jdmidwest

As long as you are floating and fishing you should be fine anytime of day. If you have to venture off into the woods for some reason, put on some hunter orange to prevent an accident. Hunters are responsible for knowing what they are shooting at but, I would not wear any red or blue just to be safe. Turkey hunting is a close contact sport using shotguns only so there is no long range mishaps.

Try Norman Malware Cleaner, LinK . It does a good job too. Trouble with most stuff lately, you need an arsenal of software tools to get rid of it. Try rebooting to safe mode and run Combofix and Norman. It is not a nasty problem, just a security risk. Don't do anything sensitive like log on to a bank account till you get it fixed.

It sounds as if the firewall or adblocker is preventing him from logging on. Is he at home or at work? Can he install a different browser? Is his caps lock on? Has he ever used a forum? Is there a pop up blocker installed? Is he getting any errors?

I was really surprised, I had floated the park thru and down the St Francis to 34 many times. This float surpassed it 100x. The bridge was a neat feature, looks like it was an old RR trestle that had been converted to a foot bridge. I wanted to get pics from the upside, but a sycamore across the stream and a fast run messed that up. There are a bunch of real nice cabins at that location also. The old pilings had been skewed around some by floods over time, you could see it better from the upside. The rock gardens would be a bear in warmer weather, I am sure they are great warming sites for the legless, shoulder less types of critters. I am sure there would be a snake in every hole. The water was cold and fishing was slow. Most were 8-11" smallies with a few longears in the mix. There were several very deep holes and lots of boulders for cover. I am sure if the water had been warmer, the bite would have been better.

Combofix is kinda like a magic wand, it does wonders if the system is not too screwed up. And the best part, it is free. It does come with warnings, it can do damage if you don't do it right. In order to tell if you are still infected, you would have to look at outgoing connections, startup items, processes, etc. Chances are Combofix zapped it.

All my life has been spent near the Big Creek and I have never floated the section above Sam A Baker Park. I have waded sections from Des Arc to the Park, but never floated. I had always been told that it was treacherous and needed to be floated in the spring when water flow was good. Last Friday, I camped with a couple of friends and their sons at the park and floated it Sat. We put in off a county road between Brunot and Des Arc and floated to the park. The weather and water was perfect, you could not have made a better day. The float had spectacular scenery. Crystal clear waters, rock formations, old growth trees, bluffs, and blooming redbuds and dogwood. The down side to the float is the 3 rock gardens that required threading the boats thru with ropes while walking on slippery granite boulders. I used the yak and still had problems. The river has a good gradient and the runs generated some good waves. Fishing was slow, a front had move thru, but the scenery made up for it. It was on the top 10 of floats I have taken in my life because of the scenery. The only downside was all of the trash. It started out below the access with the antique car parade, 50's vintage cars rusting on the stream side. All the way down we encountered tires, bottles, coolers, buckets, and various other trash.

Bad thing about Apple Creek is its lack of access points. I assume the creek was open and there were no log jams. We went out on the upper Whitewater Sunday and had to paddle back up, we met up with a huge log jamb where the river changed course a few years ago. Plus all of the downed timber from last May's Inland Hurricane made a huge choke point. Sorry to see the Asian Carp moving up that stream, would have hoped the Mill Dam at Appleton would act as a barrier. It will only be a matter of time before I start seeing them in the Whitewater and Castor Rivers.

That is correct, the publication is scattered thru all of SE MO. Summertime issue usually has a pretty girl in a swimsuit. River Hills Traveller Online

Ok, I know a few that have already moved their tomato plants outside this week, but we are going to have frost. I covered my Strawberries and my apple tree tonight. I planted corn and beans last Fri. Horseradish is coming up. Strawberries are blooming. Lettuce and spinach should be ready next week. Squash and Cucumbers are ready to go out as soon as this cool spell passes.

The following are a summary of the Smallmouth Regulations proposed by the Mo. Smallmouth Alliance. Personally, I would strive for a statewide, 15", 1 fish limit in all free flowing streams. At the bare minimum, it should be a 3 fish, 12" limit statewide. It has been a long time since I have stuck a knife in a Smallie, and then, it was loaded with the little white flukes. But they are fun to catch, habitat is limited, and streams are degrading yearly. Here it is, from the River Hills Traveler. In the April issue of Traveler, editor and publisher Emery Styron summarized recommendations for smallmouth bass management proposed by the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance. Below is their complete report. Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Proposes New Smallmouth Bass Regs Aims for World-Class SMB Stream Fisheries Missouri’s Ozarks are blessed with thousands of miles of beautiful rivers, streams and creeks most of which harbor viable populations of smallmouth bass. Anglers both from across the state and from beyond our borders enjoy floating and wading these clear water gems in search of hard-fighting bronzebacks with hopes that a lunker of a lifetime is just one cast away. Anglers are always looking for that edge, that hot lure or new technique which will improve their odds of connecting with Mr. Big. Well, I’ll not give any secrets here. Rather, I can tell you that a group of concerned sportsmen is actively working on behalf of all anglers to markedly improve the opportunity for folks to catch more, and importantly, much larger smallmouth bass in our state’s moving waters. Sound interesting? Read on. But first a bit of history is in order. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, many of our streams suffered from overfishing by anglers seeking a limit of fish for the frying pan. Catch-and-release was a largely foreign concept in most fishing circles back then, and a long tradition of living off the land had taken its toll on the quality of many of our Ozark smallmouth bass fisheries. Following years of research and to help preserve self-sustaining smallmouth bass populations in our streams, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) implemented a 12-inch minimum length limit (in 1974) and a six fish daily creel limit (in 1961). These regulations were designed to preserve our native fisheries by ensuring that smallmouth bass could reach adulthood and have an opportunity to spawn at least one season prior to being eligible for legal harvest. At the time of their enactment, these more restrictive regulations were considered to be on the cutting-edge of fisheries management practices and over the years have indeed resulted in the sustainment of solid populations of smallmouth bass in most of our Ozark streams featuring suitable habitat. Our flowing waters generally support good numbers of smallmouth bass for anglers to pursue, but the average sizes and proportional stock densities of larger bronzebacks in our streams both remain well below their potential. Then, in an effort to improve the overall quality of stream smallmouth bass angling opportunities, the MDC instituted its Special Black Bass Management Area (SBBMA) program back in the early 1990s. This initial program has resulted in the designation of twelve separate stream reaches as SBBMAs totaling nearly 350 miles in combined length. Ten of these areas feature a 15-inch minimum length limit and a one fish daily creel limit for smallmouth bass while two other streams (sections of the Gasconade and Jacks Fork) are managed as trophy areas under an 18-inch minimum length limit and a one fish daily creel limit. The MDC recently published the results of its research on these special regs areas in a comprehensive summary report available at www.missourismallmouthalliance.org/MSA/Conservation. Overall, the MDC’s research has shown that these special regs areas are working as intended. Angler catch rates, average fish sizes and the proportional stock densities of larger smallmouth bass in these areas have risen sharply and are continuing to get better over time. You see, smallmouth bass in our streams grow very slowly, requiring between four and six years to reach twelve inches in length and bronzebacks grow even slower once they reach sexual maturity. So, it takes a long time to grow a lunker smallmouth bass in an Ozark stream. And, as a predator species at the top of the food chain, adult bronzebacks already are among the rarest of fish in most of our streams. In areas with adequate habitat, the reduced harvest of adult smallmouth bass has been proven to be the number one factor in improving fishing quality. It is obvious that the longer fish remain in the resource and can be recycled through catch-and-release practices the better angling will be. Once that predator is removed from the river, that’s one less bronzeback waiting to furiously smash your popping bug or Tiny Torpedo – and that’s not a good thing if you ask most fishermen. Avid smallmouth bass anglers are overwhelmingly in favor of these special regs areas and the type of fishing they can provide. Polls also reveal that sport fishermen increasingly value the opportunity to catch larger smallmouth bass as opposed to a limit of crispy filets to fill their bellies. The Missouri Smallmouth Alliance, a non-profit angling advocacy group with nearly 300 members across the state, believes that this continued evolution in angler attitudes coupled with this proven scientific research has created a perfect storm of sorts. Higher minimum length limits combined with low daily creel limits continue to produce improved angling opportunities for smallmouth bass in those few designated special regs areas. In the view of the Alliance, now is the time for the MDC to enact fisheries management changes on a more widespread basis to protect and improve the existing smallmouth bass resources of our rivers, streams and creeks around the state. The Alliance’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel recently formulated and then proposed a slate of fisheries management changes to the Regulations Committee of the MDC in a three-tiered approach to address this very issue. Comprised of 20 experienced individuals (avid anglers all), including outfitters, outdoor journalists and a retired fisheries biologist, the panel’s proposals include: • a statewide increase in the minimum length limit for smallmouth bass in unimpounded waters combined with a reduction in the daily creel limit; • the establishment of additional SBBMAs featuring a 15-inch minimum/1 fish creel limit on several of the Ozarks better smallmouth waters; • and, the enactment of additional “trophy” SBBMAs with an 18-inch minimum/1 fish creel limit on some of the recognized high potential stream fisheries throughout the Ozarks. The Conservation Federation of Missouri, a 30,000-member citizen conservation organization, unanimously approved these same proposed regulations as formal recommendations to the MDC at its annual meeting back in February of this year. More specifically, these proposed regulations changes for the management of smallmouth bass in Missouri’s unimpounded waters include: • Statewide increase in the minimum length limit to 15 inches (compared to the current limit of 12 inches) combined with a reduction in the daily creel limit to 3 fish (compared to the current limit of 6 fish); the total combined daily creel limit for all black bass (largemouth, smallmouth and spotted bass) to remain at 6 fish • Establishment of nine additional SBBMAs featuring 15-inch minimum length limit and daily creel limit of one fish (totaling a combined 293 miles in length) on the following stream sections: o Big Piney – MDC Boiling Spring access downstream to USFS Slabtown access o Meramec – MDC Short Bend access downstream to MDC Woodson K. Woods access o James – MDC Delaware Town access downstream to MDC Hootentown access o Bourbeuse – Hwy 19 bridge crossing downstream to MDC Union access o Gasconade – MDC Wilbur Allen access downstream to MDC Hazelgreen access o Courtois Creek – Brazil low-water bridge downstream to confluence with Huzzah Creek o Huzzah Creek – Hwy 49 bridge access downstream to MDC Scotia Bridge access o North Fork of White – Hwy 76 bridge crossing downstream to MDC Hammond access o Bryant Creek – Bell School access downstream to MDC Florence Cook access • Establishment of four new trophy SBBMAs featuring an 18-inch minimum length limit and a daily creel limit of one fish (totaling a combined 112 miles in length) on the following stream sections: o Gasconade – MDC Mitschele access downstream to MDC Riddle Bridge access o Big Piney – USFS East Gate access downstream to confluence with Gasconade o Meramec – Bird’s Nest access downstream to MDC Blue Springs Creek access o Current – Power Mill access downstream to Van Buren City Park access This three-tiered proposed approach for the management of smallmouth bass in Missouri’s moving waters is quite similar to the method used by the MDC to currently manage brown and rainbow trout in our coldwater fisheries. For the management of trout, stream sections are designated as either White, Red or Blue Ribbon areas progressing from more liberal regulations to more restrictive length and creel limits aimed at increased angling quality. To likewise codify the three levels of smallmouth bass regulations, which today already include statewide regulations, 15/1 and 18/1 stream sections, stream reaches could perhaps be signified using similar means with Bronze, Silver and Gold Medal designations, respectively, to allow anglers to more easily recognize the regulations under which particular stream sections are being managed. It’s as simple as that. The proposed statewide limit changes are designed to effectively raise the bar for smallmouth bass angling quality on all rivers, streams and creeks. It would allow a more reasonable amount of harvest of this predator species while requiring anglers to release unharmed the majority of smallmouth bass they catch. High angler harvest under existing statewide regulations has been shown to be a maximum sustained yield fisheries management technique which keeps adult smallmouth bass densities relatively low while supporting viable yet often mediocre fisheries. Clearly, Missouri’s existing statewide regulations for smallmouth bass in our streams promotes angler harvest at the expense of angling quality. The stream reaches selected by the MO Smallmouth Alliance for designation as either 15/1 or 18/1 SBBMAs represent some of the Ozarks finest bronzeback waters featuring outstanding habitat and a proven ability to produce high quality smallmouth fishing. Certainly these are not the only such streams which would show significant benefit from more restrictive management practices, but the Alliance purposefully avoided those areas which the Department of Conservation had previously evaluated and eliminated from SBBMA consideration during their research effort. If your favorite stream did not make the grade for some reason, take heart because smallmouth bass there would still receive much greater protection under the proposed statewide 15-inch minimum/3 fish creel limit regulations compared to what exists today. The enactment of quality regs on an additional nearly 400 miles of high potential waters throughout the Ozarks would greatly expand anglers’ opportunities to catch more and larger smallmouth bass across the state. These proposed regulations work to do just that. Anglers want high quality angling experiences and will support regulations designed to provide those types of fisheries. A growing reputation for world-class stream smallmouth bass angling will attract both avid resident and non-resident fishermen alike who will then generate significant tourism and tax dollars to support Missouri’s economy. In general, the more that outdoorsmen value their quarry and the wild places they inhabit, the more likely folks will tend to respect and preserve those valuable resources – a desirable outcome indeed. The above fisheries management changes are merely proposals at this point and will likely require much persistence and patience from the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance and other interested anglers before they are eventually enacted by the Commissioners who oversee the Missouri Department of Conservation. But, as the only conservation-based angling organization solely focused on the protection and preservation of Missouri’s stream smallmouth bass resources, it is well worth the effort. To learn more about these regulations proposals and the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance, please visit our website at www.missourismallmouthalliance.org.

We have always dumped a canoe in at TT and paddled up and down. It is a good little stream and holds some nice fish but access is very limited. Most landowners in Butler Cty have choked off all access to streams and County roads have no parking. Luckily, I have friends in PB that will shuttle, we just dump in and call for a pickup when done. Wading is limited, the TT access has some deep holes with mud banks for the most part, which is why we use a canoe. You might look at Cane Creek, or Little Black for wading also.

BOO YA, YIPEEEE, AIEYYEEEE, Toss me another beer and lets stick a knife in it....... Did ya ever notice that you take the time on here to write up a decent fishing report and all you get is a few stares? But try to make a statement about something or post an opinion and it is dogpile on the wabbit.... I can't wait till this weekend so I can finally get out and wet a hook.

Great article and brings out a new interesting concept. The armed citizen is the first line of defense in a crime for the most part. If we survive, we call the police to assist. If that gets too bad, then the military has to assist. Since Government wants to be all things to everybody, then they should screen all places that we are not allowed to carry to protect us whilst we are not able to protect ourselves. Way to go Kansas, this is monumental. Maybe this will carry over into the private sector also, you know, all the businesses that post the "Concealed Weapons Not Allowed" signs. The liability to protect us will fall on the business owner and the lawyers will have something to get even richer on..... Bill in Kansas Would Allow CCW in Less Secure Areas.

I would go to the hardware store like Lowes and get some blue or pink Dow foam and a tube or 2 of liquid nail adhesive. I assume it is an Alum boat and you are trying to fill in the voids. Expanding foam would be permanent but not very good.

If you are practicing catch and release or its an illegal fish, release it gently and don't handle, bang it up, so it will live. If it is a legal fish and you are going to take it and eat it, it is going to die anyway. As far as respect, it is not only for the fish, it should be for others in the outdoors that are trying to enjoy peace of the outdoors. If they wanted a cheering section or noise, they would have went to a ball game instead. And the fact that loud noises scare fish off and shuts them down.

Well, I thought Phil banned political discussion at the request of Thom last year. But Thom has to start a thread with the word "Government Bailout" in it, purely political. There should have been a red button pushed at the start. No offense to Thom and his opinion, but.

Coldspring, I see you are from Kosh KO NONG ga nong, ga nong, nong, it was so funny to see the sign with a little beer buzz traveling up to 19 jct out of Thayer. Where did the town get that name anyway? Has to be an indian name of some sort, wonder what it means? My same friend used to crawl thru caves in Perry county, not my style. Always had to second guess him when he said "lets go caving" with one little flashlight. Would be alright if dry and can stand up. Another little oddity in our trips to the area was passing thru Low Wassie.

So do you have anything to dispute the facts I presented? If Ronnie did not loosen regulations, GM and others would have been out of business a long time ago. Lets see, 1993 Chevy CK1500, radio and climate control made in Mexico, truck assembled in Canada, what American built my truck? By the way, climate control was replaced after a month of ownership.

I have been going to the 11pt for 30 years and have never went into or up to the cave. Many times we put in at Whitten, waded around Whitten and by the cave trail, but never tripped up to it. Last summer we started to go and read it was closed. My friend fished it since he was a kid and used to go there all of the time. But I really don't like snot nosed flying mice in tight spaces, so I will pass.

Just a few short words on the matter, We Need Less Government Intervention with Private Businesses. They need to stick to running the government, which they are doing poorly at lately, and we can't afford to bail out the government when it goes bankrupt.

Was the bailout and recovery of Chrysler the first time such a good thing? Looks like it was a pretty bad idea unless you were a special interest group. The following from Heritage.org. The Chrysler Bail-Out Bust Published on July 13, 1983 by James K. Chrysler Corporation auto sales are roaring into high gear. And so is the myth of the Great Chrysler Comeback. The resurgence of the once dying automaker has become the favorite example cited by proponents of national industrial policy who call for massive and costly federal efforts to revive what they describe as a desperately ailing American economy. The way they tell the story, Chrysler in 1979 seemed destined for bankruptcy, and now it's showing a profit. What saved Chrysler, we are told, are the $1.2 billion in loan guarantees provided by the federal government-so successful was the timely injection of cash that the company could announce today that it will pay off the remaining $800 million by September. And it didn't cost the taxpayer a penny, did it, they ask gloatingly. Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca, who came to Washington four years ago with begging bowl in hand, is now in the vanguard of the push for more government intervention in American industry. Federal loan guarantees, import quotas, and a well-defined industrial policy, he promises, will be the key to American corporate success in the years ahead If it all seems too good to be true, it is because it isn't true. The popular version of the Chrysler bail-out is simply a fairy tale. The bail-out is a bust. Closer scrutiny of it reveals that the "great success" rests on a bedrock of myths and half truths. These myths cloud and distort important issues involved in the larger question of industrial policy and a closer business-government relationship. Confronting the Chrysler myths with Chrysler facts reveals Chrysler's true financial condition and the real impact of those federal guarantees. It shows that if the bailout is indeed the model for an American industrial policy the consequences could be disastrous Myth No. 1: Government loan guarantees prevented the Chrysler Corporation from going bankrupt. The truth is that the Chrysler Corporation has gone bankrupt by every normal definition of the word. In the past three years, Chrysler has renegotiated its debts and restructured its organization in a way that greatly resembles a company going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Its creditors, like those of bankrupt firms, were forced to swallow sizeable losses. This was the result of a clause in the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 that required creditors to make certain "concessions" to Chrysler. With this clause to exploit and with Treasury Department officials, including then-Secretary William Miller, pressuring its creditors, Chrysler was able to pay off more than $600 million in debts at just 30 cents on the dollar. In addition, the company was allowed to convert nearly $700 million in debts into a special class of preferred stock-paper relatively worthless in the financial markets because the shares earned no dividends and were to be unredeemable for several years. In early 1983, Chrysler reached a tentative agreement with its creditors to trade this preferred stock for Chrysler's regularly traded common stock. However, the creditors still get the short end of the financial stick: the face value of the common stock to be received will almost certainly be less than the face value of the original debt. Chrysler's creditors are not alone in being socked by the company's quasi-bankruptcy. The firm's workers have paid an even greater price. Despite the fact that the loan guarantees were approved by Congress mainly to protect jobs at Chrysler, the company has sent home nearly half of its employees, cutting its white collar work force by 20,000 and laying off 42,600 of its hourly workers since the loan guarantees were signed into law. Many observers, including Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisc.) complain that the number of employees laid off at Chrysler in this period is at least as large-and may even have been larger-than the number of jobs that probably would have been lost had Chrysler actually been forced into bankruptcy. The only difference between the actual bankruptcy that Chrysler faced in 1979 and the quasi-bankruptcy that Chrysler has gone through in the past three years is that under this quasi-bankruptcy the federal government is responsible for guaranteeing over $1 billion in Chrysler loans. Chrysler's creditors and employees have paid a price no different than they would have paid in reorganization under the bankruptcy laws. If it has not been the workers and creditors who have benefited from federal generosity, who has? The answer: Mainly Chrysler's shareholders. But not even all of Chrysler's shareholders benefited: sensible stockholders-the ones who carefully monitored Chrysler's financial and management performance-probably sold the stock well before the bailout occurred. Therefore, only two types of Chrysler stockholders really benefited from the bail-out: (1) less informed investors who either ignored the warning signs of Chrysler's impending bankruptcy or else failed to act on them, and (2) the stockholders who were gambling that the federal government would come to Chrysler's rescue and minimize their potential losses. The Chrysler version of industrial policy, therefore, fleeced the company's creditors, resulted in a 50 percent reduction in Chrysler's workforce, rewarded the least deserving of Chrysler's stockholders, and let the U.S. taxpayer risk his money in a bankrupt company. This we are told, is the shining example for America's new industrial policy. Myth No. 2: Federal 1oan guarantees were justified because Chrysler's financial problems were brought on by the federal government. Although federal regulations have certainly played a part in the financial decline of the automobile industry, these rules apply to every firm in the industry, not just Chrysler. It was Chrysler's management, rather, which put it on the road to bankruptcy. Throughout the late 1930s and into the early 1940s, Chrysler was actually the second largest car manufacturer in the United States, ahead of Ford. The company's problems began shortly after World War II, when it decided to stick with prewar manufacturing and styling methods instead of retooling to meet the expectations of postwar automobile buyers. Ford and General Motors, in contrast, developed a sleek and streamlined design that sold well. By the time Chrysler's management admitted their mistake in the 1950s, the company had slipped to third place among the nation's automakers. But because Chrysler's new management reacted by emphasizing sales and production over engineering, the firm's cars were little more than delayed copies of Ford and General Motors products. "Chrysler was always into a fad, but always into it at the tail end, after it had crested," says Maryann Keller, automobile industry analyst for Paine Webber. Even Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca does not accuse the federal government of total responsibility for Chrysler's plight. "I don't blame regulations for all of Chrysler's problems," Iacocca admitted to a congressional committee. "I think that half of all Chrysler's problems were tough management mistakes." Regulations may have played a part in forcing Chrysler over the edge, but the stage had been set for Chrysler's problems long before seat belts and bumper standards were a gleam in the regulators' eyes. Myth No. 3: The loan. guarantees cost nothing since Chrysler has not gone bankrupt. Under the provisions of the Loan Guarantee Act, Chrysler is supposed to compensate the federal government for the risk that the government has taken in making the guarantees. The House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs defined this risk as "the difference between the rate that the guaranteed loans carry and the rate that Chrysler would be required to pay if the loans were obtained without the federal guarantees."[1] Just how large is the difference between the two rates? In early 1980, Chrysler was able to issue government-guaranteed bonds at an interest rate of only 10.35 percent, while Ford Motor Company was forced to pay about 14.50 percent for its unguaranteed bonds. If Chrysler did not have the loan guarantees, it would almost certainly have to pay a higher interest rate on its bonds than the more secure Ford Motor Company. Therefore, one would assume that Chrysler should be paying the federal government a guarantee fee of at least four percent. Yet Chrysler pays only one percent, or about $12 million a year. Chrysler attempted to make up the difference by giving the government 14.4 million "warrants," which are certificates that give the government the right to purchase a share of Chrysler stock at $13 a share. Even if the stock price does rise to the point where American taxpayers would be fully compensated for the $300 million in interest subsidies that Chrysler will enjoy during the 1980s, the company is clearly not eager to see taxpayers collecting on those warrants In early 1983, Chrysler publicly demanded that the Treasury Department return the warrants to Chrysler, claiming that cashing in now-valuable warrants would amount to "usury." Due to adverse public reaction, a Chrysler spokesman said that the company "would not press" the demand at this time. Moreover, Chrysler has petitioned the federal government to reduce the one percent loan guarantee fee it currently pays down to the statutorily mandated minimum of one-half percent. The federal government put more than one billion in tax dollars at risk for Chrysler. But if Chrysler survives it appears that the company is very reluctant to reward Uncle Sam for that risk. Myth No. 4: Chrysler's top management has taken deep salary cuts until Chrysler's financial problems are resolved. When Chrysler was petitioning the federal government for the financial assistance it wanted, in 1979, the company announced its Salary Reduction Program. Under this, executive salaries were cut between two and ten percent; Lee Iacocca's salary was reduced to one dollar a year (although it was made clear that, under the program, Iacocca would collect the balance of a recruitment bonus due to him in 1980). If Chrysler's financial performance was adequate after two years, the executives would be eligible to receive retroactive salary payments to make up for these reductions. Despite the fact that Chrysler lost nearly $500 million in 1981, the Salary Reduction Program ended that year, and executive salaries were restored to their 1979 level. Moreover, the company made retroactive payments to its executives for about two-thirds of the income they lost while the program was in effect, on the theory that its stock price in 1981 was about two-thirds of its 1979 price. Iacocca himself received over $360,000 in salary supplemental payments, and director's fees in 1981-including "amounts paid in accordance with the Salary Reduction Program," according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All of this despite the fact that Chrysler was still losing money. Not that there is anything inherently wrong in paying high salaries; Iacocca probably could be making much more money at a much healthier company. But the much heralded sacrifices made by Chrysler executives did not last long-just about long enough to secure federal support for the company. Myth No. 5: Chrysler's new-found profitability shows that it is on the road to financial recovery. Chrysler's supporters were elated when the company reported a net profit of over $170 million in the first quarter of 1983-the largest quarterly profit in the company's history. Lee Iacocca has also announced that the remaining $800 million in federally guaranteed loans will be repaid by September-seven years ahead of schedule. Many observers call this a "comeback." Rumors of Chrysler's resurrection, however, may be premature. Chrysler claims that cost cutting has been an important factor in the company's success. But Chrysler's version of cost cutting provides a shaky foundation for long-term profitability. Examples: * Carry-forward of tax losses. Chrysler's massive losses in 1979, 1980, and 1981 have given the company large tax deductions to cut its tax bills almost to zero throughout the 1980s. Of the $170 million "earned" by Chrysler in the first quarter of 1983, only half actually represents operating profit; the other half is attributable to Chrysler's large loss carry-forward. * Cuts in research and development (R&D) spending. Chrysler boosted R&D spending from $161 million in 1972 to $358 million in 1979 (or $207 million in 1972-equivalent dollars). But between 1979 and 1982, R&D spending was cut to $307 million (only $133 million in 1972 dollars). R&D includes product planning and design for Chrysler's future models. Slashing such outlays may mean quick paper profits at the cost of future innovation and competitiveness. * Decreases in capital investment. Industry analysts are concerned that Chrysler is sacrificing long-term capital investment in the interest of short-term profit. "We still have long-term concerns about the company and the fact that during this period of trial and tribulation, they have not spent much money for product, plant, and equipment," says Harvey Heinbach, automobile industry analyst for Merrill Lynch. "This year [1982] Chrysler will have invested $500 million in capital spending compared to General Motors' $8 billion." * Deferrals of pension costs. In January 1982, Chrysler reached an agreement with the United Auto Workers to defer $220 million in pension fund contributions. The UAW is not likely to allow deferrals to continue indefinitely. * Decreases in labor costs. In January 1981, Chrysler negotiated special concessions from the UAW that saved the company more than $600 million in 1981 and 1982. The union is now fighting to restore those benefits for its workers. After a threatened strike in the United States and an actual strike by Chrysler's Canadian workers in late 1982, Chrysler was forced to give back many of those concessions. More management climb-downs are expected when the current agreement expires in January 1984, and wage parity with General Motors and Ford workers is an avowed goal of the auto workers union and its members. Currently Chrysler pays two dollars an hour less to UAW workers than do General Motors and Ford. If all of Chrysler's 40,000 hourly workers were paid the union rate, and they worked eight-hour days through the first three months of 1983, then nearly $40 million would disappear from Chrysler's profit in the first quarter in 1983. Not all of Chrysler's cost cutting has occurred in these five areas, of course. But these samples illustrate that Chrysler's current profitability-as well as its prospects for future profit ability-depends to a large extent upon a set of unique and inherently temporary circumstances. Myth No. 6: Chrysler's survival has improved America's position in the international automobile market. One argument made in support of the Chrysler loan guarantees was that it would make it easier for the United States to compete in the world market for cars, since four American companies would be competing in that market instead of three. The following statistics refute this: In 1980, when Chrysler began obtaining its guaranteed loans, Chrysler cars accounted for 7 percent of all automobiles registered in the United States, while other domestic cars accounted for 65 percent, and imported cars accounted for 28 percent. In 1981, when Chrysler received its second "wave" of loans, Chrysler's share increased to 9 percent, imports increased slightly to 29 percent, and other domestic cars slid to 62 percent. Statistics for 1982 generally mirror those of 1981. In other words, Chrysler has increased its market share not by making inroads into foreign competition, but by taking customers away from other domes tic manufacturers. When Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1979, the marketplace was signaling that the slackening automobile market would only support three U.S. car manufacturers. By granting the Chrysler loan guarantees, Congress ignored that signal. If Chrysler survives, it will probably mean that the shrinking automobile market will be shared by four ailing domestic automakers, rather than the two or three relatively healthy car manufacturers that would have emerged had Chrysler been allowed to go into formal bankruptcy. CONCLUS ION When the loan guarantee program was being considered by Congress, Chrysler's unions and top management constituted the "visible" constituency, pleading its case in Washington and begging to be pulled back from the jaws of bankruptcy. Unrepresented and unheard was a huge "invisible" constituency. They included: * Current and future laid-off Ford and General Motors workers, who never understood that their tax dollars were being used to destroy their own jobs in order to save jobs at Chrysler * Small businessmen and private individuals, who never understood that the Chrysler bail-out would squeeze $1.2 billion out of the credit market, making it difficult and more costly for them to raise business capital or finance a mortgage on a new house, all of which would have created new jobs * Over 60,000 now laid-off Chrysler workers, who expected the bailout to save their jobs * American car buyers, who never understood that Ford and General Motors would have taken over much of a bankrupt Chrysler's market and produced cars more efficiently, reducing the cost of domestic automobiles. The problem with the Chrysler bail-out-in fact, the problem with all "industrial policy"-is that it is necessarily political in nature; the loudest interest groups get the greatest reward, while the scattered and fragmented "invisible constituency" is largely ignored. But a free market is a tangled web of infinite and subtle interaction, in which the full impact of intervention is not always recognized until too late. In the case of the Chrysler bail-out, a big chunk of taxpayer money was committed to a shaky and inappropriate venture. Every American became an involuntary and uncompensated partner in a company whose future is still in doubt. The precedent established is extremely dangerous. On top of this, the bail-out even failed in its purpose. Prepared for The Heritage Foundation by James K. Hickel a Washington-based policy consultant. Based on: "Lemon Aid," Reason, March 1983. Text appearing in the article reprinted with permission. ©1983 by the Reason Foundation, Box 40105, Santa Barbara, CA 93103.

Probably closed for the bats and the white nose disease fear. Check out the NFS website for 11pt, it used to tell the times it is open or closed. The disease scare closed it permanently I believe unless it is over.

I saw a whole school of mullets go by last weekend at the Homeshow. My favorites are the LesBean Mullets, they are so sexy.

For God's Sake, change the ad to a Smallie from Al's other works. End this madness....

No, No, NOT THE RED BUTTON.............