He didn't mention what waters it pertains to though.

Thanks for the info!

[troutfiend1985]

These just look like committe minutes. I think those interpreting the wording are jumping the gun before the actual reg's come down. (http://mdc.mo.gov/about-us/regulations/process-adopting-regulations). Those unhappy with this proposal have an opportunity to voice their concern, besides in this forum. (See link, we're on step 4 in the process).

In any event, the committe minutes seem pretty clear to me as an attorney. The intent is obvious--no felt shoes in MDC trout waters.

I think everyone is overlooking something I find way more exciting:

From the committe notes, "Approved the purchase of 25 acres in Stone County as an addition to Wire Road Conservation Area (CA)." Of course, the location of the 25 acres will be important but I see this as a good thing--at least the MDC is willing to put resources towards Crane.

First, I hope that the 25 Acres has some land bordering Crane, that would be pretty awesome. I love fishing more than typing, but right now time is limited.

However, I've read those committee minutes, and I would have to disagree with the clarity. Yes, the intent is obvious, that felt should be banned. But what do you take away from those other words if they are indeed included in the regulation? Those fuzzy words are what scare me, and it should scare you too. A mere look at some of the statutes that we have passed in this nation shows that words are ambiguous, ("discrimination" in title 7, and how it was interpreted by the supreme court in United Steelworkers v. Weber). If banning felt is their intent, then ok, it is not going to make me happy but I appear to be the minority, which is fine. But if we are going to ban felt, then ban it. Don't put conditional limitations on it, ban the whole thing and put an end to what could be future litigation on "plain meaning" v. "legislative intent." Isn't that enough? And I'm not going out and interpreting anything the MDC hasn't made publicly accessible, these are awkward words to find on a website, and one would assume that a wording containing "ban on felt" is sufficient to ban felt. However that is not what that posting says, and while I am aware that it's not final, a key aspect in our society is the marketplace of ideas(yes, saying this in realization that Lilley is not a state actor and does not serve a public function). That's my gripe, and yes I do like to gripe especially on here.