Recently, much has been posted in the internet about the upcoming Alaska ban on felt soles on wading boots. Here is an informative piece about the science of felt.
http://www.stopans.org/Science_of_felt.php
Printable View
Recently, much has been posted in the internet about the upcoming Alaska ban on felt soles on wading boots. Here is an informative piece about the science of felt.
http://www.stopans.org/Science_of_felt.php
Excellent article and info. Thanks for getting it out there.
Kelly.
A nice source of information. Thanks for posting that.
It is important to realize that the article answers just one question, does felt carry more invasives than rubber. It should not be taken that rubber soles are a solution to the problem of invasives. Unfortunately, many reading that paper will get that impression. They will think that if they switch to rubber from felt, they have done their part. WRONG.
In the white paper that is referenced in the article, the first line recommended defense is:
"Fresh water resource users, including ecologists, water managers, fishery biologists, and other scientists, need to be aware of the threat and should practice decontamination procedures to prevent the spread."
The problem I see is that there is greater issue that is being pushed aside under the guise that banning felt is solving the issue of invasives. That paper and others I have ready have not presented a single manufacturer's approved method of decontaminating for ALL invasives.
The issue is not just Didymo. It is Whirling disease. It is Zebra Mussels. It is New Zealand Mud Snails. Some species like Whirling Disease have a spore phase that is resistant to drying. Other's like the New Zealand Mud Snail work their way into locations well away from felt soles and into areas not normally inspected like under the insoles of wading boots.
"The majority of NZMS recovered were associated with wading boots. NZMS were observed on the tongue area of wading boots, associated with the laces or the area of the tongue that was tucked beneath the lacing eyelets. Large numbers of small NZMS were present inside of the boots, having worked down between the boot and the neoprene bootie of the wader. If the boots contained padded insole inserts, NZMS were also found underneath the inserts, associated with sand grains. NZMS were recovered from every treated set of wading gear. Numbers of NZMS per sample ranged from 1 to 227 with a mean of 33 (Appendix 2). Over 50% of NZMS recovered were < 1 mm in size (Table 4)."
http://www.scwa2.com/documents/NZMS/...eport%2003.pdf
"The (Whirling Disease) myxospores can tolerate freezing at -20 centigrade for at least 3 months and are still viable after the passage through the guts of predators.... There have been reports from Europe of myxospores remaining viable in dry pond beds for 12 years(Bauer 1962). "
http://wildlife.utah.gov/fes/pdf_pubs/2002_06.pdf
In the second paper that is referenced on WD states, "The contents of the myxospore are sealed by a protective shell making the myxospore highly resistant to stresses such as smoking (Wolf and Markiw 1982), aging, freezing, chemical exposure, and digestion by fish-eating birds and fish (Hoffman and Putz 1969; El-Matbouli and Hoffmann 1991). The myxospore can withstand temperatures from -20? C to 60? C (Hoffman and Putz 1971; Hoffman and Markiw 1977) and can resist biodegradation for years while retaining its infectivity (Halliday 1976). These resilient features of the myxospore make it likely that it will persist in an environment until it is ingested by the oligochaete host."
http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2007/...GatesK0507.pdf
Until there is a single environmentally safe and manufacturer approved way of decontamination, the felt boot ban is not going to work. It gives a false sense of security. It relieves the pressure on manufacturers to give us a viable method of decontamination. It lets them off the hook because they are "doing their part". I say NO! they are doing their part UNTIL they give us a single reliable, safe and convenient method that all anglers will use, regardless of the type of wading gear.
It's like this. Would you allow a surgeon to operate on you if he used gloves with tiny holes that do not completely remove the risk of infection, but lower it to the risk that using rubber soled boots do for dydimo? I would demand a way to completely remove the risk of infection. Lacking a single way of decontamination, the only way to do that is with a completely separate set of wading gear for each environment, felt or no felt.
It is sad that the manufacturer's are touting the felt ban as a solution, and the assumption is that they are doing their part. Decontamination is MORE important than any felt ban, and they have not done their part to give use a single approved method that will kill all invasive that is safe for the materials and manufacturing methods used their equipment.
One of the best methods of reducing invasives is one that is rarely mentioned. That is the boot foot waders that completely eliminate the wading boot. It eliminates the possibility of getting invasives into the innards of a separate wading boot. It eliminates laces and a lot of the fabric on the wading boot. Why don't manufacturer's tout boot foot waders? Could it be that they want to sell both boots and waders? If separate boots are a problem as well as the felt, get rid of the separate boot. DUH?
If you think bleach is the solution, it is one of the most destructive chemicals for wading gear read the test below. Although the test below used a high concentration of bleach, lower concentrations destroy gear, but at a slower rate:
http://www.scwa2.com/documents/NZMS/...eport%2003.pdf
Did anyone ever consider migratory waterfowl carrying eggs of invasives ?
Flybugpa,
And THAT is another great reason why WE can do little but posture when it comes to the whims of "mother" nature. It's not to say what we do is useless but.....................................the fact remains.
Mark
Indeed they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by flybugpa
But having admitted that, the fact remains that MAN is the primary vector for the spread of invasives. A "hot" spot analysis of new outbreaks coincides with the areas that are popular fishing spots. That is not too surprising. It takes a jet propelled "bird" to get from New Zealand to North America.
Lets get real and tell folks the truth. Invasives will ultimately do what invasives do - SPREAD. All we are doing is SLOWING the spread.
We can't even get fisher's to stop throwing garbage along the rivers, and we are going to get ALL of them to decontaminate their gear?
Take a problem....throw an activist at it?.....and the next thing you know you have an "epedemic".
Can we help spread things? Sure. Will outlawing felt soles solve it? Probably not. But it will sell a heckuvalot more wading boots:^) I would imagine, much like stillwater....boats are probably a much bigger problem than felt soled wading boots?
One thing I noticed in all of this.
The folks touting the ban on felt are admitting that the other types of boots also carry the invasives, just not as much. They also note that the felt is difficult or maybe even impossible to decomtaminate.
But what happens if someone wearing non felt wders doesn't bother to clean them? Just clean, not even 'decontaminate'?
From everything I've read, it only takes a very small amount of this stuff to 'infest' a waterway.
So, felt can cause it. An angler who doesn't clean their gear, felt or non felt, can cause it. A hiker that walks through the water can cause it. So can a horse or dog.
I'd say with complete certainty that the likelyhood of at least one angler with non felt wading boots not cleaning or decontaminating them between watersheds is 100%. Probably hundreds of anglers.
No one will even suggest to the hiking enthusiast that he or she should decontaminate their boots. The only ones who will probably be sure to get cleaned between outings at different watersheds are the horses and dogs, as most folks take better care of their animals than they do of their gear.
It's going to spread. Felt ban won't stop it. Might slow it down. Don't really know that, though. Is all of this worth it? Why not. Gives folks something to focus on that's 'easy' and keeps them from feeling like they have no control.
Plus it's a big financial gain for the boot companies. That's not really a bad thing. I'd like to believe that that part is an 'unintneded consequence'. I have, at times, been accused of being naieve though....
Still will wear my felt boots where they are allowed. I like them.
Buddy
This is the problem as I see it.
Other than my post, when was the last time a Universal Decontamination Method (UDM) was brought up on a BB or in a national FF magazine? In fact, can anyone tell me an article that states the fact that there is no UDM? Isn't that important?
If there was a possible human epidemic with no cure, wouldn't that the the FIRST fact that the CDC would tell the public?
This is the most important question but it is being ignored because there is no solution. Rather than a solution we get FAUX felt.
Silver,
While your point should be the 'big issue', we all know it's easier to try to bann something like felt and then feel good about it all.
And I still think that, UDM or not, it would still spread because even if we had a UDM, quite a few foks wouldn't bother with it. Even if you made it the 'law', there would be no cost effective way to enforce it.
I think another issue is that we need to be careful here. The 'science' seems to be trying very hard to single out anglers as the culprits in this issue. If we try to go along and 'admit fault' and then propose a felt bann to try to help or control the problem.....what happens when it doesn't work? We've agreed that it's our fault. We tried, but couldn't stop it. Obviously we can't be trusted to deal with such an issue voluntarily. So, the only option left is to bann our access to the uninfected areas.
Maybe I'm just cynical.
Buddy
There is a similar thread going on on the Fly Fisherman BB. One poster raised the issue of Alaska banning felt and I asked if Alaska had also posted a wader safe method fo decontaminating the wading gear. What follows is his response and mine:
Hence the key problem. Banning felt removes one major problem, but does nothing to eliminate the many other sources of contamination. I'm not slamming you by any means, because it is not the fly fisher's fault that those who should be in the "know" cannot give those who want a way to do good, a consistent answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BN2FSH
For example, there are probably thousands of YouTube videos on fly fishing including casting and tying. Try doing a YouTube search on "wader decontamination" or "didymo decontamination" and you get exactly ZERO. That in itself illuminates the problem. It is not what we wear, it is what can we do with what we wear!
The lack of videos shows both the lack of fly fisher interest in decontamination, but also the lack of a strong policy on the part of fishery agencies to use the the most obvious of resources to instruct fly fishers on what to do.
It's pretty obvious to me that the fisheries agencies cannot blame fishers alone for not doing their part if they themselves are culpable.
Didymo Decontamination
Wader Decontamination
In the world wide ecosystem, all living creatures are connected to one another, good or bad. Taking the felt off of my wading boots is NOT going to change this basic rule of nature.
Dr Bob :cool:
Buddy....I think you hit on a very important aspect of the discussion.
I'm just worried that I may be correct as to where all this is heading.
Buddy
Buddy, you are correct in where it is headed. But my view is that a river system is a form self contained ecosystem. The key is that over the eons of time, it has adapted to the organisms in it. It is "in balance".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Widmaier
When a new species that has no natural enemies is introduced, it goes out of balance to the detriment of the organisms that were there previously. That happened when white settlers introduced Small Pox to the native population of North America. It happens when tainted meat with E. coli O157:H7 is introduced to susceptible humans. Cows tolerate it but we don't. If it were just nature doing it's thing, why do we try to kill it off and inspect meat?
My point is that our goal should be to try to keep the balance of nature otherwise we would kill and keep fish. Trying to limit invasives is just part of that same creed. My "beef" is that we are paying mostly lip service by banning felt.
The below statement gets my vote. I read somewhere...here maybe...that creatures can adapt to changes in their environment but if they can't, they go extinct. Thinking about that, i can only imagine how many other 'colors' of trout there have been before the strongest survived and not only that, what all they survived.
Question: I remember whirling disease in RBT in the Madison River. Were those RBT's indigenous to that drainage? I think if they weren't, that they wouldn't have been predisposed to dealing with whatever that stuff was that caused the whirling disease since other trout elsewhere didn't seem to be bothered by the bug. Some kind of worm now that i think about it. Seems like whatever happens in nature does anyway, in spite of humans trying to throw bandaids on such events. Then, as mentioned, when all is said and done humans sit back and pat each other on the back and say 'well, we tried, what can we meddle with next' ? .02.
MontanaMoose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Widmaier
Silver,
I like the concept and the sentiment.
But it's just not that easy, which may be the whole point we both are trying to make here.
We can't, and never have been able to, isolate ecosystems. If we weren't here, maybe (but I doubt it). But as Moose pointed out, humans like to meddle. It's probably buried deep in our genetic code, that whole 'we have to DO something about this!' gene. It's probably buried next to the 'we can make this better if we just put this here' gene.
With something as complex as the consequences of spreading species, we are way over our heads. We have, and still are, spreading non native species out of their natural ranges on a daily basis. We always have our reasons, and often the individuals doing it can't see any harm so they don't care about the consequences. We can't control it. Even if we are the cause, we can't stop it. Maybe we can slow it down or divert it for a time.
Perhaps it really is just human nature. I listened to a fly fisherman who was the president of a local club give a talk on how the dams need to come down, the stocked exotics like largemouth, bluegills, rainbows and browns killed off and native fish species reintroduced. But his front yard had a nice lawn, rose beds, hybiscus plants, and and several citrus trees. We live in the desert. He didn't see the similarities because he was focused on fish, and never even thought about how making his yard look nice was in any way connected to this issue.
My dire prediction is that this 'bad' stuff, Didymo, Zebra Mussels, Asian Carp, are all going to spread. While we, as humans, may have caused this or not, it's too late to stop it now. It's nice to think of the term 'US' as a group that is united in our fight against the spread of invasive species, but that is patently not true.
Some of the humans that may spread this stuff won't even know about the issue at all. Some that know won't care. Some that know and do care won't know how to properly decontaminate their gear and will help spread it unknowingly and unintentionally. Many of these will have bought new boots thinking that they have 'done their part'. Too many individuals involved to stop this now.
But I know that many will cry " We have to try!!"
It's in the genes.
Buddy
Yeah, and ya can't use bleach on genes !
Cheers,
MontanaMoose