New data suggests angler's felt soled boots NOT responsible for dydimo spread

Max Bothwell, a research scientist for Environment Canada, who wrote an influential article that linked angler's felt soled boots to dydimo spread has now reversed himself and said that anglers are not responsible.

Here is his original article, On the Boots of Fishermen:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/stud...ymo-blooms.pdf

He now believes that dydimo has been in North American waters and that it is a change in water chemistry, specifically lower phosphorus levels that has caused dydimo blooms.

Read the article in the current issue of American Angler, July-August, 2013, pp 8-9.

"'I no longer believe the problem is North American streams is the result of it (dydimo) being moved around.' ?. Scientists are now convinced that dydimo lives in many streams, but blooms only when the water has far less than the normal amount of phosphorus?? The most damaging dydimo episode in the US seems to have been on Rapid Creek in South Dakota, where a six-mile bloom dramatically impacted a blue ribbon brown trout fishery. In 2007 and 2008, Bothwell and other scientists added phosphorus to sections of Rapid Creek. Sure enough, the dydimo mats shrank."

If it was the felt soles, then you would have to ad the boot it self, the laces, and the inside of the boot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krauseb

If it was the felt soles, then you would have to ad the boot it self, the laces, and the inside of the boot.

---

If you go directly from stream to stream without the boots drying, you're correct. Drying, however, kills didymo (unlike whirling disease spores), so those areas will be ok if you just dry the boots. The problem with felt soles is that they stay wet inside for weeks, making it much more likely that you're going to transport didymo for the stream you fished this weekend to the one you're going to fish next weekend.

Figures............threw away 2 pair of felt sole boots.

Manufacturers are loving this stuff.

Since the bell has been rung, I would doubt that there would be any reversal on the position of things now.
They will probably keep them outlawed.

easier to outlaw than to return...especially when something "sounds good". kinda like Affordable Care Act

Actually, nothing in what you quoted supports your thread title. He said that he no longer believe that didymo spread is the major threat, but nothing that you quoted indicates he no longer believes that didymo is not spread by felt soles and other angler's clothing. Rather, he said that the didymo has largely been spread already, and now it's just a matter of stream conditions which determine how active it is. Maybe there's something else in the article that supports the title (I haven't read it), but what you quoted does not.

Why post the original and only a quote from the new?

Because the current AA article is not available on line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poke 'Em

Actually, nothing in what you quoted supports your thread title. He said that he no longer believe that didymo spread is the major threat, but nothing that you quoted indicates he no longer believes that didymo is not spread by felt soles and other angler's clothing. Rather, he said that the didymo has largely been spread already, and now it's just a matter of stream conditions which determine how active it is. Maybe there's something else in the article that supports the title (I haven't read it), but what you quoted does not.

---

I think you are correct. The point being made is that dydimo is already endemic and pervasive in North America. Dydimo has already spread and banning felt is not a solution to preventing further spread.

I think this recent discovery makes more sense than the old theory that all of a sudden dydimo sprang due to anglers boots when anglers have been using these same rivers for over a century with no dydimo blooms.

What is causing the dydimo blooms, I surmise, is the current trend of reducing phosphorus in detergents and lawn fertilizer. So as we get rid of phosphorus to prevent algae blooms we get dydimo blooms.

Ever wonder why NZ has such a problem with dydimo? They have lots of crystal clear streams and rivers with low phosphorus because there is little run off from agriculture and lawns.

Basic epidemiology 101 states that we cannot stop the spread of what has already spread. How we then prevent disease is to make the target population less receptive to the disease.

In rivers that have dydimo blooms, I suggest we need to monitor phosphorus and experiment by allowing some phosphorus back into lawn fertilizers in dydimo prone watersheds. Perhaps there is a phosphorus level that is too high to allow dydimo to bloom and too low to allow algae to bloom. In science we call this the "Goldilocks effect"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_principle

A similar phenomenom to the dydimo bloom was the increase in sea lamprey in Lake Superior a few decades ago. Biologist discovered that as the rivers flowing into Lake Superior were cleaner due to EPA monitoring of industrial waste, sea lamprey began to use them for spawning. So barriers were installed. Since we cannot install a mechanical barrier to dydimo, perhaps phosphorus can serve as a chemical barrier.

Whether it is spread or not spread by fisherman to me doesn't matter. If nothing else it made us more aware of didymo and it's impact.

For me personally is that the thought that it was spread by felt soled boots led to the developement and improvement of rubber non slip soles. Which I like. For years I fished spring creeks (wet grass & mud banks) wearing felt soled boots and cannot begin to count the times I have slipped and almost busted my back side. So I for one am glad that rubber soles came along. I still have a pair of felt soled boots, just in case I ever book a trip in a drift boat. But that is not likely to happen.

Dave

It sure sold alot of new boots and waders. And made the green folks feel all warm-and-fuzzy about themselves. :)

I'm always leery of reports & "studies", especially of environmental matters. Not to say that a red flag cannot be raised on an issue, but there are those who can make a profit from some bogus claim. There's also some pseudo intellectual who might get a paper published for some far reaching claim that might enhance him/her getting tenure at some "higher learning" institution.

Quite often the culprits for the spread of aquatic vegetation and micro organisms are birds (not to mention species of fish!) - from ducks to blue Heron.

"That" water in SD has the beginning of another bloom of dydimo, as recently as three weeks ago. Other waters will follow suit. Birds? Sure, there's ducks and herons, and osprey ... but there's also idiots who won't follow "suggestions" about controlling the spread, and tramp right in to every water source they can find, with no regard to where they've been, what's in the water, and how much of that cr*p they have on their boots/waters/laces/gloves/lines.

Some people will say absolutely anything to not have to accept the blame for the damage they've done.

All due respect....and no disrespect to anybody intended.....in reality, there has never been a single study done that I have seen that has shown proof of Dydimo being spread by felt-soled boots, or any other boots for that matter. Nobody knows how it is spread. There are alot of WAG's flying around out there.....from boots, to canoe paddles and wildlife. But no proof. When in fact the study pointed out could be spot-on. Maybe it's an organism that is in most waters, but one that needs a specific water condition in which to bloom? Maybe it's spread by goose crap? Maybe muskrats? Can't say no....because "nobody" knows. So why is everybody so certain that felt-soles are to blame? It's always easier to blame somoebody for something that they can't "prove" they didn't do. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NJTroutbum

It sure sold alot of new boots and waders. And made the green folks feel all warm-and-fuzzy about themselves. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NJTroutbum

All due respect....and no disrespect to anybody intended.....in reality, there has never been a single study done that I have seen that has shown proof of Dydimo being spread by felt-soled boots, or any other boots for that matter. Nobody knows how it is spread. There are alot of WAG's flying around out there.....from boots, to canoe paddles and wildlife. But no proof. When in fact the study pointed out could be spot-on. Maybe it's an organism that is in most waters, but one that needs a specific water condition in which to bloom? Maybe it's spread by goose crap? Maybe muskrats? Can't say no....because "nobody" knows. So why is everybody so certain that felt-soles are to blame? It's always easier to blame somoebody for something that they can't "prove" they didn't do. :)

---

Right on the mark. It's the time-honored "We must do SOMETHING, even if it won't make any difference" approach taken by folks who don't want to be bothered by facts, but only want to FEEL better.

BTW I've only ever owned one set of felt-soles in my life, and I hated them.

I am one who believes we should take any reasonable precaution we can so as not to do damage to the streams we love.
If you don't believe the studies that say boots help spread a stream disease, why would you believe a study that says it doesn't?
Why not play it safe if is easy to do so rather than being sorry later?

Uhhhhhhhh, What study?
If there has been a 'scientific study' conducted as such and published, please identify. Let's see if anyone can.

Allan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

I am one who believes we should take any reasonable precaution we can so as not to do damage to the streams we love.
If you don't believe the studies that say boots help spread a stream disease, why would you believe a study that says it doesn't?
Why not play it safe if is easy to do so rather than being sorry later?

---

Because IMHO, studded felt boots are safer...and I can't afford to buy new ones

I have the rubber!plastic? boots with studs. I believe they are the safest I have ever used for wading........

This article references a study which could perhaps be found;

http://goldstrikecoloradoprospecting...ning-your.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

I have the rubber!plastic? boots with studs. I believe they are the safest I have ever used for wading........

This article references a study which could perhaps be found;

http://goldstrikecoloradoprospecting...ning-your.html

---

Thinking you have very limited wading experience. When we went to non-felt last year the ADF&G thought they would be exempt. For some reason they are not "hip" on breaking legs, ankles, wrists, and more. They were told emphatically they would NOT be exempt. It did not make them happy. I am beyond disgusted with the latest and greatest rubber soles. For rocky, cobble type streams anything will work. I have only found a few of those in my time in AK. The rest have been killers in those useless rubber-soled boots! -------------------------------- For some reason my enter key has stopped working on FAOL only so I am trying to break things into paragraphs in spite of the glitch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I met a fellow last year that was putting on felt soles at about the most popular stream in AK. I politely informed him (yeah, I can be that way sometimes!) they were illegal. He lit into me like a rented mule! He was tired of falling; down, in, and about any way you can imagine and he welcomed the chance to go to court and tear them a new one! He was already looking at filing a suit for damages he suffered as a result of the ban. Compared to the rubber, felt allows one to walk up underwater walls. Felt sucks on snow and mud. I tend to avoid fishing those areas...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

I am one who believes we should take any reasonable precaution we can so as not to do damage to the streams we love.
If you don't believe the studies that say boots help spread a stream disease, why would you believe a study that says it doesn't?
Why not play it safe if is easy to do so rather than being sorry later?

---

The very act of going to a stream, walking in it, and fishing in it causes damage to some extent. Dislodging rocks thereby evicting nymphs and other critters from their homes, trampling vegetation, kicking up sediment and sending it downstream, stressing fish, on and on and on. It is not so simple for a whole lot of fishermen to purchase expensive new equipment on the whim of waterways "managers".

I have seen ducks and geese swimming, feeding, and waddling around in algae blooms and yes even on wads of rock-snot. I have seen the same creatures take flight, and in one instance touch down on a pond about 500 yards from the stream... unquestionably transferring biologic material between the waterways.

It's ridiculous to think fishermen are the primary vector. Yes, do whatever you can to decrease the spread, but live in the real world.

As I said before, I don't care at all about felt-soled boots. I've fished in a LOT of places (including Alaska) and the one pair I owned I didn't like. Never felt at a disadvantage with non-felt boots.

I think that's why I said "...take any REASONABLE precaution...."

Alright gang. Time to back off.

Denny

Regarding felt soles vs rubber soles. Rubber soles are not as good as felt soles. Several independent tests by magazines, blogs and individuals are available.

Boot makers want you to think that rubber soles are good or better than felt. A podcast by a Simms representative before the introduction of their Vibram soled boots said they were better than felt. THEY LIED!

They even backtracked and brought back felt soles. Why would they do this if "rubber was as good as felt?"

After they were introduced, there have been several tests of various boot soles. One test in Fly Fishing and Tying Journal, Winter 2010, pg. 18. tested "Old Felt Soled" Weinbrenners against New Rubber Soled Simms, Chota, Cloudveil, Korkers, Patagonia, & LL Bean boots.

Although I believe the the conditions of the test favored the new rubber soles, none of them were a good as the USED WEINBRENNERS.

"Under the more slippery conditions of summer and fall none of them quite provided the grip of felt?..It is still my, admittedly subjective opinion, that except under the cleanest (winter and cold) water conditions, rubber soles, do not yet provide the same traction as felt soles."

As a former wading boot tester for Weinbrenner, I know that new felt soles have better traction than used felt soles because thicker felt compresses and conforms to surface irregularities and increases traction. Worn thinner felt does not equal new felt in traction. If they had tested a new pair of Weinbrenners, I believe the difference between felt and rubber would have been greater.

Tom Rosenbauer of Orvis has also made the statement in a podcast that the rubber soles are not yet the equal of felt. He says that in a March 5, 2010 podcast, called "Felt Soles vs Rubber Soles and the Invasive Species Issue".

He said, "We have been working on alternative soles for many, many, many years. When rubber first came out we tested them and the pretty much unanimous opinion here at Orvis was that they're awful, they're dangerous? Rubber soles are wonderful on sand, they're wonderful on gravel, they are great on ice and snow, they are good on almost everything but slippery rocks, and slippery rocks are what a lot of wade on all day long. There are some new rubber compounds out there, Vibram has a compound that most of us are using for rubber soles that is better than previous generations of rubber, but still, if anyone tells you that their rubber soled wading boot grips as well as felt on slippery rocks THEY ARE LYING TO YOU! They haven't used it enough. The only way to insure that rubber is as effective as felt is to have it studded. All of the rubber soled wading boots we well at Orvis come pre-studded? We made that stand that we are NOT going to sell a pair of rubber soled wading boots without studs."

Another site, Trout Predator had a post from an individual that did his own test of Simms rubber soled boots vs felt. You can read his assessment as well as comments I made about the design of these boots here:

Wading Shoe Soles - THE LAST WORD

Here's an internet site that tested and deemed rubber soles without studs not to be the equal of felt without studs. If you are getting rubber soled boots, get them studded. But them studded felts would still be superior to the studded rubber soles.

http://troutunderground.com/2009/07/...a-new-chapter/

Now here's the problem. Rubber soled boots and waders and even flies can carry single celled invasive such as Didymo. Rubber soled boots and Gortex waders are not fabric free. Plus there is NO SINGLE CHEMICAL METHOD OF DECONTAMINATION that is APPROVED by boot and wader manufacturers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Creek

Wading Shoe Soles - THE LAST WORD

---

In fly fishing, there is no such thing as THE LAST WORD.

What really torques me about this issue is we have so many college & university biology departments throughout the country (and no doubt getting federal research dollars to boot) that you cannot convince me there cannot be some rock solid research on this Didymo cause & effect. No doubt the EPA could get tossed into here, too, but maybe they are mired in political paralysis at this time where they cannot perform their duties.

The old saying ... "follow the money" - Cannot get the research funding ...? Or maybe the cause could be traced to where some big money pockets operation would be the source and they certainly do not want any research going on in their money making back yard ...? (Cynical minds want to know!)

Or....maybe it's just as the latest study suggested. It is a micro-organism that is in pretty much all waters. And it only blooms when the water conditions arrive at the state that it requires. Could it be that simple?

If it's in so many waterways wouldn't there be a simple enough way to sample and find it to prove that it is there, so then they can look at the phosphorus angle and deal with the problem that way?

I believe I entered into a somewhat loud 'discussion' about this very topic a couple of years ago. It did not turn out well. Perhaps we should just follow Denny's suggestion.

Allan

I've waded with felt soled wading boots for more than two decades and have worn rubber/stud soled boots almost exclusively for the past three seasons (I still wear my felts once in awhile in some warmwater rivers). I fish alot, and I fish in all types of streams and rivers.

Putting the regulations aside, when my boots need to be replaced, I will choose to buy another pair of rubber/stud boots to replace the ones I now wear. I can wade safely in just about all types of stream/river bed with rubber/studs, and I find them vastly superior to felt soles when walking on or climbing up or down on the bank, in mud, in wet leaves, in snow or ice (I fish a lot in the winter). Overall, I find them superior to felt. YMMV, as always.

I am not a wade fisherman 90% of the time but with my nature lack of grace and balance I have done my share of slipping and sliding. Always as a safety consultant I have done a good bit of study on slip, trips and falls. I have wondered about the effectiveness of the soft spike now required at most golf course and country clubs for wading. I tried a pair of slip resistant shoes (designed for use in kitchen, etc.) in some stream in Utah years ago, they were not that effective in preventing slips. The one thing you can count one in wading situations, gravity is reliable.