Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 10-03-2011, 05:57 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
I think in many ways..this is what they want....TROUT is the favoured son of alberta....anything else is a kinda a black sheep.

I looked at some old pics and even though i have old pics of 5 gallon buckets full of rmw.....i dont see any rmw like the huge ones with the 1/2 inch up turned snouts we see today.
I also looked at some old b/w pics of bulltrout and they make our bulls today look like a ethiopian poster child.
Im no scientist...all i have for you is what ive seen
Interesting. Tezma got a 40cm female yesterday with a huge rostrum on it.

Funny little pig fish. A big male I got didnt have nearly the snout as that fish did. Caught 2km apart on the Bow.


I am a scientist, but often I have the same data as you, referred to as "traditional knowledge".

It's posts like Sundancer's where he presents qualitative data, as opposed to quanitative which are often of more value than a scientist's work.

SD has identified a potential concern, whereas science is not actively monitoring the issue, and likely only acts in a reactive manner.

"OMG the fish are gone, better take some samples/measurements/surveys"

aka

"Hey, where'd all the Bull Trout go?"
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-03-2011, 05:59 PM
Speckle55's Avatar
Speckle55 Speckle55 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CANADA
Posts: 6,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
Which studies are they and what data do they present?
sorry i edited my post if you have a question i am reading some papers right now.. David
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:03 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
I think in many ways..this is what they want....TROUT is the favoured son of alberta....anything else is a kinda a black sheep.

I looked at some old pics and even though i have old pics of 5 gallon buckets full of rmw.....i dont see any rmw like the huge ones with the 1/2 inch up turned snouts we see today.
I also looked at some old b/w pics of bulltrout and they make our bulls today look like a ethiopian poster child.

Im no scientist...all i have for you is what ive seen
I concur,, the limit size now for a keeper proved that the fish do get up there in size and girth,, we just assumed they maxxed at 12 with the rare occurance of bigger because that's what we could keep,, a portuguese friend liked the smallies because he could do them up like portuguese bbq'd smelts. Same goes for Walleye,, I need to get a scanner and upload old pics to explain how walleye were more rounded with big backs and guts and less lythe like we see now. And there were more classic rainbows, more speckles and rich rainbow colours as opposed the chromes that seem to be abundant now.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:08 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speckle55 View Post
i have studys dating back to fifties and before 1936/37/38 in Alberta for RMWF
Dr D S Rawson/ in paper Food for the Rocky Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni (Girad) by J . L. McHugh (March 4 1940)

i also am a Ex WR holder for RMWF in the IGFA record books

Food for Thought
David
Great, yes, I came across a few of these biological studies.

Do you have any older population ecology studies?

We could use the growth rate data from that paper and compare it to present growth rates in the same systems, but this wont tell us a lot about population dynamics, only inferred.

Where'd you catch the record, and was it male or female?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:09 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
Which studies are they and what data do they present?
X2
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:09 PM
Speckle55's Avatar
Speckle55 Speckle55 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CANADA
Posts: 6,268
Default

he talks on for sources on Bow lake, Lake Louise, Waterton ,Hector ,Bow river nere Exshaw. Gost River Res , Kananaskis Res,Lake Miniaka oppps, Cascade river,Emerald lake,Knights lake,Elk River. thats is just some in paper did the whole zooalogi and plankton etc.
David
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:13 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
X2
They present data on diet and growth rates with discussion on community ecology.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:13 PM
Speckle55's Avatar
Speckle55 Speckle55 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CANADA
Posts: 6,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
Great, yes, I came across a few of these biological studies.

Do you have any older population ecology studies?

We could use the growth rate data from that paper and compare it to present growth rates in the same systems, but this wont tell us a lot about population dynamics, only inferred.

Where'd you catch the record, and was it male or female?
Female in The Athabasca River where the Snaring runs in .. it was caught in 1986 and Berkley products paid me $2000.00 American Cheque for catching it as i use their Tri-line and the Lightning Rod .. lol .. who said fishing does not pay!!!
David
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:15 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speckle55 View Post
Female in The Athabasca River where the Snaring runs in .. it was caught in 1986 and Berkley products paid me $2000.00 American Cheque for catching it as i use their Tri-line and the Lightning Rod .. lol .. who said fishing does not pay!!!
David
What'd you hook it on? How big?

Last edited by BeeGuy; 10-03-2011 at 06:16 PM. Reason: whatever ;)
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:19 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
Interesting. Tezma got a 40cm female yesterday with a huge rostrum on it.

Funny little pig fish. A big male I got didnt have nearly the snout as that fish did. Caught 2km apart on the Bow.


I am a scientist, but often I have the same data as you, referred to as "traditional knowledge".

It's posts like Sundancer's where he presents qualitative data, as opposed to quanitative which are often of more value than a scientist's work.

SD has identified a potential concern, whereas science is not actively monitoring the issue, and likely only acts in a reactive manner.

"OMG the fish are gone, better take some samples/measurements/surveys"

aka

"Hey, where'd all the Bull Trout go?"

The one thing i remember is....the bull trout from the Koot always had some respect for their table qualitities....bright orange flesh from eating kokes.
The alberta bulls on a whitefish diet were considered less than good table fare and deemed trash by many.
The way people deem a fish as table fare has changed alot....back when i was a kid if a fish didnt taste great with a cast iron pan and a little flour ad butter it wasnt worth catching.....today with all the sauces and ingredients you hardly know its fish your eating
My pops was a trout fan...and my wish was to become a fish cop or fish scientist of some sorts....after alot of thought, i sadly gave up on that idea for monetary reasons. Not a knock on their or your wages, just my decision. But i played the part for many years.....making trips to watch fish spawn every year, no rod... just to watch. Compare what i saw and how things changed. I can remember watching bulls spawn with marauding rmw dodging in and out after bully eggs. Bulls would get pizzed and slash out putting the bite on them and then releasing the hold and the rmw would tumble down stream.Some times they would get eaten by another bull which appeared to not be spawning.
I still to this day spent time every year going to watch eyes spawn on a few lakes in southern ab.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:20 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

I feel so lame in my posts about what I remember vs science and come to think of it,, did we starve the trout that culled the rmw? I never thought about that till chubbs post. And there is a pool on The Highwood that follows a riffle where I'd target whites and a friend would cast into the tail end of the riffle with a spinner and pick off big trout of various species waiting for a straggler to venture back.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:20 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

http://www.igfa.org/records/Fish-Rec...sh,%20mountain

Current IGFA Record, 5lb 8oz, Elbow River by Randy Woo.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:21 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
http://www.igfa.org/records/Fish-Rec...sh,%20mountain

Current IGFA Record, 5lb 8oz, Elbow River by Randy Woo.
How long would this fish be?

22"+?
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:21 PM
Speckle55's Avatar
Speckle55 Speckle55 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CANADA
Posts: 6,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
What'd you hook it on? How big?
They had just accepted 12 # line as a WR line for RMWF and only had a 2#7oz on 12# line as a Wr from the states .. and i caught a 3# 5 oz on 12 # Tri-line and it lasted 18 months as a WR.. i caught it on a Royal Wulff or a Royal Humpy
David gtg
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:35 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

I often relate the rmw decline to the grizzley bear.
The grizzley and the whole eco system is life dependant on the short salmon spawn.
Did the rmw rely as heavy on the Bull trout spawn? You see grizzley bears who are so full that they catch a salmon and rip its guts open if its a male salmon its sea gull food. If they catch a female salmon they eat only the eggs. Were bully eggs a ingrediant that played a key factor in rmw numbers?
We have a wierd tme period when bulls were near gone....rmw should of flourished....my simple mind says they needed each other.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:43 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
I often relate the rmw decline to the grizzley bear.
The grizzley and the whole eco system is life dependant on the short salmon spawn.
Did the rmw rely as heavy on the Bull trout spawn? You see grizzley bears who are so full that they catch a salmon and rip its guts open if its a male salmon its sea gull food. If they catch a female salmon they eat only the eggs. Were bully eggs a ingrediant that played a key factor in rmw numbers?
We have a wierd tme period when bulls were near gone....rmw should of flourished....my simple mind says they needed each other.
So the crazy catch limits threw it out of balance? How long till it self corrects? Can it? Were those shore to shore days of rmw the norm of how it was supposed to be? Did we just assume there were too many rmw's? Do you know anyone who caught stringers of Bull Trout? Serious question.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:48 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

I remember to this day as I sat and proudly gobbled back my fried Bull Trout,, meat like a Brown trout, quite orange and juicier than Rainbow. My point being that whoever pulled out stringers of Bull more than likely really enjoyed the taste of stream bullies.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:53 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
Just some thoughts there. I support conservation, and think the RMW is under appreciated. The RMW has an enormous distribution, 1,000,000sqkm++, and I think many would agree that without the knowledge/experience of how things were, the RMW appears abundant in many of the East Slope watersheds.

Anyone else have some anecdotes from back in the day wrt the RMW?
All true points you mentioned...

However I don't think increased nutrients would cause mountain whitefish populations to decline.

The majority of declines occur in the upper reaches where brown trout are not as numerous as the middle or lower Bow.

Introduced species like brookies and rainbows and browns may have an impact...but qualitatively speaking I find it hard to see that as the major cause of any decline...versus removing spawners...before they spawn.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:55 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
Interesting. Tezma got a 40cm female yesterday with a huge rostrum on it.

Funny little pig fish. A big male I got didnt have nearly the snout as that fish did. Caught 2km apart on the Bow.


I am a scientist, but often I have the same data as you, referred to as "traditional knowledge".

It's posts like Sundancer's where he presents qualitative data, as opposed to quanitative which are often of more value than a scientist's work.

SD has identified a potential concern, whereas science is not actively monitoring the issue, and likely only acts in a reactive manner.

"OMG the fish are gone, better take some samples/measurements/surveys"

aka

"Hey, where'd all the Bull Trout go?"
I agree...quantitative data would be great...however when in the early years...mountain whitefish were much maligned...research if any centered around their negative effects on trout.

It is a very topical discussion
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:05 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
I often relate the rmw decline to the grizzley bear.
The grizzley and the whole eco system is life dependant on the short salmon spawn.
Did the rmw rely as heavy on the Bull trout spawn? You see grizzley bears who are so full that they catch a salmon and rip its guts open if its a male salmon its sea gull food. If they catch a female salmon they eat only the eggs. Were bully eggs a ingrediant that played a key factor in rmw numbers?
We have a wierd tme period when bulls were near gone....rmw should of flourished....my simple mind says they needed each other.
This is not likely to be the case.

Bull Trout are primarily piscivorous. There fore, Bull Trout biomass comes from the other species of fish, and smaller bulls inhabiting their streams.

The proportion of their eggs eaten by RMWF is small, and the contribution of bull eggs to RMWF biomass even smaller.

There is a much greater biomass of RMWF in streams than Bull trout biomass.

RMWF are sustained by feeding on invertebrates, primarily flies, mayflies, and caddis as identified in the literature.

This is basic food web ecology. Although there will be some positive resource flow from Bull Trout to RMWF, the inverse is much, much more significant.

Something along these lines which might be significant is the conversations longtime flyfisherman have been having about how the hatches on many different rivers have changed drastically. RMWF rely on bugs, and bugs have been changing.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:07 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
I agree...quantitative data would be great...however when in the early years...mountain whitefish were much maligned...research if any centered around their negative effects on trout.

It is a very topical discussion
eeek, not pot stirring!!! So was it a Quality rmw fishery when they'd school for miles on end or now while they are less abundant but larger? There's a common thread on the whole big fish create stronger plentiful offspring, not sure if I'm seeing this. Is Quality big numbers but squat in size or big in size and squat in numbers? I'm repeating myself. Does anyone care if they vanish? The maggot use is to help cull whitefish that compete with trout according to the regs, so in my best guesstimate rockies are still viewed as a threat. Maybe the terminology such as Compete should be changed to uhm,,, co-exist, co-habitate. Or we could rename them Rocky Mountain Wonderfish.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:08 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavMahler View Post
So the crazy catch limits threw it out of balance? How long till it self corrects? Can it? Were those shore to shore days of rmw the norm of how it was supposed to be? Did we just assume there were too many rmw's? Do you know anyone who caught stringers of Bull Trout? Serious question.
Gus....i can only tell you what i saw...im not a scientist.
I think the bulls killed rmw to set of the natural process of life giving...like a salmons rotting body does for its off spring. I never once saw a bully die from what looked like spawning stress. But ive seen many whites die during a rmw spawn for no apparent reason.
My pops was a farmer and repsected living things...if we killed it we ate it.
Have i seen stringers of Bulls.....yes many.
Have i seen Bulls get thrown in the bushes.....yes many
One old way of thinking can even be related to today. You fish a pool that you can see a few rmw , you cast up and hook a small trout...a bulltrout darts out from the deep and grabs your trout. This happens alot. But how many times does it happen if you have a rmw on your line?...never for me in over 40 years. Well way back when... this gave fisherman the impression bulls ate only trout, the trout they wanted to eat. This theory right or wrong ocured way back when also with perch fisherman who hated pike.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:13 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
This is not likely to be the case.

Bull Trout are primarily piscivorous. There fore, Bull Trout biomass comes from the other species of fish, and smaller bulls inhabiting their streams.

The proportion of their eggs eaten by RMWF is small, and the contribution of bull eggs to RMWF biomass even smaller.

There is a much greater biomass of RMWF in streams than Bull trout biomass.

RMWF are sustained by feeding on invertebrates, primarily flies, mayflies, and caddis as identified in the literature.

This is basic food web ecology. Although there will be some positive resource flow from Bull Trout to RMWF, the inverse is much, much more significant.

Something along these lines which might be significant is the conversations longtime flyfisherman have been having about how the hatches on many different rivers have changed drastically. RMWF rely on bugs, and bugs have been changing.

As ive said before...im no scientist....my beliefs and thoughts are purely untrained field observations....I respect many of you have far more trained tech reasoning.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:14 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
One old way of thinking can even be related to today. You fish a pool that you can see a few rmw , you cast up and hook a small trout...a bulltrout darts out from the deep and grabs your trout. This happens alot. But how many times does it happen if you have a rmw on your line?...never for me in over 40 years. Well way back when... this gave fisherman the impression bulls ate only trout, the trout they wanted to eat. This theory right or wrong ocured way back when also with perch fisherman who hated pike.
You walk into KFC and a young woman working there tells you it's toonie tuesday. You can have any piece of your choice, buy 1 get 1 free. You jump at the opportunity.

Do you choose:
a)breast
b)thigh
c)drumstick
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:19 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
As ive said before...im no scientist....my beliefs and thoughts are purely untrained field observations....I respect many of you have far more trained tech reasoning.
No worries, I'm just trying to apply your observations to the theories which lead me to the idea that a change in the bug fauna could affect RMWF pop's.

Aquatic insects are greatly impacted by those things I suggested initially. Nutrification, siltatation, increase water temp etc etc

Hell, I say,

"Blame it on the Didymo!"
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:26 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
You fish a pool that you can see a few rmw , you cast up and hook a small trout...a bulltrout darts out from the deep and grabs your trout. This happens alot. But how many times does it happen if you have a rmw on your line?...never for me in over 40 years. Well way back when... this gave fisherman the impression bulls ate only trout, the trout they wanted to eat. This theory right or wrong ocured way back when also with perch fisherman who hated pike.
Good point, kinda like looking in the cupboard that's stacked with ichiban noodles and then you notice a tin of crab buried at the back. You know when a bull hits the trout you've just hooked (hijacking my own thread), are the trout the bull is targetting letting out a holy-crikey-I'm-freakin vibration that gets the bull trout really interested? Maybe the rmw's just let out a lesser vibration of this-is-odd which is less appealing. Had a pike in the Bow go for a white I was reeling in, I let out a vibration of I'll-need-to-change my-underwear-when-I-get-home and had the benefit of vocal chords that could have shamed Pavarotti when it hit,, river pike are fast, like WoW fast.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:29 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
No worries, I'm just trying to apply your observations to the theories which lead me to the idea that a change in the bug fauna could affect RMWF pop's.

Aquatic insects are greatly impacted by those things I suggested initially. Nutrification, siltatation, increase water temp etc etc

Hell, I say,

"Blame it on the Didymo!"
I've noticed less halgramites (<sp?) and this years grasshoppers came out way later,, anyone else notice this or have I just got complacent and less looky about?
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:30 PM
BeeGuy BeeGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: down by the river
Posts: 11,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavMahler View Post
Good point, kinda like looking in the cupboard that's stacked with ichiban noodles and then you notice a tin of crab buried at the back. You know when a bull hits the trout you've just hooked (hijacking my own thread), are the trout the bull is targetting letting out a holy-crikey-I'm-freakin vibration that gets the bull trout really interested? Maybe the rmw's just let out a lesser vibration of this-is-odd which is less appealing. Had a pike in the Bow go for a white I was reeling in, I let out a vibration of I'll-need-to-change my-underwear-when-I-get-home and had the benefit of vocal chords that could have shamed Pavarotti when it hit,, river pike are fast, like WoW fast.
In my KFC metaphor I kind of answered this.

In the wild, the quality of your food is very important, second only to the time it takes to 'handle' it.

Trout provide more calories per weight than whites and are more difficult for a bull to catch.

That makes them the most premium meal in the river, and an opportunity they pounce on. Literally.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:35 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGuy View Post
In my KFC metaphor I kind of answered this.

In the wild, the quality of your food is very important, second only to the time it takes to 'handle' it.

Trout provide more calories per weight than whites and are more difficult for a bull to catch.

That makes them the most premium meal in the river, and an opportunity they pounce on. Literally.
We were typing at the same time, me hunting and pecking and you at the speed of Mavis what's'er'name.

So do some fish make a freak out vibration that makes the bull trout think Yippey an immobilised dinner? Serious question.

What lure mimicks a freaked out cuttie?
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 10-03-2011, 08:28 PM
AK47's Avatar
AK47 AK47 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylynx View Post
A lot of people refer to whitefish as stinkys

There is a little saying:

Stinky Stinky in the Lake.
Come and make your big mistake.
they do smell like fresh cucumber. So we can name them - Cucumberfish.
__________________
I intend to live forever. So far so good
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.