Dydimo spread not due to felt soled boots?

[silver creek]

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/studies/didymo-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."

 

[waterfordcreek]

Very, very interesting.

Thanks for sharing!


Jim

 

[plecain]

You really have to give this guy credit.

A true scientist doesn't stop looking once he's found an 'answer'. He continues looking for other possibilities, whether from his own research or from other's research.

It would be nice if all 'scientists' were as careful.

 

[mcnerney]

Silver: Thanks for the article, very interesting read.

 

[sweetandsalt]

S.Cr., Thank you thank you. I am not a scientist I just play one on this Forum. I have been pleading with the Invasive Species folks to stop vilifying felt over other absorbent, nook and cranny inter-river surfaces including boats and trailers, nets, neoprene cuffs and woven laces. Those who have switched to sticky rubber boots know they are a barely acceptable substitute for felt especially felt with carbide studs. This is so reminiscent of the earlier disproportionate Whirling Disease lie...it was the habitat all along. Don't dare blame us humans, its not our fault!

 

[Poke 'Em]

Phosphorus may make it bloom, but that doesn't answer the question of how it gets there in the first place. If it never makes it there, you don't have to worry about it blooming.

 

[silver creek]

Phosphorus may make it bloom, but that doesn't answer the question of how it gets there in the first place. If it never makes it there, you don't have to worry about it blooming.

You read my post wrong, phosphorus does NOT make dydimo bloom, it stops it from blooming.

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. The cows are already out of the barn!

What is causing the spread, 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. We monitor phosphorus and allow some phosphorus back into lawn fertilizers in dydimo prone watersheds.

 

[fredaevans]

SC, sorry about the double posting of your thread opener. Forgot you posted here.

Fred

 

[Poke 'Em]

You read my post wrong, phosphorus does NOT make dydimo bloom, it stops it from blooming.

Sorry, I meant phosphorus levels.

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. The cows are already out of the barn!

So, didymo is everywhere? I highly doubt it. Yes, it's pervasive, but there are still places that don't have didymo yet. Probably mostly in remote streams (probably all or almost all tailwaters and/or popular fisheries have it), but there are places without it, I'm certain. And yes, it's spread COULD be stopped. The cows may be out of the barn, but they're not in the neighbor's pasture yet.

What is causing the spread, 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. We monitor phosphorus and allow some phosphorus back into lawn fertilizers in dydimo prone watersheds.

If we only look at fisheries downstream of golf courses, then your theory holds true. But there are lots of waterways that have probably never seen an ounce of fertilizer. Besides, I really don't think the solution to fixing one water quality issue (didymo) is to promote another (fertilizer).

 

[silver creek]

Read this if you think decontamination or rubber soles can stop invasives.

Decontamination with some chemicals actually shorten the life of waders and wading boots. Download a State of California DFG study on methods of decontaminating for New Zealand Mud Snails to see the damage done to waders and boots. Waders and boots disintegrated with the use of chemical decontamination.

Plus changing rubber for felt does little good.

"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."

In the report below, invasives were found under the innersole and other hidden crevices in wading boots. Modern wading boots have drain holes that allow the water to drain from boots once we exit the stream. These drain holes also allow invasives including dydimo to enter, and they are flushed into every crevice of the inner boot as we wade. It is apparent to me that there are plenty of places for invasives to hide besides the boot soles. You could not invent a better method of spreading invasives into the inner boot than drain holes.

To adequately decontaminate a boot you need to remove any inserts and decontaminate each boot part by soaking in a chemical solution.

Click on the link to download a pdf of the official report by the State of California, The Resources Agency, Dept. Of Fish and Game.


http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=3867


In January or 2007, the EPA and The Federation of Fly Fishers published a white paper on Dydymo. The white paper says:

"While decontamination will not destroy all invasive species, cleaning procedures minimize the possibility of spread. These simple treatments effectively destroy D. geminata algal cells (Kilroy 2005):" The white paper then goes on to recommend a 2% solution of bleach. Clorox is a 6% solution so a 2% solution 2 parts water to 1 part Clorox. Try putting just a drop of that on a pair of blue jeans and see what happens.

http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/didymosphenia/White Paper Jan 2007.pdf

So the both the California Dept. of Fish and Game and the EPA recommend what I consider to be harsh chemicals that damage waders and boots. They also admit that there is no single magic treatment for all invasive organisms.

 

[fredaevans]

Different type of invasive specie but here in Oregon (this is our third-fourth year now?) if you intend to bring in a boat for fresh water fishing you MUST have it inspected. You don't, you get pulled over and can't produce the receipt you're facing one hell of a ticket.

Big truck weigh station (I-5) at the north end of Ashland. First year they found FIFTY FOUR boats with live snails on them coming in from California.

 

[Poke 'Em]

Read this if you think decontamination or rubber soles can stop invasives.

I've never said anything about decontamination or rubber soles. I personally think the idea that felt soles are the problem is silly.

That being said, I'm going to embolden a different part of your quote.

In January or 2007, the EPA and The Federation of Fly Fishers published a white paper on Dydymo. The white paper says:

"While decontamination will not destroy all invasive species, cleaning procedures minimize the possibility of spread. These simple treatments effectively destroy D. geminata algal cells (Kilroy 2005):" The white paper then goes on to recommend a 2% solution of bleach. Clorox is a 6% solution so a 2% solution 2 parts water to 1 part Clorox. Try putting just a drop of that on a pair of blue jeans and see what happens.

Nothing is going to be 100% effective against spread of invasive species. But we can do everything in our power to slow and minimize their spread. I think going with "well, just dump some fertilizer in the river" is the wrong approach. That leads to the mindset that there's nothing we can do about it, when there certainly is.

 

[silver creek]

I've never said anything about decontamination or rubber soles. I personally think the idea that felt soles are the problem is silly.

That being said, I'm going to embolden a different part of your quote.



Nothing is going to be 100% effective against spread of invasive species. But we can do everything in our power to slow and minimize their spread. I think going with "well, just dump some fertilizer in the river" is the wrong approach. That leads to the mindset that there's nothing we can do about it, when there certainly is.

Dumping fertilizer in rivers is a straw man argument. You placed it in quotes but I never said that. Allow me to be more specific.

I believe that one reason dydimo blooms occur now when they have not in the past is because phosphorus has been taken out of lawn fertilizer. My approach would be to allow some phosphorus back into lawn fertilizer in the water drainage area of a stream that has dydimo blooms. Then monitor the stream to see how the stream responds both in the phosphorus content of the water and the effect on dydimo.

I never suggested dumping fertilizer in a river. This is what I actually said, "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. We monitor phosphorus and allow some phosphorus back into lawn fertilizers in dydimo prone watersheds."

I see nothing wrong with doing an experiment to see how the stream responds.

This does not have to be an all or none proposition. You could set up drainage sections on the stream that can use phosphorus fertilizer and some not. The aim is to titrate the phosphorus which is exactly what the scientists did on Rapid Creek, South Dakota. The aim is to find out if changing the formula of fertilizer that is already being used can do what the scientists did without the cost of directly adding phosphorus as the scientists did.

 

[Poke 'Em]

If the phosphorus reduction in fertilizer is your theory, I wouldn't recommend using Rapid Creek as your case study. There's no agricultural activity (and no golf courses either) above the affected area, and very little residential development above test site #1. Essentially, even if phosphorus weren't taken out of fertilizer, it wouldn't have mattered in this case, because there's almost no fertilizer runoff entering the system in the first place.

 

[Flyfisher for men]

You really have to give this guy credit.

A true scientist doesn't stop looking once he's found an 'answer'. He continues looking for other possibilities, whether from his own research or from other's research.

I just wish he'd found that other answer before I had to go out and buy new wading boots...

 

[sweetandsalt]

And I hope that States that ignorantly jumped on the no-felt banwagon will repeal thier unfounded regulation.

 

[silver creek]

Fred,

Were they New Zealand Mud Snails?

---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

And I hope that States that ignorantly jumped on the no-felt banwagon will repeal thier unfounded regulation.

My beef is that states like Vermont banned felt soled boots for anglers but exempted state and federal employees from using those same boots during the performance of their duties.

It is that kind of two-faced legislation that burns me. It is blatant favoritism.

"It is unlawful to use external felt-soled boots or external felt-soled waders in the waters of Vermont, except that a state or federal employee or emergency personnel, including fire, law enforcement, and EMT personnel, may use external felt-soled boots or external felt-soled waders in the discharge of official duties."

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Passed/H-488.pdf

Montana's proposed law has the same provision but was voted down in committee because legislators felt that there was not equal treatment under this proposed law.

"NEW SECTION.**Section 2.**Use of felt-soled boots and waders prohibited. (1) A person may not use external felt-soled boots or external felt-soled waders in the waters of the state.
*****(2) The possession of external felt-soled boots or external felt-soled waders on the banks or shores of a stream or lake or in a boat, raft, canoe, or other water vessel is prima facie evidence that the person or persons in whose possession the boots or waders are found were using the boots or waders in the waters of the state.
*****(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to a state or federal employee or emergency personnel, including fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical technicians, using external felt-soled boots or external felt-soled waders when acting within the scope of duty.


http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/SB0230.htm

 

[dhaynes]

For more info on the conference...visit the Center for Acquatic Nuisance Species. It provides a recap of the conference.

From an article: What I Think I Learned at the 2013 International Didymo Conference by Bob Wiltshire, Executive Director. Invasive Species Action Network. He summarizes:

"What does this mean for the future of felt? I think that the move to ban felt has slowed but not stopped. At the conference, all of the managers present from states which have banned felt stated firmly that they would not even begin to consider rescinding their felt restrictions. Dr. Bothwell was the primary author of a scientific publication that identified felt as a particular problem and, although he now is more focused on environmental conditions, he still maintains that felt presents a special problem."

Recapping the 2013 International Didymo Conference

 

[Flyfisher for men]

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.

This was from one of silvercreek's posts (not trying to pick on him by any means).

It does raise some questions, though, of why and how those blooms are taking place now.

Presumably, if the low phosphorus has been a constant for many years in New Zealand, why are we suddenly start seeing blooms there now?

Also, if you look to North America in its earliest days when there was little use of fertilizer, then didymo, all else being equal, would have been present, then declined as fertilizers came into use. Anyone know anything about the historical record?

 

[fredaevans]

Fred,

Were they New Zealand Mud Snails?

Honestly don't know the answer to that question, but do remember one reference to them as 'Zebra Snails.' Shells in the one printed picture was a no brainier to see the stripes. No idea if that's of any help.

Fred