Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 49 of total 49 in this topic |
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes ....
This IS the American way.
Completely Stupid.
Make America a prison camp and turn Americans into sterile mundane robots to be controlled and manipulated.
These fools are creating a climate/environment exactly the opposite of their goal of protecting .....
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
JUST SAY
F U !
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
I blame the millenials and Obama.
EDIT: non-robots step around and STFU. Wear dull colors and proceed as normal. kaaah-rist! baybeh.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
How is this to be enforced?
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
Drone surveilance...
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Thanks for posting.
Email sent.
I can't believe that anyone in their right mind thinks this is actually a good way to manage public lands.
It's pure laziness of the parks dept.. "Oh let's just ban people from all off trail areas because 1% of them are sensitive".
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
These park managers are a$$holes. Like all beaurocracies, they've lost sight of their real responsibility and purpose.
I wonder if they're even needed really. I call 'em eco-nazis. Deal with them around here routinely.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
We are lucky that a huge amount of public land is under Federal control. California is a little better than many states. The real problem is budgets. States have to balance budgets, Feds don't. Wasn't it the state parks that were stashing millions of dollars a few years ago?
The Federal government actually subsidizes both commercial and recreational uses of Federal land. One size fits all is crazy. Comment sent.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 3, 2016 - 10:37pm PT
|
Don't blame all the park managers.
Many of the individual park managers didn't even know this had been proposed, and may not agree with it for their own preserves, such as in Anza-Borrego. And they have no idea how they would enforce it, esp in some of the large preserves.
For example, on March 10, Red Rock Canyon State Park posted on their facebook page:
"The Ricardo Campground has 50 first come, first served campsites perfect for tent camping out of a car. The park is 27,000 acres and all of it is available for open hiking except for Nightmare Gulch which is closed to all access until July 1st."
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
EDIT: non-robots step around and STFU. Wear dull colors and proceed as normal.
+1
feralfae
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The real problem is budgets. States have to balance budgets, Feds don't.
What'ya mean???
JTree's abundant income spreads out to keep armed guards in front of lots of states' treasures with one hand out waiting for money, one hand holding a ticketbook and and pen, all the while their eyes are poised on their uzzies. Same with Yo se mite.
i'd call that federal spending.
|
|
JerryA
Mountain climber
Sacramento,CA
|
|
Is there a list or map of California reserves and preserves anywhere ?
|
|
Pete_N
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
I dislike being told what I can or cannot do as much as anyone, and these kinds of regulations concerning "public" lands definitely raise my hackles. What looks like a lazy "just keep 'em all out" approach would be particularly egregious. However, there are some considerations that temper my own knee-jerk response to this proposal:
some public lands are experiencing increasing rates of use and correspondingly higher impacts (eg erosion, trash, graffiti, damage to cultural or historic artifacts, wildlife disturbance)
funding, as others have pointed out, that might support a more nuanced management approach is abysmal
particularly sensitive areas included in these preserves/reserves (so designated because of the vulnerable and/or rare nature of these attributes) may not be compatible at all with public access
A thoughtful, measured response to this crude proposal is more likely to be taken seriously than a "f you" here.
[edited to add:]
I started writing a letter in protest and, frankly, I'm struggling to think of a persuasive rational for not prohibiting public off-trail access to these areas. Let's think this through...what ideas do others have? In no particular order (and uncertain just how convincing these might be):
1. While some areas are likely to be incompatible with public access, this proposal abolishes reasonable and sustainable access and use of less sensitive areas included in these protected areas.
2. We need more public access to wild areas, not less. Sure, there are far more lands that would still provide for access than what would be closed through this amendment, but people need to experience these special areas too.
3. I would rather see increased efforts towards public education about how to experience these areas in a manner that is consistent with their protection, than this blanket prohibition.
4. Please identify those areas that really are incompatible with unfettered public access; some may allow for limited access (eg via boardwalks or on a seasonal basis), while others may not allow for any.
Note that Public Resources Code, Section 5003 states that, "The department shall administer, protect, develop, and interpret the property under its jurisdiction for the use and enjoyment of the public."
Other ideas?
|
|
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
Good. Now go inside and stay there.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
This plan has Centers For Biological Diversity written all over it. Would not be surprised to find out they are the ones pushing it behind the scenes.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Fifty years ago many of the Adirondack peaks were trailess and the state was tearing down lean-tos in an attempt to "spread out" usage. Fact is there were braided trails on most of the peaks. The state simply did not grasp what the future had in store for us. I thought it much more useful to harden areas in a subtle way so places could be used by the inevitable large numbers, with out looking like a battle zone. Since "trails" would be the easiest way to get around most would choose to use a trail. The numbers of those not using a trail would hopefully be small enough and people would be educated enough not to need regulation.
I have been accused of being naive. I may have been.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Proposed Amendment to replace repealed CCR Section 4325, Title 14, Chapter 1 Section 4325 Off trail restrictions-Preserves and Reserves
(a) No person shall leave designated trails, board walks or other designated routes of travel in Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, or State Natural Reserves within the California State Park System, unless approved by the Department.
(b) Section (a) shall not restrict Department employees or their agents for the purpose of management, such as research, enforcement, rescue, or educational programs.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 5003 and 5008, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 5003, 5008, 5019.50, 5019.65, 5019.71, and 5019.74. Public Resources Code
not sure how these categories are defined, but if you look for the words "reserve" and "preserve" you come up with:
Natural Preserves
Ahjumawi Lava Springs State Park, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland State Park, Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park, Big Basin Redwoods State Park, Caswell Memorial State Park, Chino Hills State Park, Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park, Delta Meadows, Emeryville Crescent State Marine Reserve, Estero Bluffs State Park, The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park, Garrapata State Park, Great Valley Grasslands State Park, Harmony Headlands State Park, Hearst San Simeon State Park, Hendy Woods State Park, Humboldt Redwoods State Park, Van Damme State Park, Benicia State Recreation Area, Reynolds Wayside Campground
Cultural Preserves
Anderson Marsh State Historic Park, Bodie State Historic Park, Chumash Painted Cave State Historic Park, El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park
State Cultural Reserves
State Natural Reserves
Albany State Marine Reserve, Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, Armstrong Redwoods, Azalea, Caspar Headlands, John B. Dewitt Redwoods, John Little, Jug Handle, Kruse Rhododendron, Los Osos Oaks, Mailliard Woods, Mono Lake Tufa, Montgomery Woods, Point Lobos, Smithe Redwoods, Torrey Pines, Tule Elk
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_state_parks);
don't recognize any climbing venues in that list...
|
|
Charlie D.
Trad climber
Western Slope, Tahoe Sierra
|
|
Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, and State Natural Reserves within the California State Park System
Overreaching ban or overacting posters?
|
|
dikhed
climber
State of fugue and disbelief
|
|
Nothing worse than an over actor
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
I'm not familiar with most of those places, but closing Anza Borrego to cross country hiking seems like a bit much.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Having done a bit of research on this, I, too, would have a hard time justifying "open traffic" in some of these areas. The first job of the employees in these areas is, I think, to protect and preserve these special areas. Maybe they all need to be closed for ten years until restoration, protection, and new ways of handling human impact can be instituted.
So, maybe instead of yelling, I might volunteer to help with new trail building, improved signage, or some other way to counteract the problems of increasing encroachment by human use.
I think I sometimes forget that conservation means protection and sustaining what is there. Of all the land that is available for walking, maybe some of it does need to be closed until we find better ways to route visitors and better ways to save what needs to be saved, too.
This needs more discussion with people who are working to save special places. And perhaps they need more help from the public. Sounds as though they are making, in some instances, last-ditch efforts to preserve what is already in designated special areas. So I guess the questions I need to ask myself, even if not for California, is how does this affect me and how can I help?
It is, after all, our land, our resources, and our treasures that need protecting.
The mosquitoes are arriving in Fairbanks.
feralfae
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
So why is it not a problem in the national parks? Are the California state
park people smarter or quicker to recognize a problem? Methinks not.
Bureaucrats love to invent problems to avoid having to actually do what
they're hired to do. Can you say 'Williamson Rock'?
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Wait.... you mean the hippies are trampling the precious mother Earth to death? How ironic.
|
|
kaholatingtong
Trad climber
Marcus McCoy from somewhere over the rainbow...
|
|
I do what I want!
As f*#ked as it sounds, it kinda makes sense, in a weird sort of way....if you take your beliefs to a dogmatic level ...
Preserve....utilize......preserve.... Enjoy.... Preserve....lock away entirely....
Ohh the conflicts!
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
blue state problems.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
Another stab at Ed's analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:California_State_Reserves
Within that I see Point Dume, which historically has rock climbing too. I haven't been there yet and it's on my list of places to go. Does a published climbing route count as a "trail"?
Anza-Borrego has extensive off-road driving opportunities in the washes, which provide great access to scrambling adventures that are not roped climbing (too loose) but still great ways to explore nature. Think canyoneering in pure mud slot canyons. The idea that the minimal human use of such places would be a factor is laughable when the whole area is a kitty litter-box that is reshaped by water during periodic deluges.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
Some rangers are clueless.
One time, near Soda Lake, a ranger saw my portaledge in a campsite, and started talking about climbing. He said he was 100% against the use of climbing cams, because they wear grooves in the rock. He said he had seen those holes, with grooves, that the climbing cams had made. He said it should be illegal to use climbing cams on public lands.
He'd never heard of bongs and angles.
He just assumed that the aluminum cam lobes wore deep grooves into the granite cracks.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
Natural Preserves
Ahjumawi Lava Springs State Park, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland State Park, Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park, Big Basin Redwoods State Park, Caswell Memorial State Park, Chino Hills State Park, Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park, Delta Meadows, Emeryville Crescent State Marine Reserve, Estero Bluffs State Park, The Forest of Nisene Marks State Park, Garrapata State Park, Great Valley Grasslands State Park, Harmony Headlands State Park, Hearst San Simeon State Park, Hendy Woods State Park, Humboldt Redwoods State Park, Van Damme State Park, Benicia State Recreation Area, Reynolds Wayside Campground Cultural Preserves
Funny, Ed, that I don't see Castle Rock State Park on this list. I seem to remember that the CRSP Management Plan specifically allowed for "free roaming" in the Natural Preserve west of the main area. This was enacted in 2001, but do the local authorities at Castle Rock actually talk to State Parks in Sacto? I'd rather doubt it!
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
I can understand the perspective of a ranger against such defacement if they have seen Boy Scout Rocks at Mt Diablo. Deep grooves worn in the rock by folks who rig top-ropes far back from the edge instead of extending them.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega
|
|
Having spent a lot of time working on access in state parks lately, I'll offer just a couple thoughts on this proposed rule:
The individual Parks/reserves/preserves are well aware of their resources and are already doing a pretty good job of letting the public know what areas are sensitive and should not be entered. Case in point is the trails at Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve here in Sonoma County. Its pretty darn obvious that you aren't supposed to leave the path.
I see this new rule as an extension of the "Transformation" of the parks into a more revenue generating entity that receives "funding" directly from the public instead of from our tax dollars. There are many steps being taken state wide to increase revenue by charging new day use fees and increasing law enforcement. Writing tickets is certainly a method of revenue generation. By passing rules like this, there will be mechanisms in place that can be used to cite visitors who are not following the "rules."
I believe this blanket rule, regarding off trail use in preserves and reserves, will affect climbers less than other groups like nature photographers, artists, and people who prefer being on wild land rather than develped trails. The amount of climbing in most of these locations is rather limited from what I can tell, with the exception of Anza Borrego and a few other areas. Each park and reserve needs to set their own rules based on the specific needs of that resource, but they currently have jurisdiction to cite people for entering closed areas. So this rule seems to be redundant and over reaching.
As an avid user and supporter of our state parks, I am not an obstructionist to the obvious need for funding. Our parks are part of the critical infrastructure of California. They help drive the economy in so many ways and are integral to the California lifestyle. Sacramento needs to fund the parks from the General Fund rather than cutting them off to fend for themselves. Compared to the ma$$ive amounts of money being earmarked for bullet trains and delta tunnel projects, the ~$500 million needed for annual funding our parks is just a drop in the bucket.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
Some of the bouldering in Culp Valley in Anza Borrego is targeted for closure.
Ed, that list is apparently incomplete. One of the issues here is working out exactly what reserves are where. There may well be other access areas lost under this plan, too. Anyone who climbs or hikes or camps or does anything at any California State Park ought to go through the maps as carefully as they can to learn where closures are likely. Please note that I'm not making any argument as to the reasonableness of closures. It'd just be good to figure out wtf we are looking at here.
For instance, this CSP map proposes closing the Culp Valley Cultural Preserve (not on Ed's Wiki list):
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/anza_culp_valley_map.pdf
If you compare that map with the one on MountainProject, you can see which of the boulders would be out of bounds under the new plan:
https://www.mountainproject.com/scripts/AreaMap?id=106116317
I haven't boulder Culp in ages, and I was never a local, and I'm not sure if any of my favorite camping areas there will also get closed (although it looks like one will). So I'm not even advocating for or against even this particular closure. But the reason we're all struggling here is because CSP doesn't have a list of cultural, historic and natural preserves on its webpage, much less maps of them. So we're all kind of pissing in the dark, trusting to WIkipedia or whatever.
I think San Diego Climbers Alliance and the Anza Borrego Foundation are both involved at this point. Not sure about other areas.
|
|
dikhed
climber
State of fugue and disbelief
|
|
People are f*#king dumb and or don't care nothing is too obvious
Its pretty darn obvious that you aren't supposed to leave the path.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
There are definitely groups that don't want any visitors entering State Park 'Nature Preserves' unless accompanied by a docent after receiving permission from the Park Superintendent. Bet it's very difficult to patrol an area as large as Castle Rock State Park, so enforcement - if such a thing is feasible - would be very, very spotty and arbitrary. This proposed new rule could be used, however, to keep climbers and boulderers out of certain areas the State or local authorities didn't want them to visit.
Dunno if Boy Scout Rocks with the offending grooves cut in the sandstone by ropes is on a 'Nature Preserve' within Mt Diablo State Park. Anyone can visit Boy Scout Rock I'd say.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
It is obvious that certain areas should restrict human traffic to protect the balance. However, a blanket rule is so dumb it invites violation.
Sensible rules that everyone can agree on don't necessarily require management resources.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
thanks, zbrown. that PDF link won't show up on my desktop, probably because of OS/browser issues. works fine on my newer laptop.
it doesn't resolve to a level that allows one to see the relevant preserve borders. i guess you have to go to each individual state park. for the two i checked, the basic map didn't include the boundaries either, i had to go to the management plan.
i'm not a socal local anymore, but if i were, i'd be going over the management plans for the cuyamaca, malibu and anza borrego SPs with some care.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Well, very close to home there are the Silver Strand NP and Tijuana Estuary NP.
The Silver Strand is actually the Navy Seal base and the Tijuana Estuary has sufficient trails to see pretty much evrything.
Up at Idyllwild there are the Hidden Divide NP and Mount San Jacinto SW.
Like klk says you need more maps to see details.
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
Email sent. Blanket rules are idiotic, and the park service needs to be told so. I'm not worried about climbing. I'm worried about freedom. If the area has some particular sensitivities, ok. But one-size-fits-all policies result in kids who DRAW a gun being expelled from school. Frikin' morons.
BAd
|
|
ATS
climber
Mountain Project
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 02:43pm PT
|
""not sure how these categories are defined, but if you look for the words "reserve" and "preserve" you come up with:""
Ed, there is no difference between the two.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 07:23am PT
|
has sufficient trails to see pretty much everything.
In truth, google earth let's you see everything you need. Why don't we go full lock down and not allow any access, trails and roads to anything.
This, is how it all starts....
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 07:32am PT
|
I think the SD Sierra Club has it about right. This proposal is too broad.
Dear Ms. Mangat, Sierra Club San Diego writes to express our concern regarding the scope of the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s (DPR) proposed rule regarding off-trail use restrictions for reserves and preserves. Specifically, we are concerned that the scope of the proposed rule is much too broad, and would hinder the legitimate and responsible enjoyment of the wilderness by members of the public who have proven dedication to the protection of these places. For six decades, Sierra Club San Diego has operated its signature outdoors education and recreation program, the Wilderness Basics Course (WBC). Every spring, WBC teaches students the essentials of backpacking, wilderness survival, and responsible enjoyment of public lands. As part of the program, WBC educates students in the ethics of “leave no trace”: instructing students to hike and camp on durable surfaces, to pack in and pack out trash, to minimize the use and impact of fires, to leave what they find, and to be respectful of other people and cultures. Most importantly, WBC aims to inspire new generations of conservationists who will fight to preserve our wilderness and public lands for posterity. As part of the WBC program, students participate in four weekend backpacking trips, most of which are in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Anza-Borrego has traditionally allowed certain off-trail activities, and WBC uses this flexibility to educate students in land navigation fundamentals, appropriate campsite selection, introduction to desert flora and fauna, and how to stay safe, healthy, and found in the wilderness. Access to off-trail areas is a critical aspect of this education program, and the lessons of the WBC program would be severely curtailed if the proposed rule were adopted. Additionally, while Sierra Club’s San Diego’s WBC program would be deleteriously affected by this proposed rule, our chapter’s 11,000 members would also lose access to many of the places in Anza-Borrego that they have lovingly enjoyed and protected for decades.
Sierra Club San Diego believes that the scope of the proposed rule is far too broad, and that enforcement of such a rule in places like Anza-Borrego would hinder rather than help the preservation of California’s cultural preserves, open space, and wilderness. Not only would the proposed rule be practically unenforceable, but it would prevent programs like the WBC from adequately training its students in responsible wilderness recreation, and severely limit its mission of nurturing new stewards to care for and preserve public lands. Of course, Sierra Club San Diego understands and appreciates the need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and cultural preserves from destructive human encroachment, and we applaud DPR’s efforts to restore fragile ecosystems to full health. We believe, however, that decisions regarding off-trail restrictions should be made on a case-by-case basis, with input from the public and stakeholders for each location where such restrictions are proposed. Sierra Club San Diego urges DPR to modify the proposed rule so that decisions on off-trail restrictions are made on a case-by-case basis with adequate opportunity for public input and comment. We believe that better solutions can be fashioned to protect the most ecologically sensitive areas of our state lands from destructive encroachment, while also preserving the ability of responsible individuals and groups to enjoy wilderness areas as they have for generations. Such solutions should be crafted on a case-by-case basis, in full consultation with the public and stakeholders who know these places best. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely
Davin A. Widgerow Chair, Steering Committee Sierra Club San Diego
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 12:56pm PT
|
Yes, I do see the San Lorenzo Headwater NP listed under Castle Rock State Park in that .pdf map. The exact boundaries of that NP are pretty loosely defined in the first place. Funny how the boundaries of that preserve are only marked adjacent to climbing or bouldering areas. But they were not very smart when they drew up the boundaries since there are so many other climbing areas at Castle Rock that fall outside the NP. The authorities will simple define the boundaries to suit their own biases. Arbitrary enforcement of rules and regulations is nothing new I'm afraid.
|
|
LAhiker
Social climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2017 - 10:41am PT
|
Just FYI, this has come up again. The proposed regulation of off-trail use in preserves and reserves in state parks was revised to allow exceptions, but is still opposed by many hikers and groups. The deadline for public comment (which can be sent in by email to trails@parks.ca.gov) is 5pm today, Weds, 1/18/17).
Here's a link with more info:
https://www.meetup.com/Hiking-Coachella-Valley/events/236868237/
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2017 - 10:49am PT
|
What's the point of having parks you can't use?
|
|
crøtch
climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2017 - 11:32am PT
|
I submitted a comment by email, and I also called my state assemblyperson's office in Sacramento. They were unaware of the proposed rule change and very receptive to my comments about recreational activities such as rock climbing that often require departure from existing trails. I would encourage you all to contact your state representatives and make them aware of this issue.
|
|
ManMountain
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2017 - 01:06pm PT
|
"Anza-Borrego has extensive off-road driving opportunities in the washes, which provide great access to scrambling adventures that are not roped climbing (too loose) but still great ways to explore nature. Think canyoneering in pure mud slot canyons."
Correct it to read Anza-Borrego *had* extensive off road driving opportunities. I was a member of a local Jeep club in So. Cal. for 15 years, and AB was one of our favorite spots. Over the years, dozens of jeep trails have been closed, a few at a time starting in the eighties. What remains with a few exceptions is touron SUV trails.
It pisses me off because our club favored the total ban on red sticker OHVs, volunteered a lot and were good stewards of the land. The early bans made some sense to protect stunning archaeological sites from tourons, but they've closed trails with no archaeological significance or erosion problems, apparently arbitrarily. One short trail was closed because rangers had discovered "tire marks" on rocks in squeeze passes, well duh!
I'll briefly get on my high horse and say that street legal Jeeps (not the monsters you see on youtube) are one of the least damaging modes of transportation in primitive road situations, low GVW, super short wheelbase, big tires mean low footprint pressure, 4WD means less tire spin, and so on. Organized clubs and most mavericks respect and promote the rules, haul more garbage out than in, never build open fires, witness but do not touch artifacts, etc.
So now some stunning areas in AB are only accessible by 15 mile foot or horse hikes, on a road trail that took you within a mile of the site. I'm getting old and am saddened some of the wonderful places in AB that I visited 10 years ago are now not reachable by me and my less abled friends.
Jeepers suffer the same stigma that climbers do, although we're less smelly and apparently upstanding citizens because we can afford to own and maintain a fairly expensive toy.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 49 of total 49 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!