Home
FAQ
Register
Log inThe Ifish "sustainability" thread.
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2 
The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Hairlipangler on 7th October 2009, 9:52 am
The sustainability thread on Ifish is an interesting read. I have more questions after reading it, tell you the truth it made the whole mess more complicated. Momentum shifted several times. The actual disagreement is now more vague than ever, IMO. Nobody really addressed the HSRG's 36% estimation on a fact by fact dispute. I guess you could call it a consensus that number is possible, but due to the politics, not likely, or has the possibility to reduce sportfishing opportunity if the actual productivity benefits aren't realized for whatever reason.
To the average fisherman trying to read that, I suppose it's very frustrating to admit that politics can/has or will enable(d) the wrong use of the right tool. Every one of the disagreements revolve around the possibility of biased political influence. That's pitiful. Even with the right tools, it wont work, we're too disfunctional.
This is why I posted the allocation/recovery thread. There are two fronts, and we cannot continue to ignore the political problems, any more than we can ignore the best available science. The two are comparable to habitat and harvest arguments or perspectives. Completely and totally dependent on the other. We have the right tools and won't use them correctly. That's a bigger problem than not having the tools to begin with. A much bigger problem.
What have all of the sport groups done so far against the tribal and/or non-tribal commercial fishing political bias? Nothing to mention. This and that, but they are largely used as tools by the commodity biased agencies. Now I don't know if that's predominately because they are user advocates, but it can't help. If you think you can take on those influences independently, as you have in the past, you'll get the same results, nuttin.
Strictly "politically" speaking, the CCA's approach looks infinitely better equipped to deal with political disfunction. Selective harvest in a mixed stock fishery is a defensible position. Hard to tell at the moment if they're playing the role of tool or not. It depends on the direction the agencies take from here.
Congratulations to Todd. You're temper is no longer a handicap. You did a great job responding. Your (and others) concerns need to be heard. Thank you.
To the average fisherman trying to read that, I suppose it's very frustrating to admit that politics can/has or will enable(d) the wrong use of the right tool. Every one of the disagreements revolve around the possibility of biased political influence. That's pitiful. Even with the right tools, it wont work, we're too disfunctional.
This is why I posted the allocation/recovery thread. There are two fronts, and we cannot continue to ignore the political problems, any more than we can ignore the best available science. The two are comparable to habitat and harvest arguments or perspectives. Completely and totally dependent on the other. We have the right tools and won't use them correctly. That's a bigger problem than not having the tools to begin with. A much bigger problem.
What have all of the sport groups done so far against the tribal and/or non-tribal commercial fishing political bias? Nothing to mention. This and that, but they are largely used as tools by the commodity biased agencies. Now I don't know if that's predominately because they are user advocates, but it can't help. If you think you can take on those influences independently, as you have in the past, you'll get the same results, nuttin.
Strictly "politically" speaking, the CCA's approach looks infinitely better equipped to deal with political disfunction. Selective harvest in a mixed stock fishery is a defensible position. Hard to tell at the moment if they're playing the role of tool or not. It depends on the direction the agencies take from here.
Congratulations to Todd. You're temper is no longer a handicap. You did a great job responding. Your (and others) concerns need to be heard. Thank you.
Hairlipangler- Posts: 991
Join date: 2008-09-20
Location: 16th and Georgetown.
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Hairlipangler on 8th October 2009, 8:14 am
Did I read the post right, I went back and couldn't find it, but do imprinted fish really have 4 times the stray rate of tribituary released fish?
Hairlipangler- Posts: 991
Join date: 2008-09-20
Location: 16th and Georgetown.
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by boater on 8th October 2009, 1:03 pm
the pen fish are imprinted to the water that runs thru the pens, youngs bay could have 4 rivers running out of it so wouldnt they get imprinted to all 4 of them ??, personally if i was some kind of scientific brain i wouldnt put hatcherys on and streams or rivers i would build a man made raceway that came off the main stream or river and i would understand how a salmon homed in a mix up a special blend of "homing mix" and dump it in the water above the hatchery so they would home in on this new man made stream, heck, i`d have a constant stream of diet coke running in above the hatchery so all they had to do was smell around for the diet coke 
boater- Posts: 1638
Join date: 2008-09-17
Location: seattle -
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by cowlitzfisherman on 8th October 2009, 2:25 pm
boater wrote:the pen fish are imprinted to the water that runs thru the pens, youngs bay could have 4 rivers running out of it so wouldnt they get imprinted to all 4 of them ??,
Yes, that is how it works!
Those fish will all "stray" into any river that empties into that bay.
Hatcheries do have "special" stuff that they use to get there fish moving into them. It's kind of like having a bunch of pregnant women coming into circle of 4 hospitals. They can't wait! They pick one of the 4 in that circle, and they do what they do, which is to give birth. The clock is the deciding factor, not the river
cowlitzfisherman- Posts: 614
Join date: 2008-09-25
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Hairlipangler on 10th October 2009, 8:13 am
Do you guys think the 4 fold increase in stray is exclusive to Young's Bay, or is that representative of other(all) artificially imprinted fish?
Hairlipangler- Posts: 991
Join date: 2008-09-20
Location: 16th and Georgetown.
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Linked Overhead Fire on 10th October 2009, 10:40 am
HLA,
It is difficult to assess the assertion because I don’t think we know through what prism the folks making it are looking.
Salmon acclimated in net pens and subsequently released from that same site have no technical natal stream they are destined to return to. Any coded wire tag detections in any and all streams could be considered straying.
Take Youngs Bay fall Chinook for example. The Rogue stock fall Chinook released from those net pens eventually want to enter a spawning stream (that’s how salmon are built). Those that aren’t harvested in the ocean, CR, Youngs Bay and tidewater will eventually feel the urge to move into gravel areas. The North Fork Klaskanine, South Fork Klaskanine, Youngs River and the Lewis and Clark River (and a host of smaller tributaries in the system) are all tributaries of the system where the net pens are sited. Coded wire tag detections from net pen released tag groups in any of those streams could technically be classified as stays. And those coded wire tag detections expand to estimate additional "no CWT" net pen cohorts that also entered those streams.
It doesn’t surprise me that net pen fish stray more since every single freshwater stream available for them to enter can be looked on as a potential straying area and all CWT detections from net pen releases classified as a straying event.
It is difficult to assess the assertion because I don’t think we know through what prism the folks making it are looking.
Salmon acclimated in net pens and subsequently released from that same site have no technical natal stream they are destined to return to. Any coded wire tag detections in any and all streams could be considered straying.
Take Youngs Bay fall Chinook for example. The Rogue stock fall Chinook released from those net pens eventually want to enter a spawning stream (that’s how salmon are built). Those that aren’t harvested in the ocean, CR, Youngs Bay and tidewater will eventually feel the urge to move into gravel areas. The North Fork Klaskanine, South Fork Klaskanine, Youngs River and the Lewis and Clark River (and a host of smaller tributaries in the system) are all tributaries of the system where the net pens are sited. Coded wire tag detections from net pen released tag groups in any of those streams could technically be classified as stays. And those coded wire tag detections expand to estimate additional "no CWT" net pen cohorts that also entered those streams.
It doesn’t surprise me that net pen fish stray more since every single freshwater stream available for them to enter can be looked on as a potential straying area and all CWT detections from net pen releases classified as a straying event.
_________________
“Why, there he is Mr. Tate, he can tell you his name.....Hey, Boo”
Linked Overhead Fire- Posts: 333
Join date: 2009-02-26
Location: Maycomb County
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Hairlipangler on 10th October 2009, 3:36 pm
Thank you LOF.
I can see that having "no technical natal stream" might be a slight problem when estimating stray, no matter how you see it. Does the process of artificially imprinting (net pen) reduce the homing ability, is the stray rate actually any higher than that of naturally imprinted fish if you're debating apples to apples?
I can see that having "no technical natal stream" might be a slight problem when estimating stray, no matter how you see it. Does the process of artificially imprinting (net pen) reduce the homing ability, is the stray rate actually any higher than that of naturally imprinted fish if you're debating apples to apples?
Hairlipangler- Posts: 991
Join date: 2008-09-20
Location: 16th and Georgetown.
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Todd on 11th October 2009, 7:50 am
I think I would start with the assumption that any net pen fish that isn't killed in a fishery or eaten by a seal is a stray...and work backwards from there.
Like LOF said, sooner or later they will want to spawn, and who knows where they're heading when they reach that point...nearest trickle, coldest river, first one upstream, first one downstream...all of the above? None of the above?
Some of the confusion on the sustainability thread, in my opinion, is that the supporters of the selective fishing are using a potential benefit to one stock as justification for using it on another stock, and then making incredible leaps of faith that the same arguments sporties have been successful at making will cease to be viable arguments anymore, and that the entire framework of season setting (virtually mandated by the ESA) will somehow change.
Every time I point to a problem with the assertion that ESA spring Chinook won't benefit, I'm pointed to the HSRG asserting that fall Chinook will benefit...when I point out that statistically "zero" changes will happen on the spawning grounds for ESA springers, again I'm pointed to the HSRG saying there will be a 36% increase in productivity or whatnot for fall Chinook.
When I say that ESA springer spawners will not increase, I'm told to see the benefits for wild steelhead and sturgeon.
When I point out that we're not talking about sturgeon, then it's back to fall Chinook.
I also have to put it in every four or five posts that I support selective fisheries when appropriate, as the usual fallback position when I show how illogical they're being is the patented "you just hate hatchery fish and are a pessimist"...which means they've run out of circular arguments and are now back to square one.
I've been accused of being a secret agent of Lamiglas, who hates Loomis, so that's why I'm trying to talk sense into them...though, as far as I know, Lamiglas supports the CCA wholeheartedly, and I know for a fact that I am not on their payroll, anyway.
When I put on my steelhead advocacy hat, I'm all for this program...more wild steelhead will survive the spring Chinook fishery, and that's that.
Since to a certain extent my personal wants are served either way...ruin the LCR springer fishery for the benefit of wild steelhead, or continue on as usual and put more springers in the tribs I like to fish...I think I'm leaning towards hoping this plan really, really works well.
The next allocation meetings the surprised sportfishers will find that they are now sharing ESA impacts 50/50 with the commercial fleet, who will likely be able to increase their take of hatchery fish with those impacts six- or seven-fold...mebbe ten-fold if it works as well as they hope.
This will result in a shorter sport season, with far, far fewer fish to fish over, and likely a back half of the season with a one fish bag limit.
Sporties: "Wow! Who woulda thunk that might happen?"
Me: "Told ya so, repeatedly. You made yer bed, now lie in it...and quit yer bitchin'"
Fish on...
Todd
Like LOF said, sooner or later they will want to spawn, and who knows where they're heading when they reach that point...nearest trickle, coldest river, first one upstream, first one downstream...all of the above? None of the above?
Some of the confusion on the sustainability thread, in my opinion, is that the supporters of the selective fishing are using a potential benefit to one stock as justification for using it on another stock, and then making incredible leaps of faith that the same arguments sporties have been successful at making will cease to be viable arguments anymore, and that the entire framework of season setting (virtually mandated by the ESA) will somehow change.
Every time I point to a problem with the assertion that ESA spring Chinook won't benefit, I'm pointed to the HSRG asserting that fall Chinook will benefit...when I point out that statistically "zero" changes will happen on the spawning grounds for ESA springers, again I'm pointed to the HSRG saying there will be a 36% increase in productivity or whatnot for fall Chinook.
When I say that ESA springer spawners will not increase, I'm told to see the benefits for wild steelhead and sturgeon.
When I point out that we're not talking about sturgeon, then it's back to fall Chinook.
I also have to put it in every four or five posts that I support selective fisheries when appropriate, as the usual fallback position when I show how illogical they're being is the patented "you just hate hatchery fish and are a pessimist"...which means they've run out of circular arguments and are now back to square one.
I've been accused of being a secret agent of Lamiglas, who hates Loomis, so that's why I'm trying to talk sense into them...though, as far as I know, Lamiglas supports the CCA wholeheartedly, and I know for a fact that I am not on their payroll, anyway.
When I put on my steelhead advocacy hat, I'm all for this program...more wild steelhead will survive the spring Chinook fishery, and that's that.
Since to a certain extent my personal wants are served either way...ruin the LCR springer fishery for the benefit of wild steelhead, or continue on as usual and put more springers in the tribs I like to fish...I think I'm leaning towards hoping this plan really, really works well.
The next allocation meetings the surprised sportfishers will find that they are now sharing ESA impacts 50/50 with the commercial fleet, who will likely be able to increase their take of hatchery fish with those impacts six- or seven-fold...mebbe ten-fold if it works as well as they hope.
This will result in a shorter sport season, with far, far fewer fish to fish over, and likely a back half of the season with a one fish bag limit.
Sporties: "Wow! Who woulda thunk that might happen?"
Me: "Told ya so, repeatedly. You made yer bed, now lie in it...and quit yer bitchin'"
Fish on...
Todd
Todd- Posts: 388
Join date: 2008-12-12
Age: 39
Location: Seattle -
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Linked Overhead Fire on 11th October 2009, 9:43 am
Currently (2009) the total exploitation rate on LCR tule fall Chinook is 38%.
On the thread UG writes the HSRG says “they can demonstrate via their AHA model a 36% reduction in the harvest of ESA listed lower Columbia fall Chinook by moving to a selective fall fishery.”
Pacific Salmon Commission CR Cowlitz tule fall Chinook Exploitation Rates through 2006 (page 193 of your reader).
http://www.psc.org/pubs/TCCHINOOK08-2.pdf
The Cowlitz Hatchery tule fall Chinook stock is a good exploitation rate (ER) indicator for all tule stocks below Bonneville (at least as good as there is).
32.2% of the adult production (‘99-‘06) got bushwhacked in the ocean. AK/North BC/Central BC/WVCI/WA ocean fisheries took the lion’s share. CR fisheries took 14.4 points of the total ER over this time period.
So if all fall Chinook fisheries in the LCR had went ad-clip retention only the amount of overall savings for 99-06 could have been no greater than around 12 points of the total (still needing a couple points to have some sort of ad-clip retention only fisheries).
The ocean would still be the ocean. How do they get a 36% overall exploitation rate reduction when 30+ points of the total ER are not governed by CR fisheries?
Since 2006 the ESA has been ratcheting down the allowable ER on tules. ‘99-‘06 it averaged just under 50%. In ‘07/’08 it had been turned down to about 42%. By 2009 it had landed at 38%.
2009 CR fisheries were allocated less than 10 points of the allowable 2009 38% ER on tules. If you cut 36% of 38 percentage points you get a remainder of just under 25%. A 25% total ER (ocean and river harvest combined). Conversion to ad-clip retention only CR fisheries can’t reduce the overall ER beyond what is exploited inside the CR.
Looks to me as though it’ll yield less than half of what the HSRG wants it to yield.
In order to move the total ER rate from 38% to about 25% (that would be the 36% ER reduction the HSRG purports) a huge chunk of ocean fisheries will need to be cut completely. 8% or more would need to be cut in the ocean. CR fisheries alone just don’t command enough of the total ER to facilitate a 36% overall ER reduction by conversion to ad-clip retention only. What I get from the HSRG statement is that they are claiming that the 36% ER savings can be had by converting CR fisheries only to ad-clip retention only.
The LCR tule ER points just aren’t there.
Let’s say the CR commands 7 points of the allowable 38% ER (it’s in the ballpark). Those 7 points are lowered to 2 points and ad-clip retention only regulations are instituted. 5 percentage points are cut from the allowable 38% which lands the ER at 33%. That is still 8 percentage points higher than what a 36% ER reduction should yield. Moving from a 38% to 33% ER is a reduction of 24% in the ER.
But I’m not the HSRG or the ESA.
I only preach resurrection of the flesh on Sundays.
Todd is correct in that thread. You can’t get a savings by moving to ad-clip retention only. The savings comes from a reduction in the overall exploitation rate. If ad-clip fisheries are implemented and those fisheries are executed using the same ER allocations there is no ER reduction.
Ad-clip retention only regulations are a salvation for fisheries when the ER has been lowered to a point that catch and kill fisheries almost immediately exhaust their allocations as soon as they begin.
On the thread UG writes the HSRG says “they can demonstrate via their AHA model a 36% reduction in the harvest of ESA listed lower Columbia fall Chinook by moving to a selective fall fishery.”
Pacific Salmon Commission CR Cowlitz tule fall Chinook Exploitation Rates through 2006 (page 193 of your reader).
http://www.psc.org/pubs/TCCHINOOK08-2.pdf
The Cowlitz Hatchery tule fall Chinook stock is a good exploitation rate (ER) indicator for all tule stocks below Bonneville (at least as good as there is).
32.2% of the adult production (‘99-‘06) got bushwhacked in the ocean. AK/North BC/Central BC/WVCI/WA ocean fisheries took the lion’s share. CR fisheries took 14.4 points of the total ER over this time period.
So if all fall Chinook fisheries in the LCR had went ad-clip retention only the amount of overall savings for 99-06 could have been no greater than around 12 points of the total (still needing a couple points to have some sort of ad-clip retention only fisheries).
The ocean would still be the ocean. How do they get a 36% overall exploitation rate reduction when 30+ points of the total ER are not governed by CR fisheries?
Since 2006 the ESA has been ratcheting down the allowable ER on tules. ‘99-‘06 it averaged just under 50%. In ‘07/’08 it had been turned down to about 42%. By 2009 it had landed at 38%.
2009 CR fisheries were allocated less than 10 points of the allowable 2009 38% ER on tules. If you cut 36% of 38 percentage points you get a remainder of just under 25%. A 25% total ER (ocean and river harvest combined). Conversion to ad-clip retention only CR fisheries can’t reduce the overall ER beyond what is exploited inside the CR.
Looks to me as though it’ll yield less than half of what the HSRG wants it to yield.
In order to move the total ER rate from 38% to about 25% (that would be the 36% ER reduction the HSRG purports) a huge chunk of ocean fisheries will need to be cut completely. 8% or more would need to be cut in the ocean. CR fisheries alone just don’t command enough of the total ER to facilitate a 36% overall ER reduction by conversion to ad-clip retention only. What I get from the HSRG statement is that they are claiming that the 36% ER savings can be had by converting CR fisheries only to ad-clip retention only.
The LCR tule ER points just aren’t there.
Let’s say the CR commands 7 points of the allowable 38% ER (it’s in the ballpark). Those 7 points are lowered to 2 points and ad-clip retention only regulations are instituted. 5 percentage points are cut from the allowable 38% which lands the ER at 33%. That is still 8 percentage points higher than what a 36% ER reduction should yield. Moving from a 38% to 33% ER is a reduction of 24% in the ER.
But I’m not the HSRG or the ESA.
I only preach resurrection of the flesh on Sundays.
Todd is correct in that thread. You can’t get a savings by moving to ad-clip retention only. The savings comes from a reduction in the overall exploitation rate. If ad-clip fisheries are implemented and those fisheries are executed using the same ER allocations there is no ER reduction.
Ad-clip retention only regulations are a salvation for fisheries when the ER has been lowered to a point that catch and kill fisheries almost immediately exhaust their allocations as soon as they begin.
_________________
“Why, there he is Mr. Tate, he can tell you his name.....Hey, Boo”
Linked Overhead Fire- Posts: 333
Join date: 2009-02-26
Location: Maycomb County
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Linked Overhead Fire on 11th October 2009, 9:57 am
Hairlipangler wrote:Thank you LOF.
I can see that having "no technical natal stream" might be a slight problem when estimating stray, no matter how you see it. Does the process of artificially imprinting (net pen) reduce the homing ability, is the stray rate actually any higher than that of naturally imprinted fish if you're debating apples to apples?
I can't point to a document only one specific example I have direct knowledge of.
Big Creek Hatchery tules.
A behemoth amount of the adult production from that hatchery end up in Plympton Creek (Westport, OR) each and every year. I'd bet 1K ended up there this year. Maybe 4K ended up in Big Creek (the actual destination). Smaller portions of the adult return end up in Bear and Gnat Creek. A few end up in the Youngs Bay tributaries.
I'll bet that Plymptom Creek thing blows the stray rate of Youngs Bay Rogue fall Chinook out of the water. This being the case even though those Rogue stock net pen individuals have no technical tributary they are destined to return to.
Does the net pen setting reduce homing fidelity? How can it not since they are being imprinted with no specific return tributary destination? When those juveniles are being acclimated in Youngs Bay they are being imprinted with the scent of all the Youngs Bay tribs and probably a good dosage of the aggregate mainstem CR scent.
But then again look at how much of the adult production from a direct natal stream release (Big Creek/Plymptom Creek example) can also stray.
Last edited by Linked Overhead Fire on 11th October 2009, 10:05 am; edited 2 times in total
_________________
“Why, there he is Mr. Tate, he can tell you his name.....Hey, Boo”
Linked Overhead Fire- Posts: 333
Join date: 2009-02-26
Location: Maycomb County
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Todd on 11th October 2009, 10:01 am
To continue down that line of reasoning...to get the necessary ER's down to where they want them, you have to virtually stop fishing...at least with fisheries that actually use the ER's...
If the commercials continue to become more and more "selective", and we don't, or can't, as sporties...who virtually stops fishing?
Hint: not the "selective" user group.
At the end of the day we sit on the bank and watch a very selective group of commercial fishermen harvest all the hatchery fish they can...and complain about having to use barbless hooks and no bait in our one day 8am to noon fishery, with a one fish bag limit and recovery boxes in our boats.
Maybe we'll just all have to pretend we're flyfishermen, go with "no hooks", and just fish for "the grab"...
Fish on...
Todd
If the commercials continue to become more and more "selective", and we don't, or can't, as sporties...who virtually stops fishing?
Hint: not the "selective" user group.
At the end of the day we sit on the bank and watch a very selective group of commercial fishermen harvest all the hatchery fish they can...and complain about having to use barbless hooks and no bait in our one day 8am to noon fishery, with a one fish bag limit and recovery boxes in our boats.
Maybe we'll just all have to pretend we're flyfishermen, go with "no hooks", and just fish for "the grab"...
Fish on...
Todd
Todd- Posts: 388
Join date: 2008-12-12
Age: 39
Location: Seattle -
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Linked Overhead Fire on 11th October 2009, 10:10 am
Todd wrote:To continue down that line of reasoning...to get the necessary ER's down to where they want them, you have to virtually stop fishing...at least with fisheries that actually use the ER's...
If the commercials continue to become more and more "selective", and we don't, or can't, as sporties...who virtually stops fishing?
Hint: not the "selective" user group.
At the end of the day we sit on the bank and watch a very selective group of commercial fishermen harvest all the hatchery fish they can...and complain about having to use barbless hooks and no bait in our one day 8am to noon fishery, with a one fish bag limit and recovery boxes in our boats.
Maybe we'll just all have to pretend we're flyfishermen, go with "no hooks", and just fish for "the grab"...
Fish on...
Todd
I don't know why Todd... but I keep having this type of vision about all of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSFLXzjhEM8
Probably has to do with the IFish chatter since GL became the preacher.
_________________
“Why, there he is Mr. Tate, he can tell you his name.....Hey, Boo”
Linked Overhead Fire- Posts: 333
Join date: 2009-02-26
Location: Maycomb County
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by cowlitzfisherman on 11th October 2009, 10:27 am
Linked Overhead Fire wrote:
Let’s say the CR commands 7 points of the allowable 38% ER (it’s in the ballpark). Those 7 points are lowered to 2 points and ad-clip retention only regulations are instituted. 5 percentage points are cut from the allowable 38% which lands the ER at 33%. That is still 8 percentage points higher than what a 36% ER reduction should yield. Moving from a 38% to 33% ER is a reduction of 24% in the ER.
LOF, you need to stop using "the point" system to get your message across to hairlip! You need to use his "green bead-red bead" system when talking numbers to old hairlip!
cowlitzfisherman- Posts: 614
Join date: 2008-09-25
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by boater on 11th October 2009, 11:05 am
the problem is that people do not believe the commercials will be able to catch and keep more fish than they do now if they go to a new selective method, they are really going to be surprised and this is really going to effect sportfishing
boater- Posts: 1638
Join date: 2008-09-17
Location: seattle -
Re: The Ifish "sustainability" thread.
by Todd on 11th October 2009, 11:09 am
The ability of the commercials to catch more fish is the ONLY reason that this idea is being floated at all...
Fish on...
Todd
Fish on...
Todd
Todd- Posts: 388
Join date: 2008-12-12
Age: 39
Location: Seattle -
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Permissions of this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum