Thanks Chris.
The sprayer in our case is to spray down, then scrub down canoes which are arriving from other watersheds.Quote:
DO NOT USE THE SPRAY METHOD USING THIS MIX!!!! THIS IS INCORRECT AND WILL NOT KILL DIDYMO CELLS!!!
Printable View
Thanks Chris.
The sprayer in our case is to spray down, then scrub down canoes which are arriving from other watersheds.Quote:
DO NOT USE THE SPRAY METHOD USING THIS MIX!!!! THIS IS INCORRECT AND WILL NOT KILL DIDYMO CELLS!!!
How do you keep it off of wading birds and other animals which move from stream to stream?
Jeff
This was on our front page of our paper last week its a huge threat i live about an hour a way from the conecticut river i am hoping it doesnt get into the otter creek watershed which i fish all the time and is across the street from where i live
sure, birds etc can possibly spread didymo, and this has been the most vocal protest of those who do not bother to clean thir gear, but on the 56 rivers in the south island where didymo is present, EVERY SINGLE LISTED INCURSION POINT HAS BEEN AT A POPULAR ANGLER ACCESS POINT...
Now if birds can conciously stalk fish ans game anglers access signs, Id have more time for this threat, but its obvious anglers are responsible for all these incursions. Sure, one is near a kyak slalom course,but its also a popular evening rise pool.
Migrational patterns of birds etc we cannot control. Our own habits and movements we can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey FCCH, cheers for that. Kyakers over here on the whole have been pretty good when it comes to cleaning etc too, and surveys have shown a higher compliance rate to cleaning equipment than the angling sector.
------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the soak method is the safest way to ensure one is doing their bit in the fight against didymo.
As mentioned above, spraying equipment with a 5% detergent solution or 2% bleach solution will not kil didymo. These measures are designed to kill didymo with at 1 minute emersion.
take a look at http://www.unclejacks.co.nz and read the niwa testing report. This is the only product tested and confirmed to kill didymo cels on contact, nd thus is suitable for application via a spray botle. Nonetheless, most people use uncle jacks in a 2% solution via the soak method.
Are their any similar products available in the US?
---------------------------
The nz fishery is a free access scheme, where with landowner permission one can access a river at prety much any point along its course. Fish and game have access signs at hundreds of access points around the country side where people can jump in and have a fish.
I undestand many US watersheds have onle selected access points? Hows about fishing clubs etc rally and place a 72l or similar barrell of detergent solution at these access points for anglers to use? Flyshops also should have a cleaning station for anglers to use.
I inspired our local quenstown club to put in a cleaning station here in town, see below, and it is now getting a huge amoubt of use. Many of these paople I have talked to say they dip their gear whenever passing whereas they may not have if they had to go through the set up process themselves.
100% complience with cleaning all equipment is esential guys - it takes onle one drop of water to transfer live didymo cells.
chris
our cleaning station - basic, yet efective
http://s138.photobucket.com/albums/q273 ... stnpic.jpg
Chris
I was honestly asking the question and not trying to say fishermen should be lazy and not clean their gear. I was not trying to be flip and sure do hope it did not come across that way. I am curious what is the best way to control this invasion, especially from natural spread on the feet of ducks, geese, turtles, and other critters who move from one stream or lake to another.Quote:
sure, birds etc can possibly spread didymo, and this has been the most vocal protest of those who do not bother to clean thir gear, but on the 56 rivers in the south island where didymo is present, EVERY SINGLE LISTED INCURSION POINT HAS BEEN AT A POPULAR ANGLER ACCESS POINT...
Jeff
"An electric fishing survey was carried out by the Minist?re des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF), in the Matapedia river in Quebec, in early September 2006. Large D. geminata blooms had been observed in the river. The MRNF was not able to measure impacts on the abundance of juvenile salmons. The MDDEP-MRNF (2007) states that a similar observation had been made by fisheries experts and managers from France, Iceland, Ireland, Scotland, Finland and Norway. No impacts had been recorded on either adults or juveniles of Atlantic salmon or any other salmonid species." - ISSG.org, GISD page on Didymo, last updated May, 2007.
Everything else I find about deliterious effects is PURE SPECULATION couched in words like "might, may, or could."
We have it here in our Ozarks tailwaters where I fish. It's no worse than any other algae we've always dealt with except that it's a bit uglier when the water drops.
Im assuming you have fished with it at full bloom?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0301/csmimg/p14a.jpg
I don't fish during algae blooms. But I have certainly SEEN it. And I've fished when the rocks and shore weeds were covered with the dried up gray stuff afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Dore 1
It's NATURE. Algae blooms are NATURAL. And there is algae in almost every body of water on Earth and it's always been that way. There are things we can do to keep algae blooms in check and to not increase them. And those things we should be doing. ie. keep the nutrient loads down. But y'all have spent so much time/energy on trying to slow (you KNOW you can't stop it) the spread of didymo over there in NZ that you have probably forgotten all about nutrient loads from farm and habitation runoff. You keep those down, and you don't get many major algae blooms.
I'm not a big fan of this whole "invasive species" scare that the enviro-wackos are using these days to try and keep us from hunting and fishing. Things change. When enormous herds of buffalo and elk roamed the majority of what is the US, they carried spores and seeds and bacteria and germs from one place to another. As they crossed rivers and streams, they spread the algae and stuff from one watershed to another. This goes all the way back to the dinosaurs...or whatever. The romantic notion that everything should remain as it was at the beginning of recorded history (what the environmental sciences consider "native") is just a self-loathing human fantasy. Man IS natural. Man IS a force of nature. When MANKIND moves from one place to another and inadvertently carries seeds, spores, and what have you with him as he goes, this is COMPLETELY NATURAL.
And from every single thing I have read from every single expert who has written on the subject, I have yet to see where didymo is any worse than any other algae EXCEPT FOR AESTHETICS.
It's hype - sensationalism and romanticism. Science needs to be based on LOGIC and REASON and EVIDENCE...and proven by repeatable results of controlled experimentation. And public policy needs to be based on SCIENCE!
... So I take it that you are not a big fan of having to clean your gear between rivers?
That would be a BAD assumption. I clean BOTH my and my wife's boots and waders between different watersheds. What I am opposed to is excessive regulation born of nonsensical hype instead of sound science and pseudo-scientific scare tactics distracting people from the REAL issues of water quality and wildlife conservation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Dore 1