The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 4, 2013, 02:26 PM   #176
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:
I would certainly need to see proof of a huge number of 3 year old spikes being taken.
Even with proof, a huge number of 3 1/2 year old spikes would indicate a problem with herd health, not genetics. While a 1 1/2 year old spike may or may not be an indication of genetics and the culling of spikes and other inferior racked animals can improve the odds of producing Trophy racks with a given area, producing true trophy racks are not the goal of mandatory ARs. Their goals are to increase herd health by creating better buck/doe ratios, improving hunt quality by making buck sightings more prevalent to the average hunter that hunts public land and by increasing the size and maturity of the average buck taken. The other options to this are generally shorter seasons or less public land access permits which equals less opportunities to hunt for the average Joe. This is unlike voluntary ARs on private property where animals are regularly observed and culled to leave those animals with the most potential. Not only are the size of the animal restricted, but so are hunter numbers. Whereas on a 1000 acres of private land there may be 10 hunters allowed to harvest a deer. No chance of decimating the buck population. On public land that size, with unlimited access, there may be 100 or more that show up on opening day. One way to control the amount of bucks shot is by restrictions on antler size. It's not perfect, but it's generally the best tool the state has to work with. Otherwise you're looking at a lottery system for access permits/buck tags or restricted to certain time periods. Which is most desirable?
buck460XVR is offline  
Old August 5, 2013, 02:20 PM   #177
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
Brian,

WV does spot checks. All deer must be checked at a station. Not all deer are checked by the DCNR. They randomly set up at check stations with mobile equipment and check a couple hundred. You don't get "Spike". If a deer has 15" long antlers and no brow tines with a couple 1/2" to 3/4" nubs, it is still considered a spike in Pa. and WV. The bizarre thing is these screwed up deer are in the same area the big boys are. I already saw fawns during rifle season that could not have gone over 35 pounds. Honest to god the fawns back came up to about the belly of the mother doe. It is just as if there are two different breeds of deer.
You can't separate herd reduction and AR programs. I hunted Maryland, WV, and Pa. for years. All three either went to AR's or are in the process. They all started out with herd reduction. The hunting went to **** on public land, including less "Quality deer". AR's only work on private or controlled property. If you want to do that on your property fine. I have been paying into hunting for a long time and that money goes to state land. I don't need a couple of elitists telling me how to hunt. I know people that hunt with compound and crossbows. Not for me, but I still hunt with them and don't rag on them, even though the compound bow has helped to ruin bow hunting in Pa.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old August 5, 2013, 03:44 PM   #178
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
You certainly CAN separate ARs and herd reduction. Maybe most places don't, maybe your place doesn't but the two are not synonymous.

There are freak antlered deer everywhere. Almost anyone with trail cameras sees the bucks that only grew a spike on one side and has 4 on the other, or has one that's a bent over half grown fork or something.

The key is definitively tying an increase/proliferation of these animals to the implementation of an AR. I don't see any scientific evidence that does that. All I see is anecdotes, most of which come from people who opposed ARs before they were implemented and will use ARs to blame for anything they can find that's bad.

Most, if not all, scientific studies that I've seen suggest that ARs improve the average size of bucks.

I'm not saying you're lying or even necessarily wrong, I'm saying that "You should see..." has no meaning without historical context and data sets larger than rumors.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 5, 2013, 06:09 PM   #179
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 6,158
Brian, I always object to anything that is "zero tolerance" in its nature. A.R. seems to be Zero tolerance. It makes lifelong, proficient hunters base their decisions on a set of rules put in place to deal with irresponsible idiots. I dont have a gripe with Georgia's system. I would be raising up a ruckus if DNR did not give me a mechanism to eliminate inferior deer.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old August 5, 2013, 07:30 PM   #180
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
I normally do too but the lifelong, dedicated, KNOWLEDGABLE hunters are a tiny minority.

The only thing that could possibly work would be some sort of test that would have to be passed to ensure that the hunter could identify animals and the APR would apply to anyone who didn't take and pass the test.

It's just not reasonable. Most hunters are not knowledgable. Most don't care to be.

Think about it. If they WERE knowledgable and willing to handle the herd appropriately, none of this would be a question.

Most hunters kill anything they have a tag to kill. A great many kill anything they think they can get away with. That's why the buck ages are poor and the populations suck.

What we COULD do if hunters were knowledgable and cared isn't really relevant. They aren't and they don't.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 04:04 AM   #181
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
Again, YOU SHOULD SEE the pictures of deer in old GAME NEWS magazines, a PGC publication. If that is not recorded evidence, I don't know what is. According to Gary Alt and the PGC there were nothing but little deer until they got a grip on things. There were always big deer in PA, but now a heck of a lot less. You can not have an AR program if people are still legally shooting bucks below the AR standards, as is done in PA. Either you have AR's in place or you don't. There is NO scientific proof that AR's will work without controlled conditions. That is where the "You should see" part comes in. The PA Game Commission lies all the time. There is no accurate deer kill count. The PGC even admits they estimate the yearly kill. There is your science.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 07:59 AM   #182
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Killing fewer small bucks can do nothing but produce more larger bucks unless there is a food shortage. There is no logical way to get around that. Some curious reasoning in this thread.

Even knowledgeable hunters disagree on what to cull or not. There is no way to be sure what a buck will be next year, maybe an educated guess. And, I doubt you will find many who don't think they are educated. If you leave it to the individual to decide what to cull you will be right back killing everything because somebody will decide it needs to be culled if he has the itch to shoot something.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 08:44 AM   #183
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunPlummer
Again, YOU SHOULD SEE the pictures of deer in old GAME NEWS magazines, a PGC publication.
It might be but I can't see it.

There's got to be some sort of publicly available evidence. I don't mean to be a jerk but you're making the claim, you need to provide the evidence for it. I'm not going to go looking for evidence to prove your claim.

You claim that ARs are reducing hunter numbers. According to this survey by PGC, out of 3,572 responses, only 4 people said that ARs are responsible for their reduced interest in hunting. Not 4%, 4 people. 45% blame things like time and places to hunt, cost of hunting or lack of partners.

Now, 43% blamed quality or number of antlered and antlerless deer but how does that number compare to BEFORE the APR was in place? I can't find a link to the 1995 survey that they mention. I can tell you that we don't have APRs anywhere near where I hunt and I don't know any hunters who hunt in APR areas but ALL everyone gripes about (and always have as long as I can remember) is that there aren't enough deer and there aren't enough bucks (but they still brag about shooting everything they see). In other words, there's no proof (or even evidence) that the APR is reposnsible for those opinions and the HUNTERS THEMSELVES don't blame the APRs.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 10:34 AM   #184
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally posted by ZeroJunk:

Killing fewer small bucks can do nothing but produce more larger bucks unless there is a food shortage. There is no logical way to get around that. Some curious reasoning in this thread.

Even knowledgeable hunters disagree on what to cull or not. There is no way to be sure what a buck will be next year, maybe an educated guess. And, I doubt you will find many who don't think they are educated. If you leave it to the individual to decide what to cull you will be right back killing everything because somebody will decide it needs to be culled if he has the itch to shoot something

Exactly, and that itch to shoot something is why they don't feel they have time to properly identify their target. OMG it might get away!


Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:

There's got to be some sort of publicly available evidence. I don't mean to be a jerk but you're making the claim, you need to provide the evidence for it. I'm not going to go looking for evidence to prove your claim.

You claim that ARs are reducing hunter numbers. According to this survey by PGC, out of 3,572 responses, only 4 people said that ARs are responsible for their reduced interest in hunting. Not 4%, 4 people. 45% blame things like time and places to hunt, cost of hunting or lack of partners.

Now, 43% blamed quality or number of antlered and antlerless deer but how does that number compare to BEFORE the APR was in place? I can't find a link to the 1995 survey that they mention. I can tell you that we don't have APRs anywhere near where I hunt and I don't know any hunters who hunt in APR areas but ALL everyone gripes about (and always have as long as I can remember) is that there aren't enough deer and there aren't enough bucks (but they still brag about shooting everything they see). In other words, there's no proof (or even evidence) that the APR is reposnsible for those opinions and the HUNTERS THEMSELVES don't blame the APRs.


Well said.

Old pictures are little evidence of what deer and their populations were in the past. I have 5 little baskets in a barrel for every picture of a big buck I've taken. Kinda how magazine pics are. I have a picture of 20 deer hangin' on grandpa's meat pole back in the 40s when the gun kill was only a tenth of what it is now. The fact you don't see that today doesn't trump the record amount of kill over the past ten years. If one only sees that picture, it appears hunting was better back then, but the facts still prove it wasn't even close. Anecdotal stories and good ol' boy gossip may be fun to tell, but they to are not always factual or objective. Facts and figures prove and validate an argument, and in today's age of electronic information are easy to find. All F&Gs/DNRs estimate deer kill to a certain extent, but they use reliable sources and past history, not just what comes out of their backside.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 11:08 AM   #185
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,452
We had an over-abundance of deer and plenty of good bucks long before MO instituted APR. This is the same game management system that brought deer heard back from almost nothing after the Depression.

The APR bill of goods was sold to MO hunters primarily on the premise that in years to come, we would have trophy bucks to compare with those in Kansas and Iowa.

In the end I think it comes down to whether you think more regulation is the answer to a contrived 'problem'- or that Joe Regular is an idiot because he shot a forkhorn that he actually has a tag for.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.
Sarge is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 12:36 PM   #186
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
In the end I think it comes down to whether you think more regulation is the answer to a contrived 'problem'- or that Joe Regular is an idiot because he shot a forkhorn that he actually has a tag for.
It's funny, because the same guys who oppose the APRs tend to point to the fact that hunters are (supposedly) dissatisfied with APRs because the bucks actually get smaller. Yet, the argument is that trying to manage the herd for larger bucks is a "contrived" problem. So, do these hunters want or not want bigger bucks?

Where does the pressure to institute APRs come from? Most hunters I know want bigger bucks. The size of the herd is a false argument without data. I've never known a hunter who thought there were enough deer. Ever. Not even hunters who hunt in places where people can't grow any plant that deer can eat because every living, digestible thing gets chewed to nubs.

Joe Regular isn't an idiot for shooting a forkhorn. Joe Regular is an idiot because he whines all summer about how he saw 3 deer all of last year and hasn't seen a "shooter" buck in 10 years and then when deer season rolls around he gets his two doe tags and his buck tag and kills two doe and the forkhorn and then next summer whines that he doesn't see any deer and never sees any "shooter" bucks.

I don't necessarily think that "more regulation is the answer" but I've 3 times now (at least) asked for a suggestion of what the answer is and I've heard NOTHING. Just complaints about APRs.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 01:05 PM   #187
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,452
I'm a long-time hunter and I just said we have an over-abundance of deer. We could have a six-month, three tag 'any deer' season here this year and you still couldn't drive at night for the damn things. They are thick as rats, at least until the 2nd day of deer season

Now as to 'whiners' (an over-used term in this thread of there ever was one)... I really hate to do this but,:

Quote:
whiner
noun
1
a person who makes frequent complaints usually about little things <don't be a whiner—the hike's not that difficult>

Synonyms baby, bellyacher, complainer, fussbudget, fusser, fusspot, griper, grumbler, kvetch, kvetcher, sniveler, whiner
Related Words bawler, bleater, moaner, screamer, squawker, wailer, weeper; crab, grump, malcontent

Near Antonyms happy camper
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/whiner
Legitimate complaints about a bureaucratic FUBAR are not whining. And if somebody actually meets the definition above, don't waste your life trying to fix their pity party.

Peetz, you are not going to get a 'replacement suggestion' from me for APR other than to abandon it and go back to the old system. It was never needed here in the first place.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.
Sarge is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 01:12 PM   #188
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
AMEN!
Gunplummer is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 01:24 PM   #189
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
I could do the definition of "context" too but I'll skip it. I called the "Joe Regular" in the example a whiner, no one in this thread.

You and I both know that the Joe Regular example and the hunters who never think there are enough deer are The Rule and folks like you are The Exception.

I hear about all these "legitimate complaints" but the only indication that they are legitimate is the anecdotes that accompany them.

There are claims of a huge increase in genetically inferior deer, for example, but no actual data to back it up.

The same is true of hunter drop out rates. Lots of claims, little or no data.

It's hard for me to imagine that you can hunt in a place that's infested with deer, a no doubt result of the "old system", and you think the best suggestion is to go back to the old system.

An over-abundance of deer, outside of a carefully managed ranch-style system, ALWAYS results in a massive imbalance in the gender ratio. Wouldn't an "Earn-A-Buck" system be an improvement? Say a hunter has to shoot 2 antlerless deer before he can shoot a buck. Most hunters want to shoot more and bigger bucks. Shooting more doe and fewer bucks until the hunters could "earn" a buck tag would serve to improve the ratio, by increasing the number of bucks and decreasing the number of does, WITHOUT dramatically (rapidly) reducing the population. The birth rate would nearly keep up with the kill rate but more bucks would survive and more doe would die, improving the ratio. Almost no one would be forced to pass on any deer after year one or two. They'd have shot enough doe that they would have several "earned" buck tags.

That's not a better idea than the old system? Why? There's plenty of deer. No one goes hungry. The population would be managed long-term and the ratios would be corrected.

We're 8 pages in here and I keep asking for data and keep getting emotion based responses and anecdotes. I guess I don't have anything more to debate unless some data is presented. I feel like an open-minded reader would see that at least my opinions are data rather than emotion/anecdote based. They can make up their own minds.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; August 6, 2013 at 01:29 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 01:34 PM   #190
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,452
It's not better because it infuses government interference into something that already works. BTW, traditional meat hunters don't really care about buck to doe ratios.

We don't cry when we kill a decent buck but our primary concern is the deer to freezer ratio. We enjoy the hunt so long as people don't 'stupid reg' out of the methods that make hunting an enjoyable sport for us. We respect our game and occasionally don't shoot a deer 'just because'. I'm usually not short for words but in this case, I don't seem able to explain it clearly enough. If I haven't made my point by now I'm not going to anyway.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.
Sarge is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 01:42 PM   #191
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
It's not better because it infuses government interference into something that already works.
You mean it infuses government interference into a system that's already controlled, regulated and enforced by the government?

And "already works" by allowing the populations to be lopsided by 5,6, even 10:1, to be nearly decimated in one place and so high in another than gardens need 8 foot high electric fences?

I don't understand the argument at all, Sarge, on that we agree.

How can a system that is created, maintained, regulated and enforced by the government be "infused" with government interference when that same government chooses to simply change the system?

How can the argument be made that the current system "works" when the conditions are undeniably as I describe?

That's not a system that "works" just because it allows a hunter to shoot any deer he wants at any moment, unless that single criteria is the definition of a working system.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 01:45 PM   #192
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
infuses government interference
Yep, there is the bug in the ointment.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 02:43 PM   #193
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,345
Here is a very good pdf that briefly explains some of these management decisions. It is published by West Virginia University.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 03:46 PM   #194
Erno86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Marriottsville, Maryland
Posts: 1,738
The "Earn a Buck System" sounds good on paper...but some hunter's will check in phantom doe deer --- by just phoning in to the check station --- without even scratching a hide nor hair of a doe deer, which would them give them a go-ahead too bag a buck.

I prefer shooting mature bucks, because they carry more tasty venison on the hoof, compared to a scrawny --- sometimes dog sized --- spike or doe; which would also give me a fresh set of rattling antlers.

My major beef...is that a majority of mature bucks that have racks --- but lack brow tines --- will forever for they're entire lives, lack the formation of brow tines. Because of this.... I prefer to cull mature bucks that lack brow tines; and any APR's on these kind of bucks will cause the genetics of these bucks to proliferate in the gene pool.

Piebald deer...are a sign of inbreeding.
__________________
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

--- George Orwell
Erno86 is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 03:51 PM   #195
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,452
This is sort of like me standing here in MO and telling you how to run your school district in NY state, Peetz.

Please note that I have made no comment about APR regs in any other state.

The difference between you & I is that I'm not trying to tell you what's best for NY.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.

Last edited by Sarge; August 6, 2013 at 08:36 PM. Reason: Because I was raised better.
Sarge is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 04:39 PM   #196
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Well, Sarge, I think the difference between you and me in this discussion is that I'm trying to get data and answers and you're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about my intents.

I ask a bunch of questions and I get no answers beyond anecdotes. If folks want to base their opinions on the anecdotes of their neighbors or their own limited observations, that's all well and good, I suppose, but they ought not be surprised when they're not convincing to others.

I haven't said a thing about what MO should do with their deer herd, nor NY.

I've just asked, what is the better answer than APRs? The answer, apparently, is that the old free-for-all is better. Average buck ages of 1 1/2 years, much (usually most) breeding done by young bucks (because there are few to no mature ones) and herd ratios of 5-10:1 are, apparently, considered better.

I'm convinced that I'm not going to get a better answer than that and I've quite thoroughly (and with real data) presented my side of the argument, which is that APRs seem to work better and not that this or any other state "should" use them. So I'm dropping out of this one, unless someone should address a direct question to me.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 06:58 PM   #197
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
I am a guy that is far from irresponsible as a hunter... And if you don't want to believe me when I say I would pass on a massive bodied wall hanger buck as fast as I would pass on a doe out of season I understand...

I just cannot get that size deer to my truck and processed before it spoiled...

I need a small bodied buck or a doe... I know I can get a 130# buck moved a short distance by my self but not real far and not real fast...

I cannot get does off my WMA during state doe season as they do not honor it....

Many private land owners I associate with to the point of asking permission to hunt use doe season for the youngins' or for family food just as I would do...

Thus, a tighter antler restriction than a single spike of 4 or more inches would proportionately limit my opportunities for a deer for the freezer...

Not to mention, I like knowing I am leaving the finer bucks to those look forward to hunting the better and/or bigger deer...

I also like the cleaner tasting venison so I don't hunt the rut much...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 06:59 PM   #198
double bogey
Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 81
I have hunted several areas of Texas. Some covered with deer, some you see three deer a season. It's my belief that the AR's in the east Texas area have worked very well. Some good bucks coming from there now.

Looking at a broad view, deer management is like ranching or farming. The land you control has a carrying capacity for deer, say it is 100 animals. You have 150 animals on your place, they are in poor condition, and the range is in poor condition, just like if you had too many cows. First step, reduce the herd. Since the buck:doe ratio is most likely out of whack, kill does. Get the herd to capacity while working the buck:doe ratio. Get that ratio down to 1:2 or so, and let the bucks grow (think of it, 30 to 40 bucks per 100 deer). Five years later or so, with the buck:doe ratio high, those inferior bucks won't be allowed to breed, and you will have a lot of mature bucks. If you could see the breeding competition on well managed ranches, you would believe. There is a little more to it than what I have written, but most successful farmers and ranchers manage their herd an crops like this. You don't have to have high fences to make this happen, if neighbor ranches all do the same thing, or large tracts of public land, you must have compliance. and if managed properly you will be rewarded with a healthier herd with better bucks.
__________________
Nos operor non pensio volutabrum
(We don't rent pigs)
double bogey is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 08:35 PM   #199
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,452
I may have indeed taken you out of context Brian. My apologies.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.
Sarge is offline  
Old August 6, 2013, 09:44 PM   #200
Keg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2011
Location: Freestone County, Texas
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
I have hunted several areas of Texas. Some covered with deer, some you see three deer a season. It's my belief that the AR's in the east Texas area have worked very well. Some good bucks coming from there now.
double bogey..what county U hunt in?
__________________
Hog Hunters never die........They just reload.........
Keg is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14453 seconds with 11 queries