Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
basically its too early in the game to know the full extent of didymo on our rivers, sure.
here is very litle known worldwide about didymo. To downplay its potential effects is foolish. It poses a very real threat to the ecology of our freshwater streams (and stillwaters - its very adaptive).
What is known is that it extensivly coats streambeds and has already affected the spawning beds of certain rivers here, displacing these spawning fish. In fact, because of this, fish and game NZ has closed off all access to three very important salmon spawning streams in the CSI to prevent didymo transfer.
Theres the first indication that didymo may have a major effect. Do we really want to take a chance with the unknown? why not restrict its spread to the waters in which its already present, and use these as a control to study didymos effects.
IF YOUR ENTIRE COUNTRY BECOMES DIDYMO AFFECTED AND OUR FEARS ABOUT ITS EFFECTS THEN BECOME A REALITY WE ARE SCREWED...
DOES ANYONE DISAGREE?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When fish and game NZ looked for research in 2004 on didymo or eradication trials they found there was very little, and none compiled anywhere. NZ are the first to really study the beast, and are currently trialling a copper sulphate compound in order to help control juvinile infestations. I think we are justified to react to our fears at present.
Basically the aesthetic efects of didymo alone should be enough for anglers to want to do anything in their powers to restrict its spread. You can no longer fish a nymph in the Mararoa and the Waiau hatches has almost dissappeared due to extensive didymo build up along the rivers edge. Id say with these two examples alone, Id want to do everything in my powers to restrict its spread.
Chris
Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
As I've said before, all we know is that didymo is algae. ALL extensive algae blooms have those same negative impacts. And they CAN happen almost anywhere there is a body of fresh water. Didymo isn't new. It's been around for hundreds of years in the cold water streams of North America and Northern Europe...many of them are very good fisheries for salmon, char, trout, and grayling. We've had problems with algae blooms in the White River system here in the Ozarks for decades now. We used to not see them, but the proliferation of golf courses, subdivisions, and poultry farms have led to higher nitrate and phosphate levels in our waters; and that exponentially increases the algae blooms. Yet, we have produced the majority of the world record Brown trout catches of the last couple of decades, still produce a large number of trophy Rainbows, and have have several wild populations of Rainbow and trophy Brown trout.
Algae is nothing new and didymo is just algae. That's the bottom line.
I think we should be MONITORING the impacts of the spread of didymo, but I think it is premature to start taking drastic regulatory measures to contain it.
Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
yes, but as an invasive algae it threatens, and HAS overpowered many native algae in NZ streams, native algae which has over hundreds of years become the basis for our freshwater ecosystem. Didmo forms thick mats which cover everything on the stream bed, other algae included.
In countries such as northern america and europe ( where didymo is native by the way - major difference as follows 8) ), it is not a problem. But...
Do you realise that the NZ mudsnail is native to NZ. Our trout love them, thrive on them and they are of a great benefit to our fishery. They never have been a problem here. Other invertibrete species co exist without a problem, and our trout feed voraciously upon them.
In the US they are a major problem where they are invasive. See what happens when something is introduced into a foreign environment?
http://washingtoncouncilfff.org/nzms.htm
Locally, Lake Dunstan and the Manitoto dams wouldnt be the same quality fisheries without their snail populations.
Feel free to draw your own comparisons...
Chris
BTW - NZ has also been known to produce a couple of trophy fish on occasion - whats your point :D
Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
On the other hand, the New Zealand Mussel that was introduced by ocean-going vessels to the Great Lakes has cleaned up Lake Erie and significantly revitalized the fishery there...that was dying from pollution.
We can play this game for a LONG time...back and forth. But it's going nowhere. Everybody who is informed knows that the science isn't there to make didymo a crisis. It's worth monitoring here, but that's it. What y'all do about it in NZ matters not to me in the least. And I would assume New Zealanders know best how to handle things in New Zealand. But there are folks trying to sound alarm bells here in the US about the spread of didymo...calling for felt bans, wading bans, etc. because it is spreading. And we really don't know if it does any harm.
Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
I for one take a more proactive approach to my own fishing, in the theory that I don't want to take the chance I will spread it to another watershed/state.
For that reason Ive switched to Aquastealth for my and my wife's wading boots, again being on the White River we are in didymo water every day. Aquastealth isn't a saviour however uppers-wader-flies etc still need to be cleaned. As chris has pointed out its a 5minute soak in 5% solution of dishwashign detergent.
There is one simple fact about didymo science, the reason there are no firm answers is that not enough work has been done, low priority, not enough funding, who cares approach. NZ, a tiny little country in the South Pacific is way ahead in the science department that a superpower, richest country in the world. Where did the research come from on didymos abolity to live on in felt - not in this country.
We can have all the fancy rods, fancy flourocarbon leaders, chemically sharpened hook but they aren't going to be worth "diddy-squat" when our rivers arefull of this stuff.
Look at it this way if the science proves at the end of the day that the effect are "ONLY" aesthetic, (the definition of which is beautiful: pleasing in appearance) then isn't that enough to warrant our individual efforts. Personally Ive been lucky enough to spend time on some beautiful rivers and lakes all across this country and I'll give up felt, make the effort to clean gear. And Ill advice my clients to this part ofthe world to do the same for their return to their home waters.
Its called preventative medicine.
http://www.protectyourwaters.net/ If anyone wants more information on these issues, beyond these pages check that link
Cheers
Steve
Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
SilverMallard, you're forgetting that the natural process of species migrating normally happens extremely slowly, and native species can adapt to the new comers. People, on the other hand, regularly bypass natural barriers that would normally slow this progress. So there's a period of system shock instead of adjustment.
Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
I applaud the efforts of those who choose to try and prevent the spread of didymo but...
...not trying to be a wise guy or start an argument here but cleaning your gear is really just a self serving way to continue fishing in places infested with didymo. There is absolutely no guarantee you will kill 100% of the didymo cells by cleaning and I would venture to guess that hardly anybody who does clean is doing a thorough enough job on EVERYTHING. Are you carrying around a microscope to check your work?
The reality is that NOTHING but total isolation and restriction of ALL gear to use ONLY on didymo infested streams is the only assurance you aren't spreading it and even that isn't a 100% guarantee. In other words you should really have a totally separate set of clothes, wading shoes, waders, flies, leader and anything else that could possibly come in contact with didymo and restrict its use to infested waters. I really doubt that many folks would be willing or are prepared to do that.
If folks really cared enough about not spreading didymo for all of the right reasons: the survival of native species of fish, insects, invertebrates, etc and NOT because it impacts their fishing; then the simple solution would be to voluntarily NOT fish infected streams PERIOD! How about a ban on fishing in infected waters; not practical you say? Didn't I just read a Neil Travis story regarding stream closures due to high water temps and possible trout mortality? Why can we NOT fish for that reason but not for didymo? I mean there isn't any guarantee the fish will die in either case or is it because the streams in the high temp situation aren't closed ALL OF THE TIME and the didymo streams would have to be?
Once again hypocrisy reigns supreme with fishermen who talk the talk but deny that this is a blood sport WITH mortality, possible pain and environmental impact despite our best attempts at caring for the fish and resource. Thinking that cleaning your gear will prevent the spread of didymo is no different than thinking that careful handling of every fish you release will result in it living to fight another day.
NEWS FLASH: It won't!
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of PETA or a tree hugger. I fish and will continue to fish and practice careful C & R but I have NO intention of intentionally fishing a didymo infested stream just because I want to fish a particular body of water. I care more about the resource than I do about my fishing opportunities.
It is sort of like safe sex; it's only 100% safe IF you're lucky.
Only abstinence is 100%
Re: Diddymo found in New Hampshire and Vermont
I am not forgetting anything, I assure you.
And I ALSO thoroughly and properly clean my waders and boots regularly and every time we change watersheds. But as another poster points out, that only helps. It is not a cure. What about the migratory birds like ducks, geese, eagles, and herons that move from didymo waters to non-didymo waters every year? You want to kill them too? Not legal. Violation of international treaty. And all of this doom and gloom is pure speculation.
I have already stated that I am all for voluntary proactive measures, that I am all for increasing studying and monitoring of didymo in the US, etc. But I am strongly opposed to regulatory measures that can ONLY MITIGATE the issue IF it is even a problem.
If Bamboozle does not want to fish in didymo water, that is his right. It is called voluntary restraint. But to order didymo fisheries closed to all human use (because we are talking about a LOT more than a few fly fishermen here) would create economic devastation to many regions of the US. To ban felt soles would give the makers of Aquastealth a ridiculously unfair competitive advantage and virtual monopoly on wader boot soles...putting many Americans out of work and bankrupting a few companies. Closing all didymo fisheries would also increase pressure exponentially on non-didymo fisheries, which we KNOW causes harm.
The hippocratic oath taken by physicians is a good prime directive for all scientists, industrialists, and politicians. Heck it is a pretty good rule for ALL of us. "First, do no harm." I watched a doctor on a famous TV talk show yesterday tell a severely overweight young man that he is a diabetic with severe hypertension at age 35. He went on to tell the young man that he could give him insulin and blood pressure medication, but both cause weight gain. The doctor said that the young man needed to solve his own problem by losing weight through diet and exercise, and that if he did so his diabetes and high blood pressure would go away. This is the hippocratic oath in action! The doc does not get paid for this guy dieting and exercising. He gets paid for medical treatments that require the administration of a licensed physician. What some are proposing we do to stop the spread of didymo is akin to amputating both legs because someone has athletes foot!
P.S. Bamboozle, why aren't you voluntarily refusing to fish anywhere that Eurasian Milfoil has infested streams and lakes as well? It is PROVEN to be detrimental to aquaculture, fishing, boating, swimming, etc. It is highly invasive and even causes flooding. And it is ALL OVER the state of Pennsylvania. It is almost impossible to control once established. And it can flourish in a MUCH wider array of water conditions than didymo can. I've seen several lakes in Texas ruined by this stuff. Yet, you fish all over Pennsylvania. What gives?
Here's the fact sheet from the state of PA: http://www.paflora.org/Myriophyllum%20spicatum.pdf