# Wet wading...Yes or No?



## ohiotuber (Apr 15, 2004)

Here in Ohio, it's been a very hot summer & many are wet wading. Hot as it may be, I am NOT one of those. As a kid (50-55 years ago) I did, but no more. In my opinion, there are just too many potential hazards, including bacteria & debris to take that chance. I guess I look at it like carrying a wading staff or wearing a good hat....It only takes ONE time of needing that protection & not having it available to result in illness, injury, or possibly even death. 
Just curious as to others' practices.
Another interesting side of this is how many years you have fished (ANY type fishing) along with your opinion about wet wading.
I have avidly fished for over 55 years..wet wading?..No.
The subject of wet wading came up on another thread here & I just figured it may make for interesting discussion.
Mike


----------



## Patricio (Feb 2, 2007)

some streams are worse than others. depends on the stream and rain situation. mostly fished out east where the rivers are quite clean. grand, chagrin... then I moved to the west side, and find everything out here gross. went wet wading last summer on the rocky, and the river smelled like a chemical spill. even the lake around here stinks.


----------



## jhammer (Jun 13, 2011)

I've wet waded all of my life. Born and raised in the rivers around here. Tennis shoes and shorts and I'm good to go. I just can't seem to justify spending $$$ on extra-large waders and stuff that I don't need. For the price of waders that would actually fit me halfway decent, I could buy a nice new fly rod or several new fly lines.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

ohiotuber said:


> Here in Ohio, it's been a very hot summer & many are wet wading. Hot as it may be, I am NOT one of those. As a kid (50-55 years ago) I did, but no more. In my opinion, there are just too many potential hazards, including bacteria & debris to take that chance. I guess I look at it like carrying a wading staff or wearing a good hat....It only takes ONE time of needing that protection & not having it available to result in illness, injury, or possibly even death.
> Just curious as to others' practices.
> Another interesting side of this is how many years you have fished (ANY type fishing) along with your opinion about wet wading.
> I have avidly fished for over 55 years..wet wading?..No.
> ...


I think your drive to the river is probably several orders of magnitude more dangerous than actually wet wading in it.


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

I used to swim in a creek next to the rail road tracks in Akron when I was a kid catching crawdads! I know not the brightest thing I could have done but not issues that I know of. I have wet waded the cuyahoga several time below the WWTP and above it no issues! I have wet waded the LMR and the GMR and no issues and those rivers are a mess! O yea an lastly I have wet waded in the Ohio for the last 6 years and no related issues! I work in the crap industry for the last 4 years. I come into contact with everything you flush down the toilet and guess what no issues either!..lol.. Now granted I wear the appropriate PPE but still!


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2011)

i prefer not to.


----------



## fredg53 (Sep 17, 2010)

Your chances of drowning from your wafers filling up with water are greater than anything bad from wet wading I have wet waded all my life no worries 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

fredg53 said:


> Your chances of drowning from your wafers filling up with water are greater


I believe that whole waders filling with water danger is a myth. Numerous people have tested it, by diving into water or swimming pools with waders on. 

Think about it: does the water inside the waders weigh more than the water surrounding you outside of your waders?


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

Andrew S said:


> I believe that whole waders filling with water danger is a myth. Numerous people have tested it, by diving into water or swimming pools with waders on.
> 
> Think about it: does the water inside the waders weigh more than the water surrounding you outside of your waders?


The water does weight 7 lbs per gallon, but the other problem is the air thats potentially trapped in your waders! I have never had a problem with my limited experience!


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

I wet wade all the time, but I do a lot more wade fishing in WV in the mountains than I do here in Ohio. Here around home, I fish more lakes and ponds with my kayak than I do walking stream banks and fishing moving water. In WV, I have zero worries about wet wading in warm weather. It's generally hot, and having cool mountain water running over your legs just plain feels good. 

The way I generally look at it, if you're that concerned about being in the water, what is next? Sanitary gloves to keep you from touching the fish? Carrying hand sanitizer with you so you can sterilize after every 10 minutes of fly casting? Just because you're wearing waders doesn't mean you're not in contact with the water. Sure, it's less contact, but it's still contact. 

I don't know how germophobes function in normal society!


----------



## copperdon (Jun 3, 2011)

I've been fishing for over forty years, and if the water is warm enough, I'll wet-wade no problem.

Yeah, it does depend on the body of water - can't say I would wet-wade _every_ body of water I've fished, but have no hesitation doing so at Mohican, Apple, Nimisila, West Branch, Cuyahoga, The Clarion, Tinonesta, The Allegheny...

I've never encountered any problems with infection, itching, etc.

There have been times that I won't wet-wade - if there have been warnings issued for blue/green algae, or high bacteria content - but at that point I'm probably not gonna fish there in waders , either.

I was fishing in Colorado a few years back on a few streams where there were several fishing guides with clients - those guys were _bad_ - they were stepping into 60 degree streams wearing nothing but bicycle shorts....oh man....


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

"Sure, it's less contact, but it's still contact"

It would be like being a little pregnant ..lol..


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

copperdon said:


> I've been fishing for over forty years, and if the water is warm enough, I'll wet-wade no problem.
> 
> Yeah, it does depend on the body of water - can't say I would wet-wade _every_ body of water I've fished, but have no hesitation doing so at Mohican, Apple, Nimisila, West Branch, Cuyahoga, The Clarion, Tinonesta, The Allegheny...
> 
> ...




with there stones in their throat..lol..


----------



## Patricio (Feb 2, 2007)

Andrew S said:


> I believe that whole waders filling with water danger is a myth. Numerous people have tested it, by diving into water or swimming pools with waders on.
> 
> Think about it: does the water inside the waders weigh more than the water surrounding you outside of your waders?


the waders will cause considerable drag if trying to swim to shore. and theres a huge difference between a pool and moving water that actually has power behind it.



copperdon said:


> I was fishing in Colorado a few years back on a few streams where there were several fishing guides with clients - those guys were _bad_ - they were stepping into 60 degree streams wearing nothing but bicycle shorts....oh man....


I wet wade up north in summer, waters usually in the 50s. used to wet wade in winter, once your legs go numb youre fine. but now I have arthritis in my knees and Ive not yet seen 40. think its because of years of icy water.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

I've taken a dive with waders on. Think "wind sock". Coupled with deeper water & I'd have been history.



I stopped wet wading when my legs swelled up twice their normal size from poison ivy & bug bites. I was wet wading every day, sometimes twice a day...for months. After a bunch of steroids it cleared up...only to return once I went back to wading. 

Went to waders & my legs healed quickly. I know of more than one spot on the river where you can literally see what was flushed down the toilet about 100' U 30 seconds after it was flushed.


I'm not so much scared of contracting something as I don't like to HAVE to shower when I get done fishing. Examples... Late at night, or today when I fish @ lunch. I don't have to sit with sewage on my legs for the remainder of the work day.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

Patricio said:


> the waders will cause considerable drag if trying to swim to shore. and theres a huge difference between a pool and moving water that actually has power behind it.


This is a different issue from the waders filling with water and "pulling you under like an anchor", as one often hears. And in any case, I'm still not convinced the net danger from waders is greater than going without. I've read a lot of discussions about this, including many first hand accounts from people, and typically they describe being basically as neutrally buoyant as without waders, and they flow the current and swim to shore. Getting out onto dry land with that water in the waders is tough, but by then you're hopefully safe. Most describe the effect of the boots as being the most notable thing. 

(But I also still maintain that driving to the river is more dangerous than the contact with water you'll get wading, wet or with waders!)

Here's one article published a few years ago addressing this (a New Jersey paper, maybe??).



"Tuesday, June 06, 2006 BY FRED J. AUN

For the Star-Ledger
The death of a Montville fisherman on Saturday is a tragic reminder that fishing can be dangerous, but it shouldn't be seen as proof that waders are unsafe.

Nobody really knows what happened to Justin Everrett except that the 44-year-old angler drowned near the junction of the rain-swollen Beaverkill and Willow Weemoc rivers in Roscoe, N.Y. It's not that nobody was there to see it: four of the Morris County residents' friends watched in horror.

They saw him slip while crossing a 75-foot-wide part of the stream and they saw him get swept to a place where the depth suddenly increases drastically -- going from about two feet deep to about 16 feet.


But here is where we encounter a problem, an assumption unfortunately based on a tenacious myth. Some are saying it was Everrett's engorged waders that killed him. Consider one news report, where the writer -- citing a New York State Police investigator -- wrote that "Everrett's chest waders filled with water and, like anchors, pulled him down. ..."


If waders turn into "anchors" when filled with water, the angling community might have lost one of the 20th Century's greatest trout fishing icons -- Lee Wulff -- long before his death in 1991 at the age of 86. In the 1940s, Wulff gathered some outdoors writers and staged a somewhat famous demonstration designed to dispel the myth about waders morphing into lethal anchors or, conversely, into balloons of trapped air that flip anglers onto their submerged heads.

Wulff slipped into his waders and jumped off a bridge (in February) into about 30 feet of water. His waders quickly filled to the brim, but Wulff didn't sink like the Titanic or float feet-first like a bobber. He simply swam to shore.

Despite Wulff's gallant attempt at dispelling it, the myth of killer waders survives. A report in the Great Falls Tribune of Montana described the November 2005 drowning death of an angler named Benson who slipped in the Missouri River while trying to release a fish. "The chest-high waders that Benson was wearing filled with water and pulled him under," said the paper.

In a stream situation, there are a few seconds when water rushing into waders can cause an angler to lose balance. But Wulff tried to show that once the waders are full, the water inside them is no heavier than the water in the stream and they're pretty much irrelevant to an angler's ability to survive.
If an angler can swim without waders, he or she can probably swim with them. Those who can't swim should avoid wading or use inflatable vests. And everybody should be using a wading stick, especially in fast water.
The real danger, aside from hitting heads on rocks and losing consciousness, is panic. Often, those unaccustomed to swimming in moving water flail, fight the current and succumb.
Note what the investigator said happened when two of Everrett's friends tried to save him: "The current was too strong. They had to back off." Even if it's only two feet deep, strong current can kill you, waders or not. "


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

THEY'S A PERCH IN THERE!


----------



## copperdon (Jun 3, 2011)

> Nobody really knows what happened to Justin Everrett except that the 44-year-old angler drowned near the junction of the *rain-swollen *Beaverkill and Willow Weemoc rivers in Roscoe, N.Y.
> They saw him slip while crossing a 75-foot-wide part of the stream and they saw him get swept to a place where the depth suddenly increases drastically -- *going from about two feet deep to about 16 feet.*
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=181564#ixzz1VU1zwg1L


Sounds like a dangerous situation to begin with, waders or no waders.

Common sense has to prevail at some point - it becomes less about waders vs wet wading and more about why you would want to get into a situation like that to begin with.

I remember many years back having a rare weekend off come up on my schedule and decided to head to a few of my favorite stream haunts in PA.
I had checked the weather for that area, and while I saw that they did indeed get some heavy rain, decided to chance it anyway. (This was in the day before you could log onto a site and get almost any stream depth)...

I drove three hours, got to the stream, took one look at the level and conditions, turned right around and went back home. It's just not worth risking your safety for a few fish.

Like most here, I absolutely _live_ for fishing...but I'm certainly not gonna _die _for it.


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

fallen513 said:


> I've taken a dive with waders on. Think "wind sock". Coupled with deeper water & I'd have been history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


About a month ago I had a fresh one on my leg on my hip boots "irony" and i ate my lunch and two other people started to dry heave ..lol..


----------



## fish on! (Oct 15, 2009)

I've wet waded all my life. I like the feel of the flowing water.

And so far, no Cooties.











Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## bronzebackyac (Apr 19, 2005)

Ive waded with and without. My only consideration is the temp of the water and the air when doing so. If I don't need waders, I go without. I don't wade in nasty streams and when I do wear waders, i wear a belt to keep water out if I do fall. I've been wading, swiming and swinging on rope swings for years with no problems. You just have to use good judgement.


----------



## Patricio (Feb 2, 2007)

Andrew S said:


> This is a different issue from the waders filling with water and "pulling you under like blah blah blah.
> 
> "


wow, you found one ridiculous article. 

generations have known the dangers of chest waders, thankfully you miraculously know better because of one article.

It's a tragic story. William Hulme of Battersea, south London, had taken his wife on a salmon-fishing trip to Norway. She was fishing on the opposite bank, and he saw her slip into the river. Hulme tried to attract nearby anglers as her chest-high waders filled with water. In a vain attempt to save her, he pulled off his own waders and plunged into the river. Though she was a good swimmer, she had disappeared under the surface by then.

Dr Paul Knapman, the Westminster coroner, recording a verdict of accidental death, said: "As the angling season gets busier, the public and anglers should be aware of the dangers of wearing chest-high waders. For safety, some anglers commonly have a belt tied around their chests. Apparently, some people wear life-jackets as well."

google: chest waders dangerous


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

Well we wear chest waders not to wade up to our chests! There are some anglers out there that wade deeper than they need too! These are also the ppl that are normally asking for trouble come December!


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2011)

wading belts are inexpensive. i started wading in the early 70s and have little problems, in fact only once in some nasty, sucking mud and once crossing the grand. along with a wading belt, a bit of common sense or logic helps.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

Patricio said:


> wow, you found one ridiculous article.
> 
> generations have known the dangers of chest waders, thankfully you miraculously know better because of one article.
> 
> ...


Actually, I've googled this a lot, and found, as would you, that there is a lot of discussion about how many misconceptions there are about the dangers. It's got nothing to do with one article - the reason that particular article was helpful is that it pointed out that newspaper articles that simply report that the waders were "the cause" really have no basis to say that. The bystanders say it, then the reporters report it. This happens all the time, with all sorts of subjects.

The problem is that people who fall into rivers and drown very often ARE wearing waders, because people who fall into cold moving water are often fishermen. That doesn't mean that without waders they would have survived.

There are a lot of things that "generations have known" that have no basis in truth. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc don't make it so.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

The idea that your waders are going to fill with water and drag you down in deep standing water is just a myth. Unless you happen to have lead boots you'll remain more or less neutrally buoyant in the water. They won't make you sink.

However, in current (which is basically where you are likely to be wading) the large surface area of the waders causes considerable drag, and there is a real possibility of being pulled in.

As far as it goes, I figure my immune system is supercharged after wet wading the past couple of years. When it's hot, it's a nice way to fish. I have waders and appreciate the benefits, but I'm a situation where I need boots, but have no money. Maybe later this year...


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

Why is the sky blue?


----------



## fish on! (Oct 15, 2009)

steelheader007 said:


> Why is the sky blue?


Makes it easier to locate "up" when you're drunk.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

Lee Wulff on waders:


----------



## LilSiman/Medina (Nov 30, 2010)

I went to apple creek last week and wet waded the whole time. Went to the black 2 days ago and was... wearing chest waders! No more wet wading for me. It's not worth the cut up sahins from all the debri. My shins were realy bad irritated and I just couldn't do it anymore.


----------



## jhammer (Jun 13, 2011)

I wet wade the Maumee and Auglaize Rivers and I'm fine. I've never had anything happen as far as infection or anything. I don't like waders because I HAVE had them fill. Even with a belt.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

There are opinions & then there are facts.



Fact, when your waders fill with water, you will not be able to stay afloat...which is fairly important when it comes to surviving. 

You don't sink like a rock, however you immediately weigh X amount times heavier because you now have X amount of water "attached" to you. Aside from acting like a drift sock & DEFINITELY pulling you down river, you will also go under because you are no longer buoyant enough (God help you if you exhale)

This is from personal experience, not conjecture. If you think you can put a pair of chest waders, boots & clothing on, hop in a 10' deep pool, go to the bottom & swim back up... you'll be dead before you realize you're wrong.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Another perspective: Have you ever tried to tread water for a long period of time? It requires _work _to stay afloat. That work becomes too strenuous at times for people in normal clothing. Big bubbly hammer-pants full of water & you're a dead man.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

fallen513 said:


> If you think you can put a pair of chest waders, boots & clothing on, hop in a 10' deep pool, go to the bottom & swim back up... you'll be dead before you realize you're wrong.


I have my weekend project!  (Seriously!)

Here's another account, by somebody who did the swimming pool experiment:

http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/killerwader.shtml


It's clear that there are a lot of opinions on the matter out there. Some guy named Lee Wulff didn't just express his, he tested it. From what I understand, he had some experience with fly fishing, waders, etc. Some guy named Frank Daignault has also spent a of time trying to dispel this idea. A lot of people have told me they have either seen or heard about waders pulling or holding people under, or experienced it themselves. For the reasons I explained before, it's not always easy to implicate the waders in these cases.

I, respectfully, remain unconvinced. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the pool.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

It's easy to get convinced, Andrew.  Take the belt off your waders & get in the deep end. 







With a friend.


----------



## fish on! (Oct 15, 2009)

fallen513 said:


> It's easy to get convinced, Andrew.  Take the belt off your waders & get in the deep end.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who owns a camera.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

fish on! said:


> Who owns a camera.


I do. 

My pool is not deep enough for me to do this "properly", but I will be able to get completely under water, and fill my waders completely. Luckily, I have two pairs because if I survive, I intend to go fishing tomorrow, and I like them dry.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

Just got out of the pool.

No problem. Filled the breathables completely with water. It's like swimming with wet clothes on. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: OK, now I'm dried off and can report in detail.

I put my breathables on and waded into the pool, then submerged myself to make sure they were completely full of water. I didn't wear a belt, and made sure to squeeze as much air out as I could. I wasn't wearing wading boots because I was afraid the studs would harm the pool, but in fact, this is the proper test anyway, since we're talking about the effect of water in the waders, not the effect of the boots.

What was noticeable immediately to me is that until the waders fill, I got some immediate buoyancy. With a belt, which would slow the intake of water, this buoyancy might actually give me a significant benefit that going wader-less would not.

Once the waders fill, I noticed no sense at all of being "pulled down". There was a slight effect of buoyancy from the neoprene stocking feet, but that was pretty minor. What it felt like to me was simply that I was swimming around in slightly baggy, completely wet clothes. They don't "balloon out", but once the water is in, the tend not to be pushed up against my legs either. They're just there, like a pair of wet cotton sweat pants.

I swam to the bottom of the pool, but bobbed right back to the surface.

Getting out of the pool to my waist was easy, but once the water-filled part of the waders was above the pool's water line, they were very heavy. I didn't want to tear the suspenders, so I went back in and took them off.

No current in my pool, of course, but with respect to the idea that water-filled waders, per se, cause some sort of negative buoyancy problem: now, as before, I'm completely unconvinced.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

Science!!!

Nice work!


----------



## jhammer (Jun 13, 2011)

Now, how about a pair of those big rubber waders? Those are what nearly did me in.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

jhammer said:


> Now, how about a pair of those big rubber waders? Those are what nearly did me in.


They'd fill with the same amount of water, no matter what they're made of.


----------



## fish on! (Oct 15, 2009)

Andrew S, your dedication, in pursuit of the truth astounds me. I am in total awe, you sir are my new hero!


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

fish on! said:


> Andrew S, your dedication, in pursuit of the truth astounds me. I am in total awe, you sir are my new hero!


It was only a matter of time.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

nitsud said:


> Science!!!
> 
> Nice work!


Here's my lab report:

[ame="http://vimeo.com/27923944"]http://vimeo.com/27923944[/ame]


----------



## BigRed (Jun 19, 2008)

Personally, I dry wade all the time. I have an approx. 2' wide wading belt and I keep it snug. I have breathable for summer and neoprene for winter. I've donea few "face plants" and stumbles over the years. The wading belt has always kept me from "filling my waders". I use stocking foot and wear ankle high wading boots. Nothing fancy. Waders also help when scrambling down banks and "wading" through deep weeds and brush.

Also, never ever wade without a folding wading stick. It's saved me from sucking mud, deep drops in muddy water, and crossing fast current. 

maybe it's just me ...


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

Dude, you were right on the verge of dying! 

I have a degree in physics, so I'm qualified to weigh in on this one (and flip burgers). The critical thing in terms of buoyancy isn't how much mass you have to carry around with you (weight), it's your density (weight/volume). People are mostly water, so our density is approximately that of water. Adding a bunch of water to a person doesn't significantly change the density of that person. Now, if you're trying to swim, you have to accelerate all that extra mass, as well as overcome all that additional drag from the wind sock effect. That's not easy, and the wind sock effect depends (to first order) on the square of the current speed, so it would probably be the dominant effect for even moderate currents.

Uhhh, science!!! Say it again, science!!! Anyone need a burger?


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

You also have to keep in mind that whether this wind sock (or maybe drift anchor or sea anchor, which is what we use on the boat, is the better term) effect actually comes into play depends on more than just the current. A windsock is anchored at one end, and is specifically designed to do its thing by opening and staying open.

Although it's possible a person could fall into fast current, face upstream "just so", and grab onto something solid, therefore filling the waders and creating a human drift sock, this is not the scenario that seems most likely to me, and is not the scenario most (actually any, that I'm aware of) people who fall into moving water in waders describe. If you keep your wits about you, you point your feet downstream to deflect your impact in case you hit a rock, until you get to water you can swim or walk out of.

I can create a hypothetical scenario where the waders would be a death trap, but I can do the same for the seat belt in my car. But, I still put my seatbelt on when I drive to the river, and my waders on when I get to it.

I've been having this discussion on another board simultaneously, and there's a lot of stories about "somebody who drowned with waders on", but again, this doesn't tell you anything about why they drowned. Those same people might have been carrying a half dozen size 18 Griffith's Gnats - doesn't establish cause and effect, though.


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

Andrew S said:


> Just got out of the pool.
> 
> No problem. Filled the breathables completely with water. It's like swimming with wet clothes on. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> ...


Now hire some divers and go in a river thats moving about 35 cf/s and lets see the results!


----------



## steelheader007 (Apr 8, 2004)

Andrew S said:


> Just got out of the pool.
> 
> No problem. Filled the breathables completely with water. It's like swimming with wet clothes on. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> ...


..lol...your the man plain and simple! Now if you can prove to me that bears really do poo in the woods!..lol seriously thanks for doing the study This helps new ppl who have not worn waders!


----------



## jhammer (Jun 13, 2011)

Andrew S said:


> They'd fill with the same amount of water, no matter what they're made of.



I see what you mean now. I think what happened in my wader experience was that the waders were so big and bulky that it was difficult to get my bearings. Plus, it's hard to swim when you don't have a lot of movement lol!


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

A question: Are you more or less buoyant when wearing waders (and the rest of your gear) 

I am not debating that the water "weighs" you down. It does increase the amount of work you have to do to stay afloat. Surely you agree, especially after treading water in what I hope were full waders. 

Was it easier or more difficult to tread water? 

My opinion is that is harder to swim with full waders than it is with no waders, & "if" there is a contributing factor to drowning associated with full waders, that's it. 




Am I wrong?


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

The vast majority of humans are negatively buoyant. 


We sink. So the question is, does adding a bunch of gear, or even just the waders...increase or decrease our buoyancy? 

That's getting down to the basics & removing things like "making it harder to swim". That's a pretty straightforward way to look at it.


I can honestly say I feel _more_ buoyant while wearing them _without water in them_, because I obviously am. I'm displacing much more water. 


All that positive buoyancy is immediately relieved when the waders are "full", leaving nothing but the dead weight of wet clothing. (and boots in reality, plus whatever other gear you might have strapped around your neck) 



Ok, fine. You drown, THEN you sink like a rock.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Enough neoprene in 'em & you can use them as a PFD!


----------



## fontinalis (Mar 29, 2011)

i am choosing not to participate in the killer wader debate.

However i will throw some opinions into the pot

Last summer I worked for the NPS on the gulf oil spill, on the barrier islands off of the coast of mississppi. Prior to the first day nobody had told me that the deck boats do not land on the beach, they anchor offshore and you have to wade to shore. When we neared the island everyone on the bp crew started pulling hip boots out of a deck box and started putting them on. I was in uniform, and did not want to fill my boots with muck and wear them all day rotting my feet away. So like the hillbilly i am i shed my boots and rolled up my pants. They also neglected to tell me that the bottom is not sand, but organic march muck instead. So about 3 steps in i step on a razor sharp oyster shell about an inch under the mud, and slid my foot across it for another 10-12" I felt it, but what the hell are you supposed to do, if you stop moving you get stuck. So i finished walking to shore then did a damage assesment. I had gouged an 1/8" thick groove in the arch of my foot completely across from the left to right side. It was FULL of the most putrid, rotten, shark **** slime i have ever walked in. I was thinking great, now i am going to get gangrene and have to cut my damn foot off. I had a basic first aid kit in my bag to i washed it out with sea water, put some bacitracin on it, wrapped in gauze and duct tape. Then went to work, on a hot island, wet sweaty, sandy, bloody feet for 14 hours. When i got to my hotel that night i scrubbed it out, bandaged it back up and finished my month long detail. upon arriving home all i had was a thin pink scar. The whole point of the story is that i had nasty rotten crap inside my foot, with minimal care, and it never got infected. After that, stinky water just doesnt scare me anymore. I wet wade every chance i get.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

jhammer said:


> I see what you mean now. I think what happened in my wader experience was that the waders were so big and bulky that it was difficult to get my bearings. Plus, it's hard to swim when you don't have a lot of movement lol!


I really think the whole disorientation effect of falling in probably plays a big part in the problems people have when they go in with waders. Think about it like this. Most people who find themselves in deep, cold, flowing water didn't choose to go swimming - they were fishermen, who fell in, and they're in waders. But when most of us choose to go swimming, we are in warmer, calmer, often shallower water, under conditions that have nothing to do with panic, and we're not wearing waders. So, the waders are just one of the things that are different between these two situations, but people attribute the drowning to the waders and not the other factors.


Now, all that said, those big old rubber waders ARE heavier than lightweight breathables and not buoyant like neoprene. I have read that the significant weight of those old rubber waders could actually increase your density (see nitsud's post below). Although I don't know if that's true, I could believe it. They aren't exactly a diver's weight belt, but they are heavy - I had a pair for years. Lord, how awful they were!


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

fallen -

Lot of questions there, some of which I think I alluded to in my earlier post, some not. See if I can get in a quick response before my kids start screaming for cereal...

(Out of curiosity, where'd you get the figure about the vast majority of people being negatively buoyant? My understanding is that a) it varies a lot from person to person, with women, "chubbier" people, and kids being more buoyant than lean folks, and b) the effect depends a lot on the water, with human buoyancy being quite a bit higher in sea (salt) water.)

Anyway...

I think it's impossible to make any blanket statements about whether a person becomes more or less buoyant when wearing a bunch of gear, because it obviously depends on the materials. Some, like neoprene, have closed cells so they are positively buoyant even when wet. Others will be positively buoyant because of the air trapped in various pockets (tiny air pockets, and the big "air pocket" of the waders before they take in water, etc.), but as they become water-logged they will lose this added "air effect", and then it depends on the materials. So, for example, old waders made of very dense rubber might have the same effect of a pocket full of rocks once all the air is gone and they're full of water (see my reply to jhammer). Breathables, or other fairly lightweight clothes are probably still fairly close to neutral buoyancy when wet (this was certainly my impression in the pool, and other times when I've swam with shirts on, etc.). If water-soaked clothes are slightly negatively buoyant, then each piece of clothing will obviously start to add up, but whether there's a significant effect, in the end, I can't say. Even if so, one could easily argue that the waders are then no different than the other stuff - which is exactly why I wear my waders, but no shirt, vest, skivvies, or hat 

There was little doubt, at all, that before my waders took in water completely, they helped me float. Once full, was it harder to tread water with full waders on than with nothing on? Of course it was, for the basic reasons you mention before (the added water resistance - but no noticeable buoyancy change). But again, even the added effect of increased drag while treading was negligible, and would apply to any extra clothes (shirt, wading jacket, etc). In the context of this discussion and the vast, vast majority of what you read out there though, this effect is not at all part of the "killer wader myth". It's always about waders "pulling you under", or some version of that (and sometimes about the other myth that the air in the waders will bob you up feet first, and you'll drown from that).

So, my take on breathables is this: before the water gets, you get a buoyancy benefit. With a good wading belt, you will extend the length of time you have for this benefit, and I think it could definitely be long enough to be a real help to somebody trying to get back on a boat, out of the rapids to slow water, etc.

Once the breathables are completely full of water (and I don't know that they would in fact get 100% full in most cases - I made sure of it in my "experiment"), then they will have a negative effect, because of water resistance (not buoyancy, because this is so minor).

And all this ignores that even full, wet waders are going to be better at insulating you against cold water than having no waders on at all. If you were somehow to find yourself clinging to a log in cold water, where hypothermia was the main danger, you'd be better off leaving the breathables on, even full of water, than taking them off.

I explained in an earlier post why the drift-sock effect seems overblown to me as well.

Now, the one thing that I do see as a possible danger is the effect of all that water once you try to lift yourself out of the water. What you would want to do is get yourself to shore, and crawl out, and if possible, raise your feet to get rid of the water once you're on land. But in pounding surf, against rocks, etc., it would definitely be harder to climb out or walk out with all that water inside the waders.

Net: Due to added (albeit admittedly temporary) buoyancy and insulation, I suspect waders have saved more lives than taken them.


[Added in edit: What's the point of all this discussion? Well, a lot of people seem to think waders are very dangerous, and that my arguments are irresponsible. I argue just the opposite. I think panic is one of the main dangers to people who fall in. They fall in, think "Oh my God, I'm in waders, I'm a goner!" If they understood what was really going on, they would be less likely to panic, which is the first step to surviving a dunking.

Also: does anybody else have a hard time spelling buoyancy? I always want to reverse the "o" and the "u" !]


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

The only thing I can find about the density of a human body is here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28density%29

down in the second table. According to this, the average person has a density of 1.01 g/cm^3, which is higher than the 1 g/cm^3 density of water. So it looks like fallen is right, people are on average denser than water, and negatively buoyant, but by a tiny amount.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

Here's the abstract from a study from the Journal of Forensic Science:

"The specific gravity and buoyancy of 98 men were calculated at various lung volumes. The data indicated that all subjects would be capable of floating in either freshwater or seawater at total lung capacity. At functional residual capacity, the value approximating the lung volume of a recently dead body, 69% of the subjects would float in seawater, whereas only 7% would float in freshwater. Results of this study indicate that while drowned bodies are more likely to sink than bodies dead of other causes, no conclusion regarding the cause of death can be made on the basis of whether bodies float or sink."

I've found various other references to the other causes of variation in buoyancy that I mentioned before (fat content, sex, etc).

In any event, if as seems clear, we are very, very close to being neutrally buoyant, particularly in freshwater, then the questions revolve around the various effects of waders on our ability to overcome that by treading water.

And if you can't swim at all, then perhaps you shouldn't be wading in the water, no matter what you are wearing!


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

On a slightly more morbid note:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/617991

This one shows that with lungs full of air, we float, but a very low lung fill, we sink. Realistically, the average person (who has some air in their lungs), is probably very close to neutrally buoyant. Our bodies are negatively buoyant, but throw some air in the lungs, and we're positively buoyant. Any significant force (current, concrete shoes, etc.), will overcome our either the positive or negative buoyancy easily.


----------



## nitsud (May 22, 2010)

Nice find man!! Hehehe...


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

nitsud said:


> Any significant force (current, concrete shoes, etc.), will overcome our either the positive or negative buoyancy easily.


Which reminds me: anybody interested in buying some concrete shoes, size 9?

Hardly used, great shape.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

If you read my posts again you'll see I mentioned with boots on specifically. I know my wading boots are dense. They have extra thick rubber soles & thick leather. I think you probably agree that waders increase your surface area with an impermeable membrane, not sweat pants, therefore increasing drag dramatically in moving water, whether facing upstream or not... 

I agree with you that the most important thing to take away from this discussion is to "not panic" if you slip into the drink. You will not sink like a rock, but you better have a belt on & you better start swimmin' sideways quickly.  

Concerning "the vast majority", Andrew,it ranges wildly as you know but I believe the average human, as nitsuD pointed out, is slightly negatively buoyant. Yes, I have to really think about it each time I type it. B-U-O? Hmmm... Thanks mom for the flash cards before the bus in the morning!


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

fallen513 said:


> If you read my posts again you'll see I mentioned with boots on specifically. I know my wading boots are dense. They have extra thick rubber soles & thick leather. I think you probably agree that waders increase your surface area with an impermeable membrane, not sweat pants, therefore increasing drag dramatically in moving water, whether facing upstream or not...


My original interest in this discussion was in light of two widely circulated ideas, both of which can be found ALL OVER the internet if you do a little research. One is the idea that the air trapped inside your waders will shoot your feet to the surface, while you die a horrible death with your head under the surface. The other is the idea that your waders will fill with water, which will then pull you under. I personally think both of these ideas are bunk. Others have argued the same, and my own "experiment" only serves to further convince me of this.

Issues of heavy boots might or might not be a factor, but of course you can slip into the water wearing boots even if you're also wearing cut off shorts. That wasn't the issue I was interested in addressing because it has nothing really to do with the killer wader myth that is so popular. There's also the fact that it's hard to swim in boots, no matter whether they're attached to waders or not. (And this might have nothing to do with the weight of the boots, but rather the reduction of the "flipper effect"). For what it's worth, my wading boots, a pair of Korkers, float and I cannot seem to sink them (I just tried) unless I put my feet in them, so if I sink to the bottom, it won't be because of my boots! 

People who have fallen in wearing waders may very well have a hard time swimming, and attribute that to the waders "pulling them under", when it's simply due to the fact that swimming with ANY boots and clothes on feels different, and is more challenging. This seems pretty far removed from the particular killer wader myths I mentioned earlier. This is also true for any added effects of drag.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

I still stand by my assertions;


1.) You go under in deep, moving water, you will not be able to surface as easily, if at all &;

2.) You are heavier & more liable to sink with waders full of water, i.e. you are less buoyant. 


I agree you won't sink like a rock, however I say you are much more likely to drown with full gear on than without.


We will just have to respectfully disagree sir.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

And again, I base my opinion off of 2 incidents, one of which involved some really buoyant, loose fitting full neoprene waders. No belt. I lost my footing, went under with my back to the current and put my feet on the bottom long enough for the upper portion of my waders to fill...dragging me into deeper water where I could not touch. Efforts to surface were severely hampered by the weight...that's right, WEIGHT of the water in my waders. If there hadn't been a shoal directly downstream, I'd have been at the mercy of these physics we can't seem to agree on, aka dead & drowned...because my waders filled with water.


----------



## fish on! (Oct 15, 2009)

1. Get a five gallon bucket, submerge it so only the handle is above water. 
2. Get out your fish scale, and hook it to the handle.
3. Read zero on the scale.

Try it.


----------



## Andrew S (Jul 7, 2011)

fallen513 said:


> We will just have to respectfully disagree sir.


I can certainly do that. After all, my wife is wrong all the time, but I still love her.


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

fish on! said:


> 1. Get a five gallon bucket, submerge it so only the handle is above water.
> 2. Get out your fish scale, and hook it to the handle.
> 3. Read zero on the scale.
> 
> Try it.



Yeah. Exactly. 


Then tie it to your belt, take it to the bottom with you & swim back up with it. Piece of cake.


----------

