This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Vermont BANS Felt Soled Wadding Boots
Vermont BANS Felt Soled Wadding Boots
- Thread starter Editor
- Start date
Frank Whiton
Most Senior Member
This is a story that is going to be repeated over and over during the next couple of years. Eventually their may be a US wide ban on felt soles. I will live just fine with out them. There are good alternatives to felt available now.
Frank
Simms Freestone Boots, all Simms StreamTread soles accept metal studs.
Frank
Simms Freestone Boots, all Simms StreamTread soles accept metal studs.
kglissmeyer1
Well-known member
One can see the writing on the wall - agree or not, its coming to a state near you.
I own a pair of Simms Guide Boots with the streamtread sole and love them. No snow buildup in the winter and extremely good traction in and out of the water on most all terrains. I use a wading staff when in the water and have not had a serious or even minor mishap with the rubber soles in the streams in my area.
Kelly.
I own a pair of Simms Guide Boots with the streamtread sole and love them. No snow buildup in the winter and extremely good traction in and out of the water on most all terrains. I use a wading staff when in the water and have not had a serious or even minor mishap with the rubber soles in the streams in my area.
Kelly.
gt05254
Well-known member
Well, with the snowpack we have and all, nothing will be fishable til mid-June anyway, and by that time, it'll be warm enough that I won't care all that much every time I slip and fall in. My old Battenkill wading brogues are certainly going to feel neglected though, especially having to wait next to the new Simms Whateverthenameandungodlyexpensive vibram soled units for their turn when we waddle over to the NY side of the line.
As I used to say to my staff when dealing with yet another off the wall rich white man, "It is what it is, deal with it." (they hated that phrase)
Slip slidin' awaaaaaaaaaay,
Gary
P.S. Note to the editor: they're waDing boots, not waDDing boots. I don't even wanna think about what a wadding boot would be used for. Likely some very weird thing they do over in the UK that would be universally disapproved of over here.
As I used to say to my staff when dealing with yet another off the wall rich white man, "It is what it is, deal with it." (they hated that phrase)
Slip slidin' awaaaaaaaaaay,
Gary
P.S. Note to the editor: they're waDing boots, not waDDing boots. I don't even wanna think about what a wadding boot would be used for. Likely some very weird thing they do over in the UK that would be universally disapproved of over here.
h dot verseman
Well-known member
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
I think this is a necessary step in the right direction, and hopefully this gets done nationwide in time to stop anything catastrophic from happening to an already fragile series of river systems.
Why? - It seems a over reaction to a problem or potential problem. Is there any proof that this will resolve, correct, or resolve the problem. Nope
I find that felt is safer and more stable than the newer "rubber" soles. Sorry but I just see this as a forced change that does VERY LITTLE to change the problem. Probably some what of a good thing for boot sales though.
The only way to prevent cross contamination is to prevent ANYTHING from going into the water. Little critters can hide inside a wading boot, reel, or other equipment just as well if not better than in the felt. What a joke or ploy>
I find that felt is safer and more stable than the newer "rubber" soles. Sorry but I just see this as a forced change that does VERY LITTLE to change the problem. Probably some what of a good thing for boot sales though.
The only way to prevent cross contamination is to prevent ANYTHING from going into the water. Little critters can hide inside a wading boot, reel, or other equipment just as well if not better than in the felt. What a joke or ploy>
Rip Tide
Well-known member
I feel a lot safer wearing felts too, but I'm not going to be the one responsible for spreading the problem.
When ever legal, reasonable, and possible, I'll be wearing my felts
When I fish in VT (which has been at least one weekend a year for better than 15 years), I'll be in my new cleated jungle boots
When ever legal, reasonable, and possible, I'll be wearing my felts
When I fish in VT (which has been at least one weekend a year for better than 15 years), I'll be in my new cleated jungle boots
MoscaPescador
Well-known member
If anyone wants to do some reading on the science of the felt sole debate, here are some links.
The first link discusses the science of the ban the felt crowd. The following links are the studies in that discussion. As much as I have looked, I could not find a published scientific document about reasons not to ban.
The Science of Felt Soles and Waders
http://stopans.org/Presentations/ScientificKnowledgeofDidymo.pdf
http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2007/gates/GatesK0507.pdf
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/studies/didymo-blooms.pdf
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/didymo/didymo-decon-feb-05-rev-aug-06.pdf
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/didymo/didymo-survival-dec-06-rev-may-07.pdf
MP
The first link discusses the science of the ban the felt crowd. The following links are the studies in that discussion. As much as I have looked, I could not find a published scientific document about reasons not to ban.
The Science of Felt Soles and Waders
http://stopans.org/Presentations/ScientificKnowledgeofDidymo.pdf
http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2007/gates/GatesK0507.pdf
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/studies/didymo-blooms.pdf
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/didymo/didymo-decon-feb-05-rev-aug-06.pdf
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/didymo/didymo-survival-dec-06-rev-may-07.pdf
MP
Or for that case to ban. Again anything and everything entering the water can be a problem. What about the interior of the boots? What about the backing on reels? What about if the person fishing gets their clothes wet? What about people swimming? I read the articles and I did not see anything conclusive that felt wading boots ARE the problem. So ban the felt boots in VT because they may be a problem? Again this action does not solve the problem of people transporting invasive species. It does force people to buy different products and feel that the problem is solved.
Prevention should start at the borders!!
Prevention should start at the borders!!
Last edited:
mudbug
Well-known member
Not untill I can buy them for $70.
At this point there is no such thing as a budget wading boot with rubber soles that doesn't suck.
On the other hand my cheapo BPS felt soled boots kick butt.
Last edited:
silver creek
Well-known member
My belief is that there is a fairness issue .
Most of you are unaware that in the passed Vermont legislation, there is an exemption for state and federal employees. Why is this fact not mentioned? I had to dig it out of the legislative files.
This allows Vermont fisheries as well as other personnel to use felt soled waders and boots. It seems to me that if banning felt is important, Vermont fisheries workers, who are routinely in the waters and are more likely to be in different watersheds routinely, should be the first to transition to rubber soles. Instead the Vermont exempts their own employees while mandating a change for the fishermen.
If the ban is based on science, should it not apply to everyone? This is the kind of legislation that burdens the public, but exempts government which drives me nuts.
From Vermont's own legislative site:
"Sec. 1. 10 V.S.A. § 4616 is added to read: § 4616. FELT-SOLED BOOTS AND WADERS; USE PROHIBITED
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
So the ultimate irony is that a Vermont warden can give you a citation for wearing felt boots while wearing felt boots himself. How crazy is that?
Most of you are unaware that in the passed Vermont legislation, there is an exemption for state and federal employees. Why is this fact not mentioned? I had to dig it out of the legislative files.
This allows Vermont fisheries as well as other personnel to use felt soled waders and boots. It seems to me that if banning felt is important, Vermont fisheries workers, who are routinely in the waters and are more likely to be in different watersheds routinely, should be the first to transition to rubber soles. Instead the Vermont exempts their own employees while mandating a change for the fishermen.
If the ban is based on science, should it not apply to everyone? This is the kind of legislation that burdens the public, but exempts government which drives me nuts.
From Vermont's own legislative site:
"Sec. 1. 10 V.S.A. § 4616 is added to read: § 4616. FELT-SOLED BOOTS AND WADERS; USE PROHIBITED
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
So the ultimate irony is that a Vermont warden can give you a citation for wearing felt boots while wearing felt boots himself. How crazy is that?
FlyFlinger2421
Well-known member
Amen, Silver!
Maybe those legislators need to reread the declaration of Independence.
Maybe those legislators need to reread the declaration of Independence.
mikel
Well-known member
Really? It's not fair? Two scientists come up with "it's not fair"? Stellar
FlyFlinger2421
Well-known member
Mikel, as usual you miss the point. Let me spell it out for you. FISHERY WORKERS FELT SOLED BOOTS CARRY MICROORGANISMS TOO. DUH!
Clear enough now, Mikel?
Clear enough now, Mikel?
mikel
Well-known member
lol....I'm not going to engage with you ff...you're correct, fairness is not the issue. Glad you cleared that up. THAT was my point. Of course their boots carrying nasties is only bad if they move to other waters without treating them.
out
out
FlyFlinger2421
Well-known member
MoscaPescador:
I am preparing an article right now supporting the continued use of felt. There is actually a lot of information out there but no one has yet had the courage to come out and draw a line in the sand.
The first paper on your list, which I have previously carefully read, a white paper from the EPA and Federation of FlyFishers published in 2007, "Increase in nuisance blooms and geographic expansion of the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata: Recommendations for response" has the following statement under Recommendations:
"An aggressive education and outreach program is required to change water resource user behavior in order to MINIMIZE SPREAD of D. geminata on a global scale."
The words MINIMIZE SPREAD were carefully chosen. The authors cautiously avoided saying PREVENT SPREAD because these words would have been incorrect. By choosing the words MINIMIZE SPREAD they are admitting that there is no politically acceptable way to PREVENT the spread of Didymo.
When I worked for a resource agency I was careful to choose my words also because if I didn't, my supervisor would edit them out!
Sometimes it is not what IS said, it is what is NOT said that is important.
Too bad we cannot ask the authors, "Will your recommendations prevent the spread of Didymo, yes or no?" There were times in my job when, if asked such a question, I would have come face to face with choosing complete honesty or losing my job!
---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------
Mikel:
The rest of us know how to clean our boots too, Mikel! Satisfactory cleaning using accepted methods is difficult or even impossible in a motel room and complete drying is impossible when you work in those boots every day, so I cannot believe fishery workers would not spread Didymo.
In Montana, the ban was voted down based on State Fishery workers indicating that they would not abandon felt for safety (and perhaps liability?) reasons.
I am preparing an article right now supporting the continued use of felt. There is actually a lot of information out there but no one has yet had the courage to come out and draw a line in the sand.
The first paper on your list, which I have previously carefully read, a white paper from the EPA and Federation of FlyFishers published in 2007, "Increase in nuisance blooms and geographic expansion of the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata: Recommendations for response" has the following statement under Recommendations:
"An aggressive education and outreach program is required to change water resource user behavior in order to MINIMIZE SPREAD of D. geminata on a global scale."
The words MINIMIZE SPREAD were carefully chosen. The authors cautiously avoided saying PREVENT SPREAD because these words would have been incorrect. By choosing the words MINIMIZE SPREAD they are admitting that there is no politically acceptable way to PREVENT the spread of Didymo.
When I worked for a resource agency I was careful to choose my words also because if I didn't, my supervisor would edit them out!
Sometimes it is not what IS said, it is what is NOT said that is important.
Too bad we cannot ask the authors, "Will your recommendations prevent the spread of Didymo, yes or no?" There were times in my job when, if asked such a question, I would have come face to face with choosing complete honesty or losing my job!
---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------
Mikel:
The rest of us know how to clean our boots too, Mikel! Satisfactory cleaning using accepted methods is difficult or even impossible in a motel room and complete drying is impossible when you work in those boots every day, so I cannot believe fishery workers would not spread Didymo.
In Montana, the ban was voted down based on State Fishery workers indicating that they would not abandon felt for safety (and perhaps liability?) reasons.
silver creek
Well-known member
If equal treatment under the law is not a fairness issue, I don't know what is.
FlyFlinger2421
Well-known member
You are absolutely correct Silver, but that is a political issue, while the issue that Mikel needs to keep in mind is the value of banning felt soled boots for use by fishermen while allowing state fishery workers to continue to use them.
As usual, he chooses to disengage when he can't come up with logical arguments to support his side of an issue. Disengaging is at least better than resorting to slander and namecalling.
As usual, he chooses to disengage when he can't come up with logical arguments to support his side of an issue. Disengaging is at least better than resorting to slander and namecalling.
silver creek
Well-known member
It is not only dydimo and felt soled boots that is an example of how experts that should know better say one thing but do another on the issue invasive species.
Another example is Whirling Disease (WD) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDW) trout hatcheries. At on time WH was found in 12 of 15 CDW hatcheries. Instead of shutting the fish hatcheries down and cleaning them, the CDW continued to stock infected fish into its public waters, some of which were previously uninfected! They spread WD into their own uninfected waters.
They have since changed that policy. However they still have a policy of stocking infected fish "only" into waters that already have WD. They had research which showed that parasite dose exposure in the environment increases infection rates and decreases survival. The CDW stocking increased the infection rate. And yet, they continue to do so, in spite of the science that says they should not.
"Parasite dose strongly determines the severity of whirling disease which generally increases with the number of triactinomyxons the fish encounters (Hoffman 1974; O’Grodnick 1979; Markiw 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Hedrick et al. 1999a; Thompson et al. 1999; Densmore et al. 2001; Ryce et al. 2001; Ryce et al. 2004; Ryce et al. 2005)."
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=40473
The current policy of CDW is to continue to stock infected fish.
"A policy implemented in spring 1995 prevents the stocking of trout from hatcheries testing positive into waters where whirling disease has not been found. This includes wilderness areas and streams where native trout may be restored. Trout from positive hatcheries will be stocked into waters where the parasite has been found to minimize the risk of contaminating other watersheds. Only trout from negative testing hatcheries can be stocked into waters where the parasite has not been found.
Last fall, the Division of Wildlife released new research suggesting that the stocking of infected fish in WD+ reservoirs was increasing the level of infection in brown trout populations downstream (for highlights from the research, see the whirling disease page). CTU believes this research offers further evidence that the stocking of infected fish (even in habitats that already have the WD parasite present) can harm the resource. There have been many questions about how the DOW will – or will not – respond to these important new findings in their management programs, where "lightly" infected trout continue to be stocked in numerous waters around the state (the so-called "B waters")."
http://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollec...eStewardship/Whirling Disease Information.pdf
I understand that few fisheries departments act with such disregard. Maryland, for example, has an aggressive testing policy and they did the right thing and closed the Bear Creek hatchery when WD was found.
"The discovery of whirling disease (Myxobolus cerebralis) at Bear Creek Hatchery in late 2006 led to the eventual closing of that facility. It has remained closed since early 2007."
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/whirlingd/BCH08plan.pdf
Nevertheless, when a state such as Colorado with its many miles of trout habitat acts in such a way, is there any wonder that I dig into the the actual bills that are passed to see if the rules apply equally to the state employees and the fishing public?
Can we not agree that the fishing public and the state employees should be treated equally under the law? How can anyone, in this time in our history, say that a public employee carving out a privilege for himself over the public is acceptable?
Another example is Whirling Disease (WD) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDW) trout hatcheries. At on time WH was found in 12 of 15 CDW hatcheries. Instead of shutting the fish hatcheries down and cleaning them, the CDW continued to stock infected fish into its public waters, some of which were previously uninfected! They spread WD into their own uninfected waters.
They have since changed that policy. However they still have a policy of stocking infected fish "only" into waters that already have WD. They had research which showed that parasite dose exposure in the environment increases infection rates and decreases survival. The CDW stocking increased the infection rate. And yet, they continue to do so, in spite of the science that says they should not.
"Parasite dose strongly determines the severity of whirling disease which generally increases with the number of triactinomyxons the fish encounters (Hoffman 1974; O’Grodnick 1979; Markiw 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Hedrick et al. 1999a; Thompson et al. 1999; Densmore et al. 2001; Ryce et al. 2001; Ryce et al. 2004; Ryce et al. 2005)."
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=40473
The current policy of CDW is to continue to stock infected fish.
"A policy implemented in spring 1995 prevents the stocking of trout from hatcheries testing positive into waters where whirling disease has not been found. This includes wilderness areas and streams where native trout may be restored. Trout from positive hatcheries will be stocked into waters where the parasite has been found to minimize the risk of contaminating other watersheds. Only trout from negative testing hatcheries can be stocked into waters where the parasite has not been found.
Last fall, the Division of Wildlife released new research suggesting that the stocking of infected fish in WD+ reservoirs was increasing the level of infection in brown trout populations downstream (for highlights from the research, see the whirling disease page). CTU believes this research offers further evidence that the stocking of infected fish (even in habitats that already have the WD parasite present) can harm the resource. There have been many questions about how the DOW will – or will not – respond to these important new findings in their management programs, where "lightly" infected trout continue to be stocked in numerous waters around the state (the so-called "B waters")."
http://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollec...eStewardship/Whirling Disease Information.pdf
I understand that few fisheries departments act with such disregard. Maryland, for example, has an aggressive testing policy and they did the right thing and closed the Bear Creek hatchery when WD was found.
"The discovery of whirling disease (Myxobolus cerebralis) at Bear Creek Hatchery in late 2006 led to the eventual closing of that facility. It has remained closed since early 2007."
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/whirlingd/BCH08plan.pdf
Nevertheless, when a state such as Colorado with its many miles of trout habitat acts in such a way, is there any wonder that I dig into the the actual bills that are passed to see if the rules apply equally to the state employees and the fishing public?
Can we not agree that the fishing public and the state employees should be treated equally under the law? How can anyone, in this time in our history, say that a public employee carving out a privilege for himself over the public is acceptable?
FlyFlinger2421
Well-known member
I was wondering if anyone would open that can of worms. You have done your homework Silver.
I have not done my homework on WD, but from what I know, Colorado spent $11 million dollars (?) disinfecting their hatcheries but it didn't work! I think they just gave up so the high country lakes with no spawning streams are now devoid of fish I believe. I have not heard a word lately about WD and it seems to have been quietly swept under the rug. On to chronic wasting disease in elk and deer which they actually brought into Colorado by doing research on infected animals brought in from elsewhere!
Obviously, the CDOW does not believe in wasting their resources on containment of invasives! LOL! In fact they spend their resources and our money spreading invasives! From a practical viewpoint (i.e.feasibility and income) it is probably the most logical answer. Money talks.
I don't look for Colorado to ban felt anytime soon as I have been told by one of their employees that there is no discussion of a ban as of yet. No doubt they have been made aware of the hypocrisy in that.
No one has mentioned the role of fish farms and private stocking on the spread of disease either which I find strange. How many states allow landowners to stock streams running through their property? Colorado does.
Hey Silver! Care to start a thread on WD? Let them pick your carcass for a change! LOL! The kids are back in high school looking at half naked women again I see.
---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------
Okay, I checked on some things. Six of Colorado's 16 hatcheries are still whirling disease positive even after decontamination efforts.
Silver, you may have seen this link about Colorado's high country cutthroats and WD but if not, here it is:
Whirling Disease in Cutthroat waters*
Doesn't appear that the spread of WD is being prevented in CO. In fact, it appears to be too late!
So, all you out-of-staters stay home. The trout in Colorado are all dead! LOL!
I have not done my homework on WD, but from what I know, Colorado spent $11 million dollars (?) disinfecting their hatcheries but it didn't work! I think they just gave up so the high country lakes with no spawning streams are now devoid of fish I believe. I have not heard a word lately about WD and it seems to have been quietly swept under the rug. On to chronic wasting disease in elk and deer which they actually brought into Colorado by doing research on infected animals brought in from elsewhere!
Obviously, the CDOW does not believe in wasting their resources on containment of invasives! LOL! In fact they spend their resources and our money spreading invasives! From a practical viewpoint (i.e.feasibility and income) it is probably the most logical answer. Money talks.
I don't look for Colorado to ban felt anytime soon as I have been told by one of their employees that there is no discussion of a ban as of yet. No doubt they have been made aware of the hypocrisy in that.
No one has mentioned the role of fish farms and private stocking on the spread of disease either which I find strange. How many states allow landowners to stock streams running through their property? Colorado does.
Hey Silver! Care to start a thread on WD? Let them pick your carcass for a change! LOL! The kids are back in high school looking at half naked women again I see.
---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------
Okay, I checked on some things. Six of Colorado's 16 hatcheries are still whirling disease positive even after decontamination efforts.
Silver, you may have seen this link about Colorado's high country cutthroats and WD but if not, here it is:
Whirling Disease in Cutthroat waters*
Doesn't appear that the spread of WD is being prevented in CO. In fact, it appears to be too late!
So, all you out-of-staters stay home. The trout in Colorado are all dead! LOL!