Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-07-2011, 04:51 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

How long have you been aware of any problems?

Now I give up
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-07-2011, 04:55 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
They wernt sure of the problem till recently! IT was largely the weather from the last two years that caused the problem!
if the problem is two years old where was the boundary on last years traverse tourney?
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:00 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish
There was no conflict of interest. Brian was working on protecting the fish for walleyes unlimited. The arm was shut down in the first place by their work.

As president of SAWT he and other presidents have had tournments on Travers which included all open waters.

It would have been a conflict of interest had he not had the tournaments there! More info has come to light in the last year or so which influenced the changes for this year. I suspect that SAWT will follow the rules this year as well! And I believe Brian has lobbied for the changes for this year as well.


And I bet it could have been closed earlier if SAWT had made it off limites for their tournaments it would have shown SRD that even fishing groups were in favor of the closer to help the fishery.I don't see how the SAWT can't follow the rules this year like every one else. You know there is a saying that rings very true "A BAD VOLUNTEER IS WORSE THEN NO VOLUNTEER" think about it.
__________________
Straight from the horses mouth!

You would probably lose that bet then. The later spawning/staging just occurred the last 2 years. Not all changes are going to be as quick as you demand! Information comes in from the tournaments as well, not just weekend sport fisherman. Its easy for you to sit back and criticize and stir. SAWT has been a leader and innovator in Tournament fishing and “being better for and wellbeing of the walleye”. Many trails have since adopted methods we started. An example would be on the water measurements and release rather than transport back to a fixed weight station. I believe much of the SRD recommendations on tournaments were adopted from us. Info is collected in the form of catch rates and other studies. I will go through my other posts on here and try to simplify them so you might understand. Hope this helps! (I hate typing). I can talk about it better than I can type it.

Does anyone else not understand what Im trying to say? Or is it just horse?
I don't know who you are trying to convince but i'm sure its your self you can go back over anything you what and it will show no different then it did the first time I'm sure he was an innovator in tournament fishing as the pres. of SAWT. Unfortunately that is the same reason why there was a conflict of interest By also being the Pres. of Walleye Unlimited where he should have been fighting SAWT not to hold their tournament in the west arm but did not.
So thank you for bringing this point back up so people can see the issue again.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:04 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

sorry horse you are right as always. I should have known by now.lol
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:07 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Well I just went back to all my posts on this thread and was going to try and make them more clear, but I dont see a problem with what Im trying to get across. Me thinks Horse is just tying to get me stirred up? But that seems to be his style.
Two question left unanswered now but that seems to be YOUR STYLE.

No I'm not trying to get you stirred up I could care less what you d
I'm just trying to get my ideas out and you disagree thats fine if you want to post on what I write thats fine to. but I will defend what I post WILL YOU.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:09 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

What do you need answered?
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:12 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pickrel pat View Post
catch and release has stunted the wabamum pike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickrel pat View Post
before people came to this land, were all the walleye stunted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavMahler View Post
not sure,,, were there people here before us and if there were, did they eat fish, and if they did eat fish, did they catch them by rod or net or other, and if so, were they keeping that oh so delicate balance working?

what were the catch limits and size limits, if there were people here before us?
You guy may not care if you derail this thread but I do so if you want to discuss the pros and cons of C-R and harvesting lets do it on another thread and not be rude to the people that are concerned about this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:14 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
if the problem is two years old where was the boundary on last years traverse tourney?
Same, read my post. I said being identified recently and dealt with this year. You also like to read into things to suit your stance! Cmon guys. Hey gl2 how long have you known of "the problem"?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:20 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Same, read my post. I said being identified recently and dealt with this year. You also like to read into things to suit your stance! Cmon guys. Hey gl2 how long have you known of "the problem"?
in post 147 you gave our problem a start date of 2 years ago. i have not known this problem till recently as i do not harass pregnant fish. did you know the problem sooner and still harassed these fish???
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:22 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
You guy may not care if you derail this thread but I do so if you want to discuss the pros and cons of C-R and harvesting lets do it on another thread and not be rude to the people that are concerned about this issue.
You also talked about it! Nature will take its course if allowed.

We have to play by your rules when it suites you? I think I am done with this thread.

However if you are ever in Lethbridge and want to debate the issues, look me up.
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:24 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
yes, you do not see it, no problem. The point i was trying to make was there were not many fish caught ok. Was that better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
and that matters in what way???????
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
"people on this forum can choose which posts to respond to and when they want to respond! Get a grip! " quote from hunsfurfish




you are funny. Lolololol
you said it in the same post lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
yes because it was a quote and it still does not say they can't do it.
so what is your complaint.

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:25 PM
MoFugger21's Avatar
MoFugger21 MoFugger21 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
I don't know who you are trying to convince but i'm sure its your self you can go back over anything you what and it will show no different then it did the first time I'm sure he was an innovator in tournament fishing as the pres. of SAWT. Unfortunately that is the same reason why there was a conflict of interest By also being the Pres. of Walleye Unlimited where he should have been fighting SAWT not to hold their tournament in the west arm but did not.
So thank you for bringing this point back up so people can see the issue again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
sorry horse you are right as always. I should have known by now.lol
Sigh... He(horsetrader) is not wrong....

Hunts... It's becoming abundantly clear that trying to explain this 'conflict of interest' issue to you is as hard as explaining linear algebra to a 6 year old child.... I just don't understand how you don't/can't/won't/refuse to see it, when so many people can, and have asked about it. There's really no point even trying any more, because anything you try to argue has nothing to do with SAWT and WU sharing the same President being a conflict of interest with regards to Travers.

Exhibit A being:
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish
There was no conflict of interest. Brian was working on protecting the fish for walleyes unlimited. The arm was shut down in the first place by their work.

As president of SAWT he and other presidents have had tournments on Travers which included all open waters.

It would have been a conflict of interest had he not had the tournaments there! More info has come to light in the last year or so which influenced the changes for this year. I suspect that SAWT will follow the rules this year as well! And I believe Brian has lobbied for the changes for this year as well.


And I bet it could have been closed earlier if SAWT had made it off limites for their tournaments it would have shown SRD that even fishing groups were in favor of the closer to help the fishery.I don't see how the SAWT can't follow the rules this year like every one else. You know there is a saying that rings very true "A BAD VOLUNTEER IS WORSE THEN NO VOLUNTEER" think about it.
__________________
Straight from the horses mouth!

You would probably lose that bet then. The later spawning/staging just occurred the last 2 years. Not all changes are going to be as quick as you demand! Information comes in from the tournaments as well, not just weekend sport fisherman. Its easy for you to sit back and criticize and stir. SAWT has been a leader and innovator in Tournament fishing and “being better for and wellbeing of the walleye”. Many trails have since adopted methods we started. An example would be on the water measurements and release rather than transport back to a fixed weight station. I believe much of the SRD recommendations on tournaments were adopted from us. Info is collected in the form of catch rates and other studies. I will go through my other posts on here and try to simplify them so you might understand. Hope this helps! (I hate typing). I can talk about it better than I can type it.

Does anyone else not understand what Im trying to say? Or is it just horse?
What exactly does being a tournament innovator have to do with the conflict of interest issue?? The fact remains WU has apparently been pushing for this closure for 2-3 years for the sole purpose of protecting the spawning walleye, and SAWT continued to fish this area during the proposed closure, in the proposed area, when the same guy running SAWT was running WU who was pushing for this closure.......

Ugggg.... Oh, and I'm not sure if you removed my name for the bottom of the above quote cause you hoped I wouldn't chime in, but I think I give up trying to explain this fact to you... Somebody else willing to give it a go?
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:26 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
in post 147 you gave our problem a start date of 2 years ago. i have not known this problem till recently as i do not harass pregnant fish. did you know the problem sooner and still harassed these fish???
Well for your info. It has yet to be determined if there is/was a problem

I am saying the last two years have been colder that likely was the problem!

You are assuming there is a problem too!
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:28 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Question for you guys(to make a point), was the spawn over when SAWT fished or not?




ok

Guess were not on the same page.

My last post on this thread.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 11-07-2011 at 05:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:28 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
They wernt sure of the problem till recently! IT was largely the weather from the last two years that caused the problem!

[QUOTE=Winch101;1149188]I think the point is moot ....number of walleyes in the creek is relative to

feed , water temp and level . 3 yrs ago we were catching 20" plus fish in 2 ft. of water on july 15 th.....

Brian did tell me he was concerned about how the Tournaments were pounding this spawning area in the spring. This was 3 yrs ago...


Are you suggesting winch101 is just yanking our chain?
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:29 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
You also talked about it! Nature will take its course if allowed.

We have to play by your rules when it suites you? I think I am done with this thread.

However if you are ever in Lethbridge and want to debate the issues, look me up.
Yes I brought it up as A point to this thread not to not to lakes in general but again you don't understand that. And that is all I will say about it on this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:38 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Question for you guys(to make a point), was the spawn over when SAWT fished or not?




ok

Guess were not on the same page.

My last post on this thread.
Suggested by many to me there was alot of milking fish. Remember true conservation extends to the post spawn also. Tired vulnerable females in all creatures deserve a maturnity leave. The day after your wife gave birth, did you make her wax your truck and mow the grass?
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 11-07-2011, 05:52 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

ok

chubby that was this year and fair enough, I did not fish this year. Last year we caught none that were milting, usually a sign that they are dispersing by that time. This year milting fish were likely a sign that they were spawn/post spawn but my understanding from where these fish were being caught that it was still post spawn. However I can not varify that as I was not there. What has been said is a likely delay in spawning is causing most of the grief. That is why these changes are coming about. Dispersal of post spawn fish is relatively quick on our reservoirs. Had it not been for the weird weather this year and last and been back to drought years this likely would have never been an issue. I am not against protecting fish as some have suggested, and do not like the SAWT and Walleye Unlimited bashing by some.

The same offer to you, if you are ever in the Lethbridge area and want to debate these issues over a coffee, PM me.

Now I am done
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 11-07-2011, 06:00 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
ok

chubby that was this year and fair enough, I did not fish this year. Last year we caught none that were milting, usually a sign that they are dispersing by that time. This year milting fish were likely a sign that they were spawn/post spawn but my understanding from where these fish were being caught that it was still post spawn. However I can not varify that as I was not there. What has been said is a likely delay in spawning is causing most of the grief. That is why these changes are coming about. Dispersal of post spawn fish is relatively quick on our reservoirs. Had it not been for the weird weather this year and last and been back to drought years this likely would have never been an issue. I am not against protecting fish as some have suggested, and do not like the SAWT and Walleye Unlimited bashing by some.

The same offer to you, if you are ever in the Lethbridge area and want to debate these issues over a coffee, PM me.

Now I am done
as mentioned by numerous posters.....the arm is a prime feeding area. The area provides spawning habitat and a quality area for the fish to replenish their depleted reserves......easy prey and comfort thats the key to a healthy post spawn

p.s im in the bridge alot...i look forward to it
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 11-07-2011, 06:09 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
ok

chubby that was this year and fair enough, I did not fish this year. Last year we caught none that were milting, usually a sign that they are dispersing by that time. This year milting fish were likely a sign that they were spawn/post spawn but my understanding from where these fish were being caught that it was still post spawn. However I can not varify that as I was not there. What has been said is a likely delay in spawning is causing most of the grief. That is why these changes are coming about. Dispersal of post spawn fish is relatively quick on our reservoirs. Had it not been for the weird weather this year and last and been back to drought years this likely would have never been an issue. I am not against protecting fish as some have suggested, and do not like the SAWT and Walleye Unlimited bashing by some.

The same offer to you, if you are ever in the Lethbridge area and want to debate these issues over a coffee, PM me.

Now I am done
it was not my intention to bash SAWT or WU, but you have to see the conflict of interest of one person holding both president positions.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 11-07-2011, 06:12 PM
MoFugger21's Avatar
MoFugger21 MoFugger21 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
it was not my intention to bash SAWT or WU, but you have to see the conflict of interest of one person holding both president positions.
This is my sentiment as well. I have nothing against the organizations as whole, but I do have a problem with the conflict of interest part of this whole process...
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 11-07-2011, 06:20 PM
pickrel pat pickrel pat is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
X2 It has Been proven a few times unfortunately that a C-R lake is not always a healthy lake. You must have a harvest of fish to keep the numbers at a size that will allow the fish to grow at a healthy rate. To few fish chance of losing the fishery, to many fish and the lake stunts and you still lose a great fishery.
There is a delicate balance. The harvest of fish has to be monitored and adjusted in accordance.
this thread isnt about catch and release. please dont derail thread.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 11-07-2011, 06:22 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

I want to repeat , im not on a agenda to hang anyone or anything.
I went to a meeting in clarsholm that i was told by SRD on how the process worked.
I understood that SRD was advising or telling us what changes were being made. Any thing we discussed would not...could not.....change the sheet of info we were handed, except for minor details. Dates and boundaries dont qaulify as minor to me.

This once again is what was on the sheet


Location: Travers Resovoir and Little Bow River
Existing Regulation: Open May 8 to Mar 15
Proposed Regulation: Open May 23 to Mar 15
Explaination/rationale: Walleye spawn at the mouth and lower reaches of the Little Bow River upstream of Travers Resovoir, and stage at the west end of Travers. In cooler springs, walleye spawing doesnt commence until early May and extends past May 8. This includes the Little Bow River up to the Carmangay Weir. This closure is to protect spring spawning fish

I in fact after reading this many times and sending it to certain people who are versed and educated better than me...say its a lake closure. The heading is Travers Res....and the sentence of 'This includes....' declares that.

Either way im bothered by all the claims on what is going to happen and then read posts that negate the details.

Im very sure the people who can answer all my questions are watching....i dont expect them join in on a forum discussion.....but i would like another meeting asap, the people deserve a explaination. If im assumming wrong and get a reason why all this has happened...i will stand at the meeting and apologize. I ask that all this becomes transparent, is that too much to ask?
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 11-07-2011, 07:05 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
ok

chubby that was this year and fair enough, I did not fish this year. Last year we caught none that were milting, usually a sign that they are dispersing by that time. This year milting fish were likely a sign that they were spawn/post spawn but my understanding from where these fish were being caught that it was still post spawn. However I can not varify that as I was not there. What has been said is a likely delay in spawning is causing most of the grief. That is why these changes are coming about. Dispersal of post spawn fish is relatively quick on our reservoirs. Had it not been for the weird weather this year and last and been back to drought years this likely would have never been an issue. I am not against protecting fish as some have suggested, and do not like the SAWT and Walleye Unlimited bashing by some.

The same offer to you, if you are ever in the Lethbridge area and want to debate these issues over a coffee, PM me.

Now I am done
I don't really think I was bashing SAWT or WU the organizations them selves but if thats what I have to do to bring issues to light I will. I posted against someone on this forum and took crap for it until his true face came out with help for someone else. I will take the abuse if it helps. To tell you the truth I would be interested in the WU and will try to be at the next meeting. Was a member of HUNTERS AND ANGLERS and and an affiliate of DU years ago.
and enjoyed it very much.

Last edited by horsetrader; 11-07-2011 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 11-07-2011, 07:39 PM
npauls's Avatar
npauls npauls is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 4,060
Default

edit

wow i am a few pages back
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 11-07-2011, 07:41 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by npauls View Post
There is also no proof that this is a major spawning area.

There very well could be some fish that spawn in there but like mentioned before it has not been studied.
I think it's the nature of access and the fact that it's a compression for schooling fish, a bottleneck,,, whereas the lake isn't so narrow. IMO
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 11-07-2011, 07:58 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Originally Posted by npauls
There is also no proof that this is a major spawning area.

There very well could be some fish that spawn in there but like mentioned before it has not been studied.

where do you think the majority of eyes spawn in traverse?
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 11-07-2011, 09:11 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
how does a person go about getting the results of the test netting? does that become public info?
This site shows fish inventories from trapping, netting and electroshocking tests performed by F&W. I cannot speak as to it's contents, whether complete or not.


http://xnet.env.gov.ab.ca/imf/imfAlb...ite=fw_mis_pub

I see F@W has test netted about 30 Walleye since 1997 in Traverse. A Days test Angling produced more fish. Commercial test netting was the most productive for walleye capture, at the east end.

Looks like there have been NO testing in the creeks, except for Little Bow.


I would request the hard data regarding all test fishing and commercial fishing at Travers.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 11-07-2011, 11:16 PM
npauls's Avatar
npauls npauls is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 4,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
Originally Posted by npauls
There is also no proof that this is a major spawning area.

There very well could be some fish that spawn in there but like mentioned before it has not been studied.

where do you think the majority of eyes spawn in traverse?
as i mentioned before I am not sure where the spawning areas are.

I edited my post because I was typing while doped up from surgery here and typed before I thought about it and tried to edit after realizing this. What I tried to say didn't come out right but my post was quoted before I could fix things.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 11-08-2011, 12:36 AM
crestliner crestliner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
i just got off the phone with Terry Clayton and here is what i learned....

1- there has been no study done to provide hard facts as why these changes are taking place, these changes are just being made to protect the fish that spawn in the west arm ( as we have ice later and later fish are spawning later and later and this would ensure fish spawn in peace)

2- there was test netting done on the whole body of traverse but nobody has gone over that data yet, thus no conclusions have been made. these tests were not done to provide data for the changes being made in the west arm.

3- the idea that Terry does not believe walleye spawn in the west are is not true as he clearly identified as these reg changes to protect the spawning fish.

4- there has been no boundary set as to the closure, its still being worked on by the srd. he told me that he is waiting for input from land people. they are still a ways off of deciding on how much water this extended closure will impact.

this was not a long talk but i did express my concern as to where the boundary will be. i can only hope that its not 100m west of the dock and we do the right thing for the fish.
There seems to be a few things coming out now. It is possible we could learn a lot more as this continues. Thanks for the information G12. I think I read it some were when the next Walleye Unlimited meeting is and where it is but I could not find it. If someone could post that information or PM me it would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
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 09:02 AM.


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