27 comments on “Banning Felt”

1. Mark LeGrand on January 10, 2011 at 12:06 pm said:

   While always a proponent for less government instead of more I firmly believe that banning felt is more than justified and the longevity and health of our resource is paramount. Get rid of felt!

2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Banning Felt -- Topsy.com

3. In the Back Eddy on January 10, 2011 at 1:38 pm said:

   Is there a link to the proposed bill or some other information? I’d like to know as much as possible before I weigh in on the subject.
4. admin on January 10, 2011 at 1:48 pm said:

   Added the link to proposed legislation for you to review. Felt would be banned, except for emergency personnel. Having felt boots with you while wading, boating, fishing, etc. would imply use.
5. Ivan on January 10, 2011 at 2:20 pm said:

   I have no problem with this bill. I look at this as an issue of passive conservation. Wearing rubber soled boots doesn’t require an angler to spend any extra time while helping the preserve and protect a valued resource. Of course, footing may not be as good as with felt, but why not take some extra steps to help protect said valued resources. We have seen what whirling disease can do to the Madison. What if, the Madison was hit with Didymo? That would suck.

   I am a relatively new fly angler, so I haven’t seen industry fads come and go. I know there are some fly fishers who are suspicious of the fly fishing industry and any new gimmicks that may be introduced to make more money. But, when the science supports it, I think it is foolish to think that way.

   Plus, I am a fan of any bill that uses the phrase “prima facie”.
6. admin on January 10, 2011 at 2:41 pm said:

   I concur Ivan. Rubber soles are not the end of sole developement. I don’t think they are a gimmick, but more of a temporary solution.
   Prima Facie Bro!
   -scumliner
7. Fred Telleen on January 10, 2011 at 2:49 pm said:

   Its a no brainer. It would be nice if everyone would voluntarily stop wearing felt, but there will always be a few who will resist (even with the law). Will this solve the problem of invasive species transference? No, but its a step in the right direction and will hopefully make many anglers more aware and vigilant. Kudos to the manufacturers and shops who already made the change.
8. Dave on January 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm said:

   My question is, what are we supposed to do with the old boots once we go to non-felt soles? It seems like a waste to take up space in a landfill with a perfectly good pair of boots. It would seem to be me that companies like Simms et. al should at least have some sort of return program since they aren’t going to offer felt where they recycle them somehow.
9. admin on January 10, 2011 at 3:27 pm said:

   I like it Dave. Maybe some smart guy can run with that idea. Recycled waders maybe?
10. Will on January 11, 2011 at 4:06 am said:

    I am fairly new to the sport of Fly Fishing. If I would have been educated on the whole felt thing by the sales man. I would have gone a different route on boots. I had no idea on the spread of ANS. SO my question is if they make this Law, then people that have bought felt sole boots either should be recoup or get a trade in deal on a pair of new boots. I may sound cheap but they do not give that equipment aawy. I think somebody should start that program for a turn in deal. Just a thought from IRAQ.
11. Biggie on January 11, 2011 at 7:44 am said:

    Stopping the spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) is very very important, however I am concerned that banning felt is on the plate for the wrong reasons. Is this just legislation for a small group of special interest who stand to profit from it, or is it really in the best interest of our fisheries? There are more components to boots than just the bottoms that can spread ANS and I don’t see the manufacturers addressing the materials that the boots are made of nor the laces. It also concerns me that there has to be a provision in the bill to allow for State and Federal employees as well as Emergency personnel to still be allowed to use felt. That provision right there tells us that non felt alternatives are not adequate and that issues with safety on some rivers is a problem with the current non felt alternative. Maybe the manufacturers need to keep working to give us a product that is superior to felt rather than get a free ride with legislation to boost their bottom line!

    Banning felt alone won’t stop the spread of ANS, diligence by all anglers in maintaining their gear is the only way we will keep our fisheries clean. I would prefer to see consumer demand bring us better products, not legislation that can often be directed only by business interest.
12. admin on January 11, 2011 at 8:11 am said:

    Biggie… In principal, it is the best thing for our fisheries. Will it actually do something? That remains to be seen. Both Simms and Korkers have addressed the issue of “the rest of the boot” this season and are coming out with anti-ANS boots using non-porous materials and Boa lacing systems. And yes, they both stand to profit, at least a little.

    The state and fed employee deal is a little weird, I must admit. Have they recently invested in wading boots? Something else? How often do state/fed employees even put on a pair of waders?

    I think anytime you create laws that affect consumer goods, someone stands to gain or lose. MPG requirements don’t favor Detroit. Foreign car makers may behind it or not, and stand to make more money. I don’t really care. Bottom line is that the environment wins.

    Love the debate… keep it comin’.
13. Scientist on January 11, 2011 at 1:15 pm said:

    “The science backs up the fact that felt is by far the method of transport that does the most damage.”

    Does anyone have any peer-reviewed studies or real science that backs this statement up? The studies that I’ve read have reached the opposite conclusion, i.e. felt soles are likely a minuscule potential source of inter-water transfer of ANS, as compared to waterfowl and other birds, boats, etc.
14. admin on January 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm said:

    The study I refer to compares felt to a variety of wader, lace and boot materials. Not birds, waterfowl, etc.
15. admin on January 11, 2011 at 8:07 pm said:

    I’ve added links and more info regarding the research referred to.
16. Biggie on January 12, 2011 at 7:48 am said:

    State and Federal employees that this legislation looks to leave out of the rubber sole issue is our fisheries crews that perform fish surveys each spring and fall. I am not sure what crafts they use for shocking on the Missouri so I can’t comment as to how it would affect the fisheries crews on your home water. On rivers like the Madison, Gallatin and Bighole, they actually walk a drift boat with the shocking gear down the river. I am positive that the stipulation in the felt ban law was put in by request of the shocking crews that work these smaller faster flowing rivers where walking a boat down the river is treacherous. They have tried non felt alternatives that do not work on many of our larger cobbled rivers. Safety for the crews is an issue and if the department deems the non felt soles un- safe for their crews why is it that it is fine for the general public? Will there also be legislation that protects flyshops, lodges, guides and product manufacturers when some one takes a fall because they were required to use non felt and their lawyer sues based on the provision to the felt ban law?

    I am playing devil’s advocate a bit here but I think it needs to be added to the debate so that the final version of the legislation is fair and works to actually help protect our resources, not us from ourselves!

    I also worry that we are legislating ourselves to death with this issue. Won’t we all be better off if the free market principles lead us to better products that are demanded by the consumer, or should the government provide the tools to protect us from ourselves? We hear that side of the debate on many issues and I am not sure that this is not one of those issues where the manufacturers were already on their way to eliminating felt from their offerings, without the over reaching hand of the government.

    I hope the debate continues and that the final legislation is worded a bit differently and more time is given to allow for anglers to adjust to changing their footwear! Thanks for providing this venue for the debate!
17. Adam on January 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm said:

    Simms does have a list of places to resole your boots with a non felt alternative (Vibram) on their website. http://www.simmsfishing.com/site/streamtread.html. I would assume there are more locations out there too.

    I’d much rather pay for $44 (plus labor) for new soles than new boots.

    Although I support the felt ban, I think we need to clean all of our gear each time we leave a body of water to be a completely clean angler.
18. Earl James on January 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm said:

    First off, I would like to echo Biggie’s comment on saying thanks for providing this venue for the debate. Issues that concern the health and conservation of our rivers deserve a lively debate.

    To better educate myself on the topic, in addition to reading blogs here and at TU, I took the time to read all 92 pages of Kiza Gates’ study. I strongly encourage everyone to read her report. After reading many blog comments and responses, I was surprised at what I actually read in one of the most often cited studies.

    First off, out of 106 samples of the 16.78 grams of soil collected from wading boots and waders, 100% tested NEGATIVE (Gates page 47) for the presence of M.cerebralis DNA (whirling disease causative agent). On page 53 she posits that M.cerebralis COULD have been present, but that under her methodology (which she designed for the study) there was a 100% NEGATIVE result. (92% of the boots tested were felt soled, tests were conducted on the Big Horn, Beaverhead, Madison, Missouri, and Yellowstone ).

    Secondly, the single above mentioned New Zealand mud snail from the study was a DEAD mud snail. (Although the zebra mussel viability outside of water was noted at 4 days, none was given for the NZ mud snail).

    Thirdly, in the section specifically relating to felt, here are her words: “The potential for felt to carry even small numbers of myxospores suggests that introduction of m. cerebralis by anglers is possible although the processes necessary to release myxospores from felt were not explored in this study. Many unanswered questions remain regarding the transport vectors and conditions necessary for the proliferation of M. cerebralis.”

    Immediately after this sentence, she concludes her paper with this statement: “However, transport of the parasite on angling equipment materials is possible and I recommend the use of rubber soled wading boots over felt soled boots in M.cerebralis infected drainages.”

    The NET result of her seemingly thorough study was that she found ZERO evidence of ANS species being transported by felt, rubber, gore-tex, or neoprene. I found it unprofessional of her to editorialize (she recommended showing a video before purchase of a Montana fishing license, in addition to the rubber over felt comment) on subjects that were not proved (if anything they were 100% disproved) within the scope of her paper.

    So what does this mean? I’m willing to entertain the idea that anglers and our equipment are a vector for the spread of ANS. However, I certainly can’t conclude on the basis of this paper that we now require legislation to completely ban felt on Montana rivers. This research is in its infancy, and a lot more work and data is needed before we start passing legislation.

    I am encouraged that the topic has generated so much discussion, our Rivers will benefit from an engaged discussion.
19. Rod on January 12, 2011 at 7:41 pm said:

    I hope a little common sense will prevail here. Don’t jump on a bandwagon because it appears to be the right thing to do. We may later realize we weren’t even close to being correct.

    Are we going to decon all driftboats and trailers everytime they go to a different river (not to say anything about the waterfowl)?
20. admin on January 12, 2011 at 8:43 pm said:

    I want to thank everyone for comments posted here. We’re all smarter for reading. I started this, and now will throw my 2 cents worth in.

    I have seen Bob Wiltshire’s (CANS) presentation twice, and recommend that everyone read the entire Gates study. I also recommend that if you get the chance to hear his presentation, take it. The biggest thing I took away from the study is the amount of material moved around and between Montana, Idaho and Wyoming every day.

    As for the safety of felt, I have been wearing rubber soles for over ten years (with no studs) and it has taught me one thing. You learn to wade differently in rubber. I have waded nasty rivers like the Grand Ronde, Big Hole, Madison and dozens of Steelhead rivers in BC and Vancouver Island in rubber. After years of wading I can’t even tell the difference. I think I just learned to bend my knees a little more.

    The future of wading soles is temporary. Vibram and other non-felt soles are just a stopping point. I have no doubt that we will see several replacements before it is all over. All will address ANS prevention, and the winners will provide better grip than felt.

    I’m a pretty black and white guy, and believe that you’re on one side or the other. To me, banning felt is a vote to support efforts to prevent the spread of ANS. Do I believe it will really do anything? Probably not. But it won’t hurt, and it’s my vote to help prevent the spread of ANS.

    Speaking with several people at the heart of the issue over the last few days, I heard one common theme. A felt ban may be the best chance to educate anglers that have ignored the issue we’ve ever had.

    Thanks to all for commenting, and good luck fishing, felt or not.

    John Arnold (scumliner)
    Headhunters
21. Ivan on January 13, 2011 at 2:55 pm said:

    From my 30 minute reading of the thesis, there are a couple important things that should be noted.

    There are two separate, related, but definitely separate sub-studies that are directly applicable to this discussion.

    (1) The first study is titled “MOVEMENT PATTERNS AND SOIL TRANSPORT BY RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT ANGLERS IN SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA” and begins on page 18. In this study, soil samples are being collected from resident and non-resident anglers on the Beaverhead, Bighorn, Madison, Missouri, Yellowstone, and Gallatin. Based on the results of this study, I think we, in Montana, should feel pretty lucky. She simply found that in all 106 soil samples collected from anglers, M. cerebralis (whirling disease) myxospores were not detected. The fact that whirling disease myxospores were not found in the soil samples does not prove or disprove that whirling disease cannot be transferred by felt, rubber, or neoprene. It simply means that none of the subjects selected were transferring whirling disease through their wading equipment. This result is completely separate from the conclusion that Earl implies is unprofessional and she treats it as such. Also, the study only looked at whirling disease. Any other ANSs, for example didymo, were no addressed directly by this study.

    (2) (AND THE MOST IMPORTANT PART) The second study begins on page 55 in Chapter 3 and is titled: “ADHERENCE OF MYXOBOLUS CEREBRALIS MYXOSPORES (OR WHIRLING DISEASE) TO WADING EQUIPMENT MATERIALS.” In this study, she addresses the ability of myxospores to adhere to four common wading materials (in this case, rubber, neoprene, felt, and lightweight). The surface patterns of these materials were analyzed by comparing the mean interstitial space size and the relative frequency of larger interstitial spaces of each material. It was found that felt has the largest mean interstitial space size and the highest relative frequency of larger interstitial spaces. Rubber – the smallest and lowest (SEE PG 63). Then, each material, was treated with a solution containing 20,000 myxospores. The recovery of these myxospores was measured for each material. The higher the recovery, the fewer myxospores trapped by the treated material. The highest percent myxospore recoveries came from rubber. The mean percent recovery of myxospore for felt was zero, which implies that felt trapped all myxospores. She was clear that this study doesn’t address all of the issues including the fact that “the processes necessary to release myxospores from felt were not explored in this study”. That being said, I think based on the results of this study, the statement that “I recommend the use of rubber soled wading boots over felt soled boots in M. cerebralis (whirling disease) infected drainages.” is completely reasonable and is based on what appears to be very sound science.

    sorry for the novel above. i got carried away.
22. Ivan on January 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm said:

    It should also be noted, that the size of these larger interstitial spaces (<9 um) mentioned in chapter 3 is important. Interstitial spaces greater than 9 um could potentially trap myxospores within the material fibers when exposed. Which is why, the relative frequency of larger interstitial spaces serves as a good measure of myxospores ability to adhere to a a material.

23. Pingback: Montana, Oregon Join States Already Considering Felt Sole Ban (or, You’ll Use Rubber And Like It…) | The Trout Underground Fly Fishing Blog

24. Pingback: Montana, Oregon Join States Already Considering Felt Sole Ban (or, You’ll Use Rubber And Like It…) | Fishing Stories and Supplies

25. bozeman fishing guide on January 31, 2011 at 12:48 pm said:

    This will hurt in the pocket book for anyone that just bought some newer felt bottom boots, but if the science backs it up it is worth eating the cost. Whirling disease had a huge negative impact on both recreational enjoyment and local economies in places like Ennis that depend on fly fishing tourism dollars. Although removing felt from the equation will not solve the problem, it might make it better. I have been wearing the new boots (Simms brand) for over two years. They aren’t quite as grippy as felt but are pretty close. They are also way better in the winter and don’t ice up the way felt does. My guess is that this bill will pass in Montana since opposing it will appear as a lack of regard for the health of our wild trout rivers and I don’t see to many people willing to take that political risk.

26. Pingback: Montana Felt Sole Wading Boot Ban- SB230 — Willfishforwork.com

27. DAVID DRYER on May 14, 2012 at 2:03 am said:

    Indeed a great post, Apart from this I want to spend holiday at river side & with fishing experience. One of my colleagues suggested Kenai river fishing is the best place & http://www.bobscabin.com is World Famous Kenai River Fishing Lodge. So any opinion about them is greatly appreciated.