As I’m writing this, a bill that would ban felt-soled waders is sitting on Vermont Governor Jim Douglas’s desk. If he signs it – and there’s no indication that he won’t – Vermont will become the second state in the US, after Alaska, to ban these boots.
Fisherman love felt soles because they provide exceptional purchase on slimy river rocks. Unfortunately, the felt has a habit of staying wet for a long time, even though it can seem perfectly dry to an angler. It also traps dirt and silt. This makes it a Petri dish and a conduit by which aquatic invasives – including rock snot (didymo), whirling disease, and invasive plants – can spread from one stream to another. (To learn more about rock snot, check out the story we did on the subject.)
There seems to be broad support for the ban. Trout Unlimited, with its “no felts by 2011” policy, has been a driving force in legislative efforts around the country. More locally, the Vermont Traditions Coalition, a group who advocates on hunting and fishing issues, also supports the measure. The fishermen I talked to directly were none too happy about having to replace their boots, but all of them saw the need to do their part.
I spoke with Tom Ciardelli at Hanover Outdoors about alternative styles of boot, and he says that the new models feature rubber soles with metal studs added to them. On average, he said that the boots are slightly more expensive than their felt counterparts. He also stressed that they’re not a magic bullet – the rubber is less conducive to invasive spread, but it still has treads, and can still spread didymo. He gives away a free 5-gallon bucket with every pair of waders, and encourages fisherman to use bleach baths to sterilize their boots after every outing.
Ciardelli no longer sells felt boots, saying “it’s the right thing to do,” and reports that he hasn’t experienced much, if any, negative reaction from his customers. Some guides were upset that the metal studs on the new boots were marking up their canoes, but this is being worked out.
The counterarguments I do hear against the felt sole ban are pretty tepid. Troll the fishing message boards and you’ll find a few folks playing the public safety card, though I’m old-school enough that this just seems silly to me.
It is fair to wonder if, in the big picture, this added level of bureaucracy will have any lasting effect, since felt soles are far from the only way that aquatic invasives are spread. This gets into a broader question that can be applied to all of our invasive battles – namely, what battles are worth fighting, and when do we cut our losses? While driving recently, we’ve probably all noticed stooped landowners diligently pulling the chervil along their road frontages, only to crest the hill and find impossibly large swaths of the plant on an apathetic neighbors parcel.
Here at Northern Woodlands we recognize that there’s a hunger for answers to these know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em questions, and we’re actively looking for test cases where invasives control worked, and where it didn’t. When we find good answers, we’ll report them.
In the meantime, I’ll open the floor to you guys on this. Is the felt sole ban justified? Or is the horse already out of the barn? Are you a glass-is-half-empty person when it comes to invasive control efforts – if so, which invasives, specifically? Or do we have an ethical obligation as environmental stewards to battle these plants on every front, wherever we find them?
Where’s the line?
Discussion *