Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Re: {Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

Don't worry Ashley, parts of the wall won't be an actual wall, because you have to see what's coming on the other side. They're throwing 60-lb bags of drugs over the wall, if that hits you on the head it's game over.

(Trump actually said that)

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/063a8d82-8b01-4de0-9378-e49469ab3e37%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Feedback on my DC Trip Itinerary?

Well guys, I'm settled back in Miami and finished up my article. I had a great time fishing the Tidal Basin, even though it seemed like the bite was turned off by the incoming storm front. I got a bluegill and a yellow perch (my first) early in the morning on Saturday, then feel a bite or see a fish the rest of the day. From what I could tell from other anglers, nobody else was catching either. Despite that, it's still incredible to be able to throw lines in the shadow of the Washington Monument. I was also blown away by all the neat water I saw on my approach into Reagan airport. I'll definitely be back in the spring for the shad run. If any of y'all come down to South FL, feel free to drop me a line. The peacock bass fishing is great right now.

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/be878538-5b6b-4cf7-80be-ab9028808b8c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Monday, 30 October 2017

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Inflatable Paddle Board or Inflatable Kayak?

I am looking to get a water craft of some sort over the winter and, given my lack of storage space, it's gotta be an inflatable. My question to you all is should I get an SUP or a Kayak? I feel like the kayak is slightly more versatile, but I really don't like fishing from a sitting position. I have never fished from an SUP, but the idea of standing is enticing. I think I would mostly use it on freshwater lakes and ponds, but it is possible that I might want to someday try and take it out on the bay for stripers in the flats. Any input is welcome, although I'm not really interested in your favorite brand, more about the comparison between the two concepts.

Thanks

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/e5edbb4b-6ecd-4e70-8589-0f272a708cfa%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: {Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

Maybe the revenue from these increased fees will be wisely invested in protecting our national parks for future generations. Or a pointless wall.

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 7:03:36 PM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

Thanks. I was focused on the publicity (or secrecy) of the plan, rather than whether it was new or not. Stipulated that The Week, in its breathless, implied that Zinke was talking about all Federal campgrounds, and not just the national parks. I missed that his speech was apparently limited to National parks. That said, everything I have seen about Zinke suggests his main interest in public lands is to extract as much money for private interests (concessioners, ranchers, loggers, miners) as possible.

And Zinke does seem to be saying that he will expand the use of concessions in National Parks. So that is some kind of a change from the status quo. The Hill article is less breathless, but more inside baseball, but it makes clear that the lobbyists see lots of opportunity that has not been exploited.

Miles

On Friday, October 27, 2017, 3:18:08 PM EDT, October Caddis <kjea...@gmail.com> wrote:

Miles, quite a few great points there, and I do want to be clear that my comment was direct less at you than at my frustration that the real problems of public land management are being overlooked in the manufactured debate over selling/acquiring public lands.

When it comes to "privatizing campgrounds", I hate to break it you, but a vast portion of NPS campgrounds and facilities are already operated by concessionaires. Sometimes this results in ludicrous and, at least in my eyes, morally offensive scenarios like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/21/a-private-company-trademarked-the-phrase-yosemite-national-park-should-the-u-s-pay-to-get-it-back/

However, that's the situation. Private entities already operate many, many facilities in National Park. Are there advantages? For the taxpayer, sure: the federal government isn't saddled with benefits and pension obligations for these workers. That might not be great for the workers, and it might not be good for sustaining rural economies near parks, but it does save the federal government money. Should concessionaires pay more to NPS? Sure as hell seems to me they should. I'd also agree that they should probably be responsible for maintaining their own facilities, as that article in Adventure Journal suggests.

I'd urge you to read any headline with a critical eye. The article in The Week, for example, is pretty darn breathlessly reporting something that is already the status quo (right or wrong) as a brand-new nefarious plan hatched by the Trump admin.

This is what frustrates me the most about the public lands debate. It's the fringes that want to either sell every acre, or acquire every acre. The real debate, and the effort to address real problems, starts and ends in the middle. The rest is just irresponsible noise from those who know better, and is used to drum up memberships, subscriptions, contributions, etc..

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4, Miles wrote:
I agree about the 'secret plot' not being real, insofar as it's not at all secret.

"Zinke told members of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association last week that "as the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of running campgrounds. My folks will never be as good as you are." The proposal to privatize campgrounds is part of Zinke's goal to alleviate an $11 billion backlog of maintenance projects" https://theweek.com/ speedreads/705425/interior- secretary-proposes- privatizing-campgrounds

Here's an article from the Hill about the fairly public lobbying effort to do exactly that: http://thehill.com/policy/ energy-environment/340181- hospitality-industry-pushes- trump-for-bigger-role-in- national-parks

GAO reports don't always give you the bigger picture, and it's telling that this report barely mentions concessioners operating in the parks. Here's another piece of the picture: those concessioners pay $85 million to the NPS for use of the park, compared to $186 million in user fees and $94 million in philanthropy. http://www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-16-166

What do concessioners get for their $85 million? Gross of more than a billion dollars. As for the backlog: "A closer look at the projects that make up the backlog, however, reveals that the NPS itself should not be responsible for many of these costs and that some of the projects are higher priority than others." https://www.adventure-journal. com/2017/03/opinion-trump- privatize-national-parks/

So the problem isn't that the backlog is huge or the money isn't there to fix it - it's just not being collected from the concessioners. And the fact that it isn't being collected is being used by our government - in public, not in secret - to justify fee rate hikes and further privatization of park assets.

I had not heard of the LWCF, but I spent a little while reading up on it. Specifically, I was looking at how much money is collected and how much is spent on parks. It turns out a does not equal b:

"Although the LWCF is authorized up to $900 million annually, since 1999, appropriations for Federal land acquisition and State grants have ranged from $149 million to $573 million. Fully funding the program would comprise only 11.5% of all oil and gas revenues." https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ lwcf/congressionalacts.htm

Check me on this, but the math on that works out to 7.8 billion dollars of offshore drilling revenues. That is rough fit for the 2014 figure of 7.4 billion dollars here: http://ocsgovernors.org/ ocs101/#7 -- but last year saw only 2.78 billion in revenues. So a range of 11.5% to 33%.

And even the $900 million authorization is rarely appropriated (twice, since 1977, when the $900 million peg was set). Since the GOP took over Congress appropriations have been fairly flat, at less than $400 million - which, granted, in the face of declining revenues can be seen as a positive. Still, at most 14% of OCS gas revenues are actually making to the LWCF. Most of the money just goes into the U.S. Treasury, as far as I can tell, for Congress to do whatever.

Concerning the decline in revenues, we should be clear about why that occurred: most of it is likely due to President Obama's ban on new drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. (Some portion is likely due to OPEC's push to lower crude oil prices, which is beyond our scope here.) If Congress gives the Trump administration the authority to reverse that ban, and he uses that power, there is zero guarantee that the LWCF will see any more money appropriated. And that's assuming the LWCF is reauthorized at all - it's due to expire in 2018, and some (specifically GOP) members of Congress want to get rid of it.

Again: the money is there. It's just not being collected or appropriated. We should be asking our Congressors to 1) make the LWCF permanent, 2) raise the authorization to 2.5 billion, and 3) appropriate the full amount.

Miles

On Friday, October 27, 2017, 12:01:45 PM EDT, October Caddis <kjea...@gmail.com> wrote:

One may dislike one party or another, but these assertions that there's some secret plot to drive down attendance in order sell the system aren't rooted in reality.

The NPS is facing a $12 billion backlog of deferred maintenance across the system. At current visitation and entrance fees, the gap between revenue and need will simply never be be met. That's the problem. It's real.

Feel like nerding out a bit? there's an excellent GAO report on the funding challenge here: http://www.gao.gov/ products/GAO-17-136

Incidentally, the Land & water Conservation Fund, which is the primary means of funding federal public land acquisition, is supported entirely by offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters.

Guess what decreased under the previous administration? If you said oil and gas revenues leases in federal waters, you're right.

All that said, I do not support the proposed fee increases, and I'd rather see Congress direct more funding to NPS.

If you oppose the fee hikes, submit a comment (I did).

If you think Congress should just appropriate more funding to NPS, send your representative an email or letter (I did).

If you have a preference as to how that new funding should be made available (cut military, tax the rich, mine the Moon for lunar gold, whatever floats your boat), express that to your member of Congress (I did).

But this "Republicans are closing parks and selling our land" business just prevents people from recognizing that there's an actual problem, and it certainly doesn't help solve it.

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:21:45 AM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

"A lot of people would choose not to spend that much money, so instead of SNP getting $10 (or $40 for a year pass), now they'd get zero...part of me thinks that might be the intended effect, drive people away with price hikes, starve the NPS of cash, then declare them a failure and privatize the parks system."

That would be the part of you that is... absolutely right! It's their MO in pretty much every domain: take a public asset, neglect it to ruins, then declare "Government has failed" and sell it off.

Miles

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/tidal-potomac-fly- rodders/FLj_e9t_0rU/ unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+ unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/tidal-potomac-fly- rodders/4db58c86-6a63-40dc- 9059-9f7e4e770480% 40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/FLj_e9t_0rU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/abb882d0-0a04-49ad-aa80-8fedd2f94736%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/78e54fe0-3c92-4897-8248-b0cdfcc3ff3a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Chesapeake Fly Line

I agree with Trevor. Carrying two sticks is the best route IMO. One for a floater (that you can use sink tips if need be) and one for a heavier sink. The YakAttack Blackpack has rod holders that can hold fly rods.

And honestly, there are so many good flats in the middle to upper bay that it's worth paying attention to that floater. The biggest rockfish (Mid to upper 20s) so far for me this year came on a topwater fly in 3 feet of water. Also almost added a 30 inch red to the mix that day on top too.

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/0580c42a-7a5b-4c01-bb19-eb20d377f904%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Sunday, 29 October 2017

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Chesapeake Fly Line

Gregg,

I have the Sonar Intermediate on my 8wt for stripers just under the surface. It's a fantastic line and I had a ton of success with it this past summer. I also have the Sonar sink5/7/9 on my 10 weight to get really deep. Haven't played with it much, but the times I've had it out were great. Casting with either of these lines is great. I would personally stick with a floating and a deeper running line, you can reach the mid-range by adding a longer leader and tying on a heavier fly. There have been plenty of times I wished I had a floating line to throw surface bugs when I had my intermediate. You can always add weight, but you can't take it off of an intermediate line.

Hope this helps,

Trevor

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 11:03:54 AM UTC-4, Gregg DiSalvo wrote:

I had read that versitips tend to do that....for the clear intermediate, have you used any SA sonar series lines? I have been reading up on them lately.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 6:32:10 PM UTC-4, Nedak wrote:
Original question re flyline. I am a bigger fan of clear intermediate sinking line. Combining longer leader and faster retrieve, you can use poppers. You can also get the fly to drop in the water column if you wait. I find it very versatile. My 9 weight is loaded with versitips but I hate the hinge effect on the cast. JMHO.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 5:27:33 PM UTC-4, Gregg DiSalvo wrote:
Howdy. I've been fishing some saltier water lately with moderate success. I take my 7 and 9 weights out on a kayak and fish the mouths of rivers and creeks mainly in 5-15' of water. I usually run with full sink on the 9 and floating on the 7, but feel like I need that in between. Do you all recommend a sink tip on the bay? OR should I stick with what I've been using with the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

Im typically throwing smaller clousers/ bay anchovies, sand eels, medium half and halfs, bunker, gurglers, chuggers, Large deceivers, odd deciever/hooloweye ultrasude tails things

I also run with 3-4' of 20lb test direct to the fly line

Would love to hear what works for you all!

Gregg

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/2654ae66-1096-41fb-b913-511a078294ef%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} When does Gravelly parking open?

I was there Friday morning at 6 am no issues parking at gravelly, got 3 schoolie stripers as the sun came up on my two handed rod. Have done it many times in the past without issue

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/ebc0b610-3901-4930-b989-a797d92f7c9b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Friday, 27 October 2017

Re: {Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

Thanks. I was focused on the publicity (or secrecy) of the plan, rather than whether it was new or not. Stipulated that The Week, in its breathless, implied that Zinke was talking about all Federal campgrounds, and not just the national parks. I missed that his speech was apparently limited to National parks. That said, everything I have seen about Zinke suggests his main interest in public lands is to extract as much money for private interests (concessioners, ranchers, loggers, miners) as possible.

And Zinke does seem to be saying that he will expand the use of concessions in National Parks. So that is some kind of a change from the status quo. The Hill article is less breathless, but more inside baseball, but it makes clear that the lobbyists see lots of opportunity that has not been exploited.

Miles

On Friday, October 27, 2017, 3:18:08 PM EDT, October Caddis <kjeastman@gmail.com> wrote:

Miles, quite a few great points there, and I do want to be clear that my comment was direct less at you than at my frustration that the real problems of public land management are being overlooked in the manufactured debate over selling/acquiring public lands.

When it comes to "privatizing campgrounds", I hate to break it you, but a vast portion of NPS campgrounds and facilities are already operated by concessionaires. Sometimes this results in ludicrous and, at least in my eyes, morally offensive scenarios like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/21/a-private-company-trademarked-the-phrase-yosemite-national-park-should-the-u-s-pay-to-get-it-back/

However, that's the situation. Private entities already operate many, many facilities in National Park. Are there advantages? For the taxpayer, sure: the federal government isn't saddled with benefits and pension obligations for these workers. That might not be great for the workers, and it might not be good for sustaining rural economies near parks, but it does save the federal government money. Should concessionaires pay more to NPS? Sure as hell seems to me they should. I'd also agree that they should probably be responsible for maintaining their own facilities, as that article in Adventure Journal suggests.

I'd urge you to read any headline with a critical eye. The article in The Week, for example, is pretty darn breathlessly reporting something that is already the status quo (right or wrong) as a brand-new nefarious plan hatched by the Trump admin.

This is what frustrates me the most about the public lands debate. It's the fringes that want to either sell every acre, or acquire every acre. The real debate, and the effort to address real problems, starts and ends in the middle. The rest is just irresponsible noise from those who know better, and is used to drum up memberships, subscriptions, contributions, etc..

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

I agree about the 'secret plot' not being real, insofar as it's not at all secret.

"Zinke told members of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association last week that "as the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of running campgrounds. My folks will never be as good as you are." The proposal to privatize campgrounds is part of Zinke's goal to alleviate an $11 billion backlog of maintenance projects" https://theweek.com/ speedreads/705425/interior- secretary-proposes- privatizing-campgrounds

Here's an article from the Hill about the fairly public lobbying effort to do exactly that: http://thehill.com/policy/ energy-environment/340181- hospitality-industry-pushes- trump-for-bigger-role-in- national-parks

GAO reports don't always give you the bigger picture, and it's telling that this report barely mentions concessioners operating in the parks. Here's another piece of the picture: those concessioners pay $85 million to the NPS for use of the park, compared to $186 million in user fees and $94 million in philanthropy. http://www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-16-166

What do concessioners get for their $85 million? Gross of more than a billion dollars. As for the backlog: "A closer look at the projects that make up the backlog, however, reveals that the NPS itself should not be responsible for many of these costs and that some of the projects are higher priority than others." https://www.adventure-journal. com/2017/03/opinion-trump- privatize-national-parks/

So the problem isn't that the backlog is huge or the money isn't there to fix it - it's just not being collected from the concessioners. And the fact that it isn't being collected is being used by our government - in public, not in secret - to justify fee rate hikes and further privatization of park assets.

I had not heard of the LWCF, but I spent a little while reading up on it. Specifically, I was looking at how much money is collected and how much is spent on parks. It turns out a does not equal b:

"Although the LWCF is authorized up to $900 million annually, since 1999, appropriations for Federal land acquisition and State grants have ranged from $149 million to $573 million. Fully funding the program would comprise only 11.5% of all oil and gas revenues." https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ lwcf/congressionalacts.htm

Check me on this, but the math on that works out to 7.8 billion dollars of offshore drilling revenues. That is rough fit for the 2014 figure of 7.4 billion dollars here: http://ocsgovernors.org/ ocs101/#7 -- but last year saw only 2.78 billion in revenues. So a range of 11.5% to 33%.

And even the $900 million authorization is rarely appropriated (twice, since 1977, when the $900 million peg was set). Since the GOP took over Congress appropriations have been fairly flat, at less than $400 million - which, granted, in the face of declining revenues can be seen as a positive. Still, at most 14% of OCS gas revenues are actually making to the LWCF. Most of the money just goes into the U.S. Treasury, as far as I can tell, for Congress to do whatever.

Concerning the decline in revenues, we should be clear about why that occurred: most of it is likely due to President Obama's ban on new drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. (Some portion is likely due to OPEC's push to lower crude oil prices, which is beyond our scope here.) If Congress gives the Trump administration the authority to reverse that ban, and he uses that power, there is zero guarantee that the LWCF will see any more money appropriated. And that's assuming the LWCF is reauthorized at all - it's due to expire in 2018, and some (specifically GOP) members of Congress want to get rid of it.

Again: the money is there. It's just not being collected or appropriated. We should be asking our Congressors to 1) make the LWCF permanent, 2) raise the authorization to 2.5 billion, and 3) appropriate the full amount.

Miles

On Friday, October 27, 2017, 12:01:45 PM EDT, October Caddis <kjea...@gmail.com> wrote:

One may dislike one party or another, but these assertions that there's some secret plot to drive down attendance in order sell the system aren't rooted in reality.

The NPS is facing a $12 billion backlog of deferred maintenance across the system. At current visitation and entrance fees, the gap between revenue and need will simply never be be met. That's the problem. It's real.

Feel like nerding out a bit? there's an excellent GAO report on the funding challenge here: http://www.gao.gov/ products/GAO-17-136

Incidentally, the Land & water Conservation Fund, which is the primary means of funding federal public land acquisition, is supported entirely by offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters.

Guess what decreased under the previous administration? If you said oil and gas revenues leases in federal waters, you're right.

All that said, I do not support the proposed fee increases, and I'd rather see Congress direct more funding to NPS.

If you oppose the fee hikes, submit a comment (I did).

If you think Congress should just appropriate more funding to NPS, send your representative an email or letter (I did).

If you have a preference as to how that new funding should be made available (cut military, tax the rich, mine the Moon for lunar gold, whatever floats your boat), express that to your member of Congress (I did).

But this "Republicans are closing parks and selling our land" business just prevents people from recognizing that there's an actual problem, and it certainly doesn't help solve it.

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:21:45 AM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

"A lot of people would choose not to spend that much money, so instead of SNP getting $10 (or $40 for a year pass), now they'd get zero...part of me thinks that might be the intended effect, drive people away with price hikes, starve the NPS of cash, then declare them a failure and privatize the parks system."

That would be the part of you that is... absolutely right! It's their MO in pretty much every domain: take a public asset, neglect it to ruins, then declare "Government has failed" and sell it off.

Miles

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/tidal-potomac-fly- rodders/FLj_e9t_0rU/ unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+ unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/tidal-potomac-fly- rodders/4db58c86-6a63-40dc- 9059-9f7e4e770480% 40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/FLj_e9t_0rU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/abb882d0-0a04-49ad-aa80-8fedd2f94736%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: When does Gravelly parking open?

Following

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 3:31:07 PM UTC-4, Tim S. wrote:

How early do they open the parking lot? If I wanted to fish the outflow before sunrise, do I have to park at Roaches and run across the road? I'm OK with that but the thought of running back across mid morning when traffic is flowing doesn't make me feel great.

What have other people done??

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/ae926b59-20aa-478d-9cd9-57505642810b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: {Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

Oh, and of your three points, I fully agree with 1 & 3, not so sure about #2. Allowing more LWCF funding to help maintain parks, instead of just expand them, that might get me on board with #2.

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 3:18:02 PM UTC-4, October Caddis wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4, Miles wrote:
I agree about the 'secret plot' not being real, insofar as it's not at all secret.

"Zinke told members of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association last week that "as the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of running campgrounds. My folks will never be as good as you are." The proposal to privatize campgrounds is part of Zinke's goal to alleviate an $11 billion backlog of maintenance projects" https://theweek.com/speedreads/705425/interior-secretary-proposes-privatizing-campgrounds

Here's an article from the Hill about the fairly public lobbying effort to do exactly that: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340181-hospitality-industry-pushes-trump-for-bigger-role-in-national-parks

GAO reports don't always give you the bigger picture, and it's telling that this report barely mentions concessioners operating in the parks. Here's another piece of the picture: those concessioners pay $85 million to the NPS for use of the park, compared to $186 million in user fees and $94 million in philanthropy. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-166

What do concessioners get for their $85 million? Gross of more than a billion dollars. As for the backlog: "A closer look at the projects that make up the backlog, however, reveals that the NPS itself should not be responsible for many of these costs and that some of the projects are higher priority than others." https://www.adventure-journal.com/2017/03/opinion-trump-privatize-national-parks/

So the problem isn't that the backlog is huge or the money isn't there to fix it - it's just not being collected from the concessioners. And the fact that it isn't being collected is being used by our government - in public, not in secret - to justify fee rate hikes and further privatization of park assets.

I had not heard of the LWCF, but I spent a little while reading up on it. Specifically, I was looking at how much money is collected and how much is spent on parks. It turns out a does not equal b:

"Although the LWCF is authorized up to $900 million annually, since 1999, appropriations for Federal land acquisition and State grants have ranged from $149 million to $573 million. Fully funding the program would comprise only 11.5% of all oil and gas revenues." https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/congressionalacts.htm

Check me on this, but the math on that works out to 7.8 billion dollars of offshore drilling revenues. That is rough fit for the 2014 figure of 7.4 billion dollars here: http://ocsgovernors.org/ocs101/#7 -- but last year saw only 2.78 billion in revenues. So a range of 11.5% to 33%.

And even the $900 million authorization is rarely appropriated (twice, since 1977, when the $900 million peg was set). Since the GOP took over Congress appropriations have been fairly flat, at less than $400 million - which, granted, in the face of declining revenues can be seen as a positive. Still, at most 14% of OCS gas revenues are actually making to the LWCF. Most of the money just goes into the U.S. Treasury, as far as I can tell, for Congress to do whatever.

Concerning the decline in revenues, we should be clear about why that occurred: most of it is likely due to President Obama's ban on new drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. (Some portion is likely due to OPEC's push to lower crude oil prices, which is beyond our scope here.) If Congress gives the Trump administration the authority to reverse that ban, and he uses that power, there is zero guarantee that the LWCF will see any more money appropriated. And that's assuming the LWCF is reauthorized at all - it's due to expire in 2018, and some (specifically GOP) members of Congress want to get rid of it.

Again: the money is there. It's just not being collected or appropriated. We should be asking our Congressors to 1) make the LWCF permanent, 2) raise the authorization to 2.5 billion, and 3) appropriate the full amount.

Miles

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/66d4b8ae-07c4-4eee-aecd-c51cb3c83026%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: {Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/21/a-private-company-trademarked-the-phrase-yosemite-national-park-should-the-u-s-pay-to-get-it-back/

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:40:30 PM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

I agree about the 'secret plot' not being real, insofar as it's not at all secret.

"Zinke told members of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association last week that "as the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of running campgrounds. My folks will never be as good as you are." The proposal to privatize campgrounds is part of Zinke's goal to alleviate an $11 billion backlog of maintenance projects" https://theweek.com/speedreads/705425/interior-secretary-proposes-privatizing-campgrounds

Here's an article from the Hill about the fairly public lobbying effort to do exactly that: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340181-hospitality-industry-pushes-trump-for-bigger-role-in-national-parks

GAO reports don't always give you the bigger picture, and it's telling that this report barely mentions concessioners operating in the parks. Here's another piece of the picture: those concessioners pay $85 million to the NPS for use of the park, compared to $186 million in user fees and $94 million in philanthropy. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-166

What do concessioners get for their $85 million? Gross of more than a billion dollars. As for the backlog: "A closer look at the projects that make up the backlog, however, reveals that the NPS itself should not be responsible for many of these costs and that some of the projects are higher priority than others." https://www.adventure-journal.com/2017/03/opinion-trump-privatize-national-parks/

So the problem isn't that the backlog is huge or the money isn't there to fix it - it's just not being collected from the concessioners. And the fact that it isn't being collected is being used by our government - in public, not in secret - to justify fee rate hikes and further privatization of park assets.

I had not heard of the LWCF, but I spent a little while reading up on it. Specifically, I was looking at how much money is collected and how much is spent on parks. It turns out a does not equal b:

"Although the LWCF is authorized up to $900 million annually, since 1999, appropriations for Federal land acquisition and State grants have ranged from $149 million to $573 million. Fully funding the program would comprise only 11.5% of all oil and gas revenues." https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/congressionalacts.htm

Check me on this, but the math on that works out to 7.8 billion dollars of offshore drilling revenues. That is rough fit for the 2014 figure of 7.4 billion dollars here: http://ocsgovernors.org/ocs101/#7 -- but last year saw only 2.78 billion in revenues. So a range of 11.5% to 33%.

And even the $900 million authorization is rarely appropriated (twice, since 1977, when the $900 million peg was set). Since the GOP took over Congress appropriations have been fairly flat, at less than $400 million - which, granted, in the face of declining revenues can be seen as a positive. Still, at most 14% of OCS gas revenues are actually making to the LWCF. Most of the money just goes into the U.S. Treasury, as far as I can tell, for Congress to do whatever.

Concerning the decline in revenues, we should be clear about why that occurred: most of it is likely due to President Obama's ban on new drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. (Some portion is likely due to OPEC's push to lower crude oil prices, which is beyond our scope here.) If Congress gives the Trump administration the authority to reverse that ban, and he uses that power, there is zero guarantee that the LWCF will see any more money appropriated. And that's assuming the LWCF is reauthorized at all - it's due to expire in 2018, and some (specifically GOP) members of Congress want to get rid of it.

Again: the money is there. It's just not being collected or appropriated. We should be asking our Congressors to 1) make the LWCF permanent, 2) raise the authorization to 2.5 billion, and 3) appropriate the full amount.

Miles

On Friday, October 27, 2017, 12:01:45 PM EDT, October Caddis <kjea...@gmail.com> wrote:

One may dislike one party or another, but these assertions that there's some secret plot to drive down attendance in order sell the system aren't rooted in reality.

The NPS is facing a $12 billion backlog of deferred maintenance across the system. At current visitation and entrance fees, the gap between revenue and need will simply never be be met. That's the problem. It's real.

Feel like nerding out a bit? there's an excellent GAO report on the funding challenge here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-136

Incidentally, the Land & water Conservation Fund, which is the primary means of funding federal public land acquisition, is supported entirely by offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters.

Guess what decreased under the previous administration? If you said oil and gas revenues leases in federal waters, you're right.

All that said, I do not support the proposed fee increases, and I'd rather see Congress direct more funding to NPS.

If you oppose the fee hikes, submit a comment (I did).

If you think Congress should just appropriate more funding to NPS, send your representative an email or letter (I did).

If you have a preference as to how that new funding should be made available (cut military, tax the rich, mine the Moon for lunar gold, whatever floats your boat), express that to your member of Congress (I did).

But this "Republicans are closing parks and selling our land" business just prevents people from recognizing that there's an actual problem, and it certainly doesn't help solve it.

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:21:45 AM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

"A lot of people would choose not to spend that much money, so instead of SNP getting $10 (or $40 for a year pass), now they'd get zero...part of me thinks that might be the intended effect, drive people away with price hikes, starve the NPS of cash, then declare them a failure and privatize the parks system."

That would be the part of you that is... absolutely right! It's their MO in pretty much every domain: take a public asset, neglect it to ruins, then declare "Government has failed" and sell it off.

Miles

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/FLj_e9t_0rU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potoma...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/4db58c86-6a63-40dc-9059-9f7e4e770480%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/abb882d0-0a04-49ad-aa80-8fedd2f94736%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: {Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

I agree about the 'secret plot' not being real, insofar as it's not at all secret.

"Zinke told members of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association last week that "as the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of running campgrounds. My folks will never be as good as you are." The proposal to privatize campgrounds is part of Zinke's goal to alleviate an $11 billion backlog of maintenance projects" https://theweek.com/speedreads/705425/interior-secretary-proposes-privatizing-campgrounds

Here's an article from the Hill about the fairly public lobbying effort to do exactly that: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340181-hospitality-industry-pushes-trump-for-bigger-role-in-national-parks

GAO reports don't always give you the bigger picture, and it's telling that this report barely mentions concessioners operating in the parks. Here's another piece of the picture: those concessioners pay $85 million to the NPS for use of the park, compared to $186 million in user fees and $94 million in philanthropy. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-166

What do concessioners get for their $85 million? Gross of more than a billion dollars. As for the backlog: "A closer look at the projects that make up the backlog, however, reveals that the NPS itself should not be responsible for many of these costs and that some of the projects are higher priority than others." https://www.adventure-journal.com/2017/03/opinion-trump-privatize-national-parks/

So the problem isn't that the backlog is huge or the money isn't there to fix it - it's just not being collected from the concessioners. And the fact that it isn't being collected is being used by our government - in public, not in secret - to justify fee rate hikes and further privatization of park assets.

I had not heard of the LWCF, but I spent a little while reading up on it. Specifically, I was looking at how much money is collected and how much is spent on parks. It turns out a does not equal b:

"Although the LWCF is authorized up to $900 million annually, since 1999, appropriations for Federal land acquisition and State grants have ranged from $149 million to $573 million. Fully funding the program would comprise only 11.5% of all oil and gas revenues." https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/congressionalacts.htm

Check me on this, but the math on that works out to 7.8 billion dollars of offshore drilling revenues. That is rough fit for the 2014 figure of 7.4 billion dollars here: http://ocsgovernors.org/ocs101/#7 -- but last year saw only 2.78 billion in revenues. So a range of 11.5% to 33%.

And even the $900 million authorization is rarely appropriated (twice, since 1977, when the $900 million peg was set). Since the GOP took over Congress appropriations have been fairly flat, at less than $400 million - which, granted, in the face of declining revenues can be seen as a positive. Still, at most 14% of OCS gas revenues are actually making to the LWCF. Most of the money just goes into the U.S. Treasury, as far as I can tell, for Congress to do whatever.

Concerning the decline in revenues, we should be clear about why that occurred: most of it is likely due to President Obama's ban on new drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. (Some portion is likely due to OPEC's push to lower crude oil prices, which is beyond our scope here.) If Congress gives the Trump administration the authority to reverse that ban, and he uses that power, there is zero guarantee that the LWCF will see any more money appropriated. And that's assuming the LWCF is reauthorized at all - it's due to expire in 2018, and some (specifically GOP) members of Congress want to get rid of it.

Again: the money is there. It's just not being collected or appropriated. We should be asking our Congressors to 1) make the LWCF permanent, 2) raise the authorization to 2.5 billion, and 3) appropriate the full amount.

Miles

On Friday, October 27, 2017, 12:01:45 PM EDT, October Caddis <kjeastman@gmail.com> wrote:

One may dislike one party or another, but these assertions that there's some secret plot to drive down attendance in order sell the system aren't rooted in reality.

The NPS is facing a $12 billion backlog of deferred maintenance across the system. At current visitation and entrance fees, the gap between revenue and need will simply never be be met. That's the problem. It's real.

Feel like nerding out a bit? there's an excellent GAO report on the funding challenge here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-136

Incidentally, the Land & water Conservation Fund, which is the primary means of funding federal public land acquisition, is supported entirely by offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters.

Guess what decreased under the previous administration? If you said oil and gas revenues leases in federal waters, you're right.

All that said, I do not support the proposed fee increases, and I'd rather see Congress direct more funding to NPS.

If you oppose the fee hikes, submit a comment (I did).

If you think Congress should just appropriate more funding to NPS, send your representative an email or letter (I did).

If you have a preference as to how that new funding should be made available (cut military, tax the rich, mine the Moon for lunar gold, whatever floats your boat), express that to your member of Congress (I did).

But this "Republicans are closing parks and selling our land" business just prevents people from recognizing that there's an actual problem, and it certainly doesn't help solve it.

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:21:45 AM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

"A lot of people would choose not to spend that much money, so instead of SNP getting $10 (or $40 for a year pass), now they'd get zero...part of me thinks that might be the intended effect, drive people away with price hikes, starve the NPS of cash, then declare them a failure and privatize the parks system."

That would be the part of you that is... absolutely right! It's their MO in pretty much every domain: take a public asset, neglect it to ruins, then declare "Government has failed" and sell it off.

Miles

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/FLj_e9t_0rU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/4db58c86-6a63-40dc-9059-9f7e4e770480%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Winter fishing

None of it is really great. There are places to fish (4MR being one of them) but it is more just to get out and wet a line until things improve with warmer weather.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-4, San-Eou Lan wrote:

Can anyone speak to how winter fishing is like within the DMV area? I've been told that 4MR is a good place to hit because of the warm water discharge. This would be my first time fishing in the winter here.

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 9:47:45 AM UTC-4, abbie mcmullen wrote:
Hey everyone! I'm new to the group, I was hoping to get some feedback on where everyone goes fishing over the winter months? Due to my line of work I am free from January to March. I was hoping to get one or two trips in over the season. Can't wait to see what y'all think! Thanks!

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/19801b78-00d1-4f23-b159-d47e1918e81b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Raising Shenandoah Entrance Fee to $70?

One may dislike one party or another, but these assertions that there's some secret plot to drive down attendance in order sell the system aren't rooted in reality.

Feel like nerding out a bit? there's an excellent GAO report on the funding challenge here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-136

Incidentally, the Land & water Conservation Fund, which is the primary means of funding federal public land acquisition, is supported entirely by offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters.

Guess what decreased under the previous administration? If you said oil and gas revenues leases in federal waters, you're right.

All that said, I do not support the proposed fee increases, and I'd rather see Congress direct more funding to NPS.

If you oppose the fee hikes, submit a comment (I did).

If you think Congress should just appropriate more funding to NPS, send your representative an email or letter (I did).

But this "Republicans are closing parks and selling our land" business just prevents people from recognizing that there's an actual problem, and it certainly doesn't help solve it.

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:21:45 AM UTC-4, Miles wrote:

"A lot of people would choose not to spend that much money, so instead of SNP getting $10 (or $40 for a year pass), now they'd get zero...part of me thinks that might be the intended effect, drive people away with price hikes, starve the NPS of cash, then declare them a failure and privatize the parks system."

That would be the part of you that is... absolutely right! It's their MO in pretty much every domain: take a public asset, neglect it to ruins, then declare "Government has failed" and sell it off.

Miles

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/4db58c86-6a63-40dc-9059-9f7e4e770480%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

{Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders} Re: Chesapeake Fly Line

I had read that versitips tend to do that....for the clear intermediate, have you used any SA sonar series lines? I have been reading up on them lately.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 6:32:10 PM UTC-4, Nedak wrote:

Original question re flyline. I am a bigger fan of clear intermediate sinking line. Combining longer leader and faster retrieve, you can use poppers. You can also get the fly to drop in the water column if you wait. I find it very versatile. My 9 weight is loaded with versitips but I hate the hinge effect on the cast. JMHO.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 5:27:33 PM UTC-4, Gregg DiSalvo wrote:
Howdy. I've been fishing some saltier water lately with moderate success. I take my 7 and 9 weights out on a kayak and fish the mouths of rivers and creeks mainly in 5-15' of water. I usually run with full sink on the 9 and floating on the 7, but feel like I need that in between. Do you all recommend a sink tip on the bay? OR should I stick with what I've been using with the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

Im typically throwing smaller clousers/ bay anchovies, sand eels, medium half and halfs, bunker, gurglers, chuggers, Large deceivers, odd deciever/hooloweye ultrasude tails things

I also run with 3-4' of 20lb test direct to the fly line

Would love to hear what works for you all!

Gregg

--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/945efbf0-2466-4d87-ad9f-aea09959518e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.