Back to fishies and froggies | High Sierra Topix  

Back to fishies and froggies

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Back to fishies and froggies

Postby gdurkee » Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:59 pm

Roland Knapp, of the Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Lab, started a blog on froggies and fish and the Sierra aquatic ecosystem about a year ago. It is an outstanding effort by a working research scientist talking about how science is done and applied. Lately, he's been writing about the recent limiting of stocking of fish in parts of the Sierra as well as the effects of trout on the entire Sierra ecosystem, not just frogs & fish. These are all topics that have come up here.

Commenting on Obama's personnel selections, CAP's Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss said, "After the anti-science Bush administration, this is like going to a Mensa meeting after eight years of being trapped in the Flat Earth Society.


When faced with the shrill drivel reprinted in the popular press by people who don't bother to read actual research, Roland's blog is incredibly refreshing and a hopeful sign of the reemergence of science as a stronger influence on ecosystem problems. Check him out at:

http://anuranblog.blogspot.com/

See his open forum piece in the SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/30/EDRV150OSL.DTL

George



User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby rlown » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:32 pm

If you want to interact with Dr. Knapp on his blog at http://anuranblog.blogspot.com/, you can click on the blog subject, and then you are allowed to enter comments. You'll need a google login to best interact. If you choose to, remember you represent the Angling community and as George pointed out, Dr. Knapp has done some great research.

I'm hopeful we can identify some places with dink 8" fish in basins that would be appropriate for frogs, etc., and leave the big fish alone.

Russ
User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby giantbrookie » Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:25 pm

As many of you know, I very much respect Roland and his fellow researchers. That science has had a second seat (at best) in environmental policy is something that goes much deeper than the political stripe of whomever is in the Oval Office, although I would agree with Roland that what I've seen thus far with Obama's appointments gives me hope that there will be some significant improvement on his watch. We need to remember is that science is not built into our government and regulatory agencies structures as a major player in part because it is not a major emphasis in our society as a whole. Our level of public science education lags behind numerous countries that are not nearly as well developed as we are and it is reflected in how our agencies are set up. For every dollar that funds technical (scientific) positions at the state or Federal EPA, umpteen dollars go to pay the salaries of policy types (think legal background etc.). I am not saying this to downplay the significance of the some of the very qualified appointees and Obama's wisdom in picking them, but I am saying that ultimately we as the public need to step up our game if science and reason is going to have a chance at guiding policy. I say this from the standpoint of having been at the interface between science and public for the better part of 20 years and in having been both a professional practitioner and an educator in the field of science that our public is most ignorant in (because it is barely taught in our K-12 education system): the Earth Sciences.

Returning to fish and frogs, I believe there are many avenues for successful management of trout in backcountry Sierra lake fisheries and it is counterproductive for anglers to circle the wagons and deny that results of robust scientific studies that Roland and others have conducted and published. Anglers need to begin by coming to the table with the acceptance of the scientific studies on frogs and fish populations and working from there. I also believe that both environmental advocates and anglers have taken an overly confrontational approach to many of these matters and this approach has led to what I believe are a rather smaller and more simplistic set of options than those considered in areas where folks work more cooperatively. We Californians think that we are at the forefront of everything and indeed we have been in many things, but Washington (and, I guess other states) are far ahead of us in terms of cooperative and creative solutions to high country fisheries management.
Since my fishing (etc.) website is still down, you can be distracted by geology stuff at: http://www.fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/facu ... ayshi.html
User avatar
giantbrookie
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Fresno
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby gdurkee » Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:51 pm

GB: absolutely right on science education in K-12. With some reservations, I also agree on how science is implemented and the reasons for it (more policy types with no science background or ability to evaluate it). I will say, though, that more than any other agency I've got experience with, NPS has a very strong science program and it's reasonably well funded. There are occasional glaring mistakes, but they mostly try to implement as policy what they find out as science.

And of course, you're also right on in encouraging common ground among the angler community and various agencies.

I just sent a note to Roland with the observation that I don't see anywhere near as many people fishing now as I did in the 70s. Then, I think over 60% carried fishing rods and a fair percentage of them were serious about fishing (this is only in Yosemite & Sequoia Kings -- I have limited experience elsewhere). Nowadays I think the number carrying poles is probably less than 20% and the number I talk to who are seriously into fish (like, say, you and others participating in The Fishing Hole discussions) is literally a handful of people. Maybe 10 at most in a season. So for all the caterwauling sometimes generated by the angler community over fish removal, they are really a tiny minority of users (in the parks anyway).

So that's also to say that the numbers of anglers in the parks is extremely small. The lake you show on your website -- bottom of the home page -- used to get 3 to 5 parties a week in the 70s and early 80s. Now I think it's fewer than 10 parties per season. In fact, I've always had a slight suspicion that the fish are getting slightly smaller there because there's less fishing pressure.

The same is true of Seki (ie the big losses occurred before the 80's), although my impression is that a much higher percentage of Seki lakes were self sustaining, so the percentage lake loss was less in Seki. It is said that over half of the Yosemite lakes that once had fish no longer had them as of the 80's. I would guess that way better than that (70 percent maybe) retained their fish in Seki and Seki always had many more fish bearing lakes than Yosemite, anyway.


What lakes in Sequoia Kings do you think have shown reduced fish since aerial stocking was stopped? I have to say I've noticed no differences I could attribute to lack of stocking. It seems mostly to be whether it's good habitat or not. I think the 70s showed some great fishing because, in a number of alpine lakes, they'd only been recently introduced and the food was great. Now that they've eaten everything, you see some declines in size (assuming there's a lot of spawning area -- if not, the size seems to stay very good).

I don't think the lake you show on your site or others (like Crabtree, Wallace, and others in the southern Kern) have been stocked since the 50s, yet the fishing (Goldens) remains the best in Sequoia Kings. That's a strong argument which questions just how useful aerial stocking is. To a certain extent, DFG has gotten themselves into this pickle by not having very good (or any) studies to show if aerial stocking even works. Mortality is extremely high -- maybe even 100%. Even for areas where aerial stocking would be allowed, they really have to look at how efficient and effective it is.

g.

PS: From your site, what Kings lakes do you think might be better than the one shown? I can only think of two and I'm not sure either is better. The very, very best is, I think, in the southern Kern.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby dave54 » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:48 pm

I do not see any significant change in national science policy. Bush was not the first nor will he be the last President to (attempt) alter science research to further political aims (re: the clinton White House interference in the ICEBMP and SNCF projects, and the NSF grants for ANWR research with strings attached are only two examples. George Washington attempted to suppress advances in distilling technology). The Environmental Grantmaker Association once posted an essay on their website advocating the censorship of science that did not align with their goals. I do not doubt that some of obama's staffers will try to exert pressure on scientific releases of information. I think I would be surprised if they did not.

As for the original frogs versus fish topic, an underlying difference of opinion is the overall use of public lands. The National Forests were never intended to be biological museums, to be left in original pristine condition. The Organic Act, MUSY, RPA, NEPA, and other laws make it quite unambiguously clear national forests are to be used, managed, and manipulated for economic, social, and recreational purposes. The National Parks have in their mission to preserve natural resources as much as possible. The NF and BLM lands do not. Fish stocking is an acceptable use of the lands, even if it occurs at the expense of the frogs. If the public demands change, then land management practices will change with them. But the change must come from the people, not judicial tyranny. We do not need the 9th Circuit inventing any more laws on the spot, or 'reinterpreting' the original intent of Congress.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby gdurkee » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:29 pm

Fish stocking is an acceptable use of the lands, even if it occurs at the expense of the frogs. If the public demands change, then land management practices will change with them. But the change must come from the people, not judicial tyranny. We do not need the 9th Circuit inventing any more laws on the spot, or 'reinterpreting' the original intent of Congress.


No. The law is what the courts decide it is. That's very basic to our system of government (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). There is no "reinterpretation" of laws going on here. They look at the intent of the laws made. In most all significant environmental cases, the courts come nowhere close to making up laws on the spot. All they're usually doing is telling the agencies involved to properly consider the rules and regulations of their own agencies or those made by Congress. When you read actual court decisions, they cite case law going back decades -- and over many different types of courts -- and include US Supreme Court decisions as their basis.

The key line in your paragraph is "even if it occurs at the expense of the frogs" and that is precisely what Congress, federal & state land management agencies and, now, the courts are saying cannot happen. Fish stocking: fine, but NOT when reasonable measure can be taken to protect frogs and the ecosystem (if you read Roland's essays, it's about much more than frogs, and the courts have agreed a number of times).

g.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby gdurkee » Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:50 am

And, while we're on the law, it may be worth posting William O. Douglas' classic dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (405 U.S. 727 (1972))-- that was the one where Disney wanted to develop Mineral King as a ski area. The USFS, which then managed Mineral King, said "sure, why not." Sierra Club sued but was initially denied because they did not show they, as a corporate structure, had standing to sue. The Supreme Court, though, did say if they came back and showed individual members would be affected because of denied recreational opportunities, they would have standing and their case considered. Douglas dissented.

Now here, it's arguable this is what Dave54 means by "judicial activism" but which I'd call an attempt to make sure that an inarticulate object or critter (rivers, meadows, bears) can be given legal standing and heard when they are threatened -- judicially, a new concept, but one that's clearly required if we're to be able to protect things that don't otherwise have a voice (or money: "When men say "law", they mean "money."" --Emerson).

Although a dissent, much of the protections now given the wild places we enjoy hiking and skiing in, evolved from both this majority decision and Douglas' dissent. It's also pretty darned good writing:

The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.

Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes.

So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water - whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction.....

The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled. That does not mean that the judiciary takes over the managerial functions from the federal agency. It merely means that before these priceless bits of Americana (such as a valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so transformed as to be reduced to the eventual rubble of our urban environment, the voice of the existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard.

Perhaps they will not win. Perhaps the bulldozers of "progress" will plow under all the aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land. That is not the present question. The sole question is, who has standing to be heard?

Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe and portage the Quetico Superior in Minnesota, certainly should have standing to defend those natural wonders before courts or agencies, though they live 3,000 miles away. Those who merely are caught up in environmental news or propaganda and flock to defend these waters or areas may be treated differently. That is why these environmental issues should be tendered by the inanimate object itself. Then there will be assurances that all of the forms of life which it represents will stand before the court - the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well as the trout in the streams. Those inarticulate members of the ecological group cannot speak. But those people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire ecological community.....

That, as I see it, is the issue of "standing" in the present case and controversy.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby giantbrookie » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:20 am

gdurkee wrote:I just sent a note to Roland with the observation that I don't see anywhere near as many people fishing now as I did in the 70s. Then, I think over 60% carried fishing rods and a fair percentage of them were serious about fishing (this is only in Yosemite & Sequoia Kings -- I have limited experience elsewhere). Nowadays I think the number carrying poles is probably less than 20% and the number I talk to who are seriously into fish (like, say, you and others participating in The Fishing Hole discussions) is literally a handful of people. Maybe 10 at most in a season.
So that's also to say that the numbers of anglers in the parks is extremely small. The lake you show on your website -- bottom of the home page -- used to get 3 to 5 parties a week in the 70s and early 80s. Now I think it's fewer than 10 parties per season. In fact, I've always had a slight suspicion that the fish are getting slightly smaller there because there's less fishing pressure.
What lakes in Sequoia Kings do you think have shown reduced fish since aerial stocking was stopped? I have to say I've noticed no differences I could attribute to lack of stocking. It seems mostly to be whether it's good habitat or not. I think the 70s showed some great fishing because, in a number of alpine lakes, they'd only been recently introduced and the food was great. Now that they've eaten everything, you see some declines in size (assuming there's a lot of spawning area -- if not, the size seems to stay very good).

I don't think the lake you show on your site or others (like Crabtree, Wallace, and others in the southern Kern) have been stocked since the 50s, yet the fishing (Goldens) remains the best in Sequoia Kings. That's a strong argument which questions just how useful aerial stocking is. To a certain extent, DFG has gotten themselves into this pickle by not having very good (or any) studies to show if aerial stocking even works. Mortality is extremely high -- maybe even 100%. Even for areas where aerial stocking would be allowed, they really have to look at how efficient and effective it is.

PS: From your site, what Kings lakes do you think might be better than the one shown? I can only think of two and I'm not sure either is better. The very, very best is, I think, in the southern Kern.


Hi George, thanks for your informative posts on this thread and the eloquent dissent by William O Douglas. It's a lot like reading Muir with a reasoned legal slant--I'm in the midst of re-reading Muir's Mountains of California at the moment, so it was very much in the spirit of the moment (there is a little note about what I know to be MYLF and lack of fish in "Glacial Lakes" in there, too).

Regarding the possible decline in the number of folks fishing the backcountry I cannot say for sure I've noticed this in the 4 decades I've been headed to the mountains. I can say with total certainty that off trail travel of any sort, other than peak bagging, has declined hugely since its peak in the 70's. Accordingly, the drop off in the folks visiting that lake with the football rainbows is not a shock. We can see this trend in the type of footwear available at outdoor stores (see thread in Outdoor Gear), as well as the ability of the average hiker to read a topo map. I remember that many of my casual hiker friends in high school could read a topo well enough to plan and execute trips that would be considered "advanced cross country" today. In the northern Sierra (say Desolation and vicinity) well worn use trails of the 70's have long vanished as brush overgrew them. Has backcountry angler use fallen off correspondingly? Probably, but it is hard to say given that I am sort of a magnet for receiving communication on backcountry fishing, so I receive a large number of emails per year from dozens of different people.

Regarding lakes in Seki that have gone fishless since being stocked (now I'm not sure if they stocking was aerially or ground based) I have it on good authority that the big lake above Colby once had epic goldens, and we know from McDermand's writings that Lion Lake did too. South Guard Lake is another former legend (info on which was passed on by the most hardcore Seki backcountry fishermen I've ever met--met them at the football rainbow spot).

Regarding the efficacy of air drops, I am fairly sure it is much more effective and way cheaper (entire districts are done in one or two days; I have old air drop charts from the late 80's and early 90's) than the old pack train method and the DFG has successfully maintained a large number of fisheries outside the NPs that could not be maintained otherwise. That fish existed in those lakes from the air dropping, instead of natural reproduction, is very apparent when we look at the large number of them that have gone fishless in the North Sierra since air dropping ceased in many of them as of 2000. We can also see this in the shift in populations of some west flank lakes, formerly dropped with brookies (and dependent on stocking), but "converted" to rainbow lakes in the wake of post-2000 management changes (with brookies being all but banned). The key to effective air dropping is identifying the lakes that truly need it and regulating the "dosage" properly. This has always been a balance between pleasing the masses (want to catch something) versus pleasing the hardcore (who want fewer and bigger). In todays fisheries, with plenty of lakes featuring small fish, much smaller allotments (than pre 2000) should be the rule. Historically the strategy seems to vary by district, with the best district (pre 2000) being Rancho Cordova (Northern Sierra). The worse tended to be the Redding District (Klamath Mtn wilderness areas: Trinity Alps, Marble Mtns., Russian Wilderness etc) where I complained several times of overstocking of already overpopulated lakes (I was told by one official there that in their opinion a self sustaining lake didn't exist!). For self sustaining lakes there are very few for which the natural reproduction does not eventually result in a higher fish density and more fish--it's just a matter of how long this takes. Historically, one can see this trend at a number of places. Versteeg is one example when one looks at the records of folks who have fished it repeatedly over the decades (as well as McDermand's epic accounts). Wallace is another one. Great lake, but not the lunker palace it was in McDermand's time (nor the equal of Crabtree 3). I am willing to bet the fish at the football rainbow lake were bigger 40 years ago. The decline in fishing pressure may have also contributed to an increase in fish population (and reduction in fish size), but at a lake of that size and fish numbers, the level of fishing pressure it once received is probably less significant than population gains through spawning. If a lake has utterly no spawning potential--and there are lakes like this--one can fine tune the fish density with the drop allotment and truly create premium fisheries. Washington is doing this, and their plans also include the use of sterile fish. This allows them to manage a trout population density that is small enough that other sensitive critters can coexist, while maintaining a fishery with some very large fish. Whether or not these policies have helped with some of the "wall of fame" photo thread shots on the WA Trailblazer's site (must be 20 inches plus and backcountry to qualify) is hard to say, but some of the recent shots there are mind blowing (note I had to represent Cali and put in the 32 inch mack; another guy threw in a nice rainbow from somewhere in Yosemite--recognized the lake right off the bat).

Better than the football rainbow lake? Of course this has to do with average size, so the 'better' lakes have fewer fish. I will PM you on those.
Since my fishing (etc.) website is still down, you can be distracted by geology stuff at: http://www.fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/facu ... ayshi.html
User avatar
giantbrookie
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Fresno
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby Bad Man From Bodie » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:05 pm

Check out this link to an October 2008 airing on the Discovery Channel I think called The Vanishing Frog, hosted by Animal Planets Jeff Corwin.

http://animal.discovery.com/tv/vanishing-frogs/video/video.html

It is amazing how many different points of view there are in the scientific community. My card says Environmental Scientist/Hydrogeoogist and I don't subscribe to all of Knapps conclusions. He has a very compelling data set supporting his conclusions. However, others have very compelling data which does not concur with Knapp. I literally grew up watching the drama of Roland unfold......and I will just leave that one alone, but I don't agree with his overall management objective.


In general, I see less people on trails more than a day out. This concurs with the condition of these trails.....i.e. the trail has completely vanished which is ok with me. I would have to concur with Giantbrookie on most of these issues. GB - you have some great things to say here and my ears are open (I could probably learn something about geology and brewing from you too). Although, by now you all probably know that I do subscribe to dave54 thoughts on the management of public lands, and that is why I don't work for the feds.....for now that is.

I think we all have a lot to learn from each other. What I get out of living and recreating in the Sierra isn't just about fish or fishing, but it does play a large roll in my family history and "why I climbed that particular mountain ect.". My mother-in-law, an ex-president of the Tahoe Rim Trail treks for different reasons than I. Whatever the reason, when we go for a walk in the wilderness, she knows our family will be fishing or peak bagging and not frog gazing. I have to support those efforts to ensure sustainable and robust fisheries for everyone who wants small brookies to 20 inch bows and goldens. After all....its the quest to find that lake or catch that big fish that compels me to get out there time and time again. Its a lifestyle for me. Im into fishing, snowboarding, peak bagging, hunting, and that kind of stuff. I don't spend my time day dreaming about frogs as most folks don't. Frogs still have the right to exist and persist as do the porcupines which are in dire straights in the Eastern Sierra as well (they don't get a tenth of the attention the frogs get). There is a huge list of other species out there other than frogs that are in just as much danger of local extinction....why so much frog attention I ask?
User avatar
Bad Man From Bodie
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Lee Vining/Reno
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby rlown » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:13 pm

There is a huge list of other species out there other than frogs that are in just as much danger of local extinction....why so much frog attention I ask?


I would hazard a guess that Porcupines don't require fish removal for their habitat restoration :D

On your note about "The Vanishing Frog" episode. I was intriqued by their lack of cleanliness protocol for the fungus when moving from one lake or basin to another (they had one, but it seemed lax to me). The other thing i took away from that was, that i'm pretty sure fisherman don't do the cleaning protocol when moving from lake to lake.

Russ
User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby el cuervo » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:23 pm

BM wrote:

"...However, others have very compelling data which does not concur with Knapp."

others?

How about some links to said data?
el cuervo
 

User avatar

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Postby Bad Man From Bodie » Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:40 pm

Russ...

The decontamination protocol is a joke....good luck with that one I say...lets try to keep all of the animals out of the water too. Point is yes, fish eat frogs....a lot of critters always have....that's part of it all and why its alarming ......we need to have frogs around for a reason........but according to these scientist, da fungus is getting em, and in numbers! So, the fish may not necessarily be the main problem round here. As for porcupines, no you don't have to poison fish to restore their habitat :unibrow: .

el cuervo....

Why do you hate fish :evil: :evil: :evil: :mad: :mad: :puke: ???????
User avatar
Bad Man From Bodie
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Lee Vining/Reno
Experience: N/A

Next

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron