The Kentucky Wall

Placing a cam? Slotting a nut? Slinging a tree?

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby climb2core » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:18 pm

Local Rangers do indeed matter. I know of at least three separate areas in ky where local ranger ethics matter. If you can get in and get it done while they are OK with it, the precedent has been set and many times it will pave the way for the future. Either that or you can sit on your ass and wait for another 27 years the pass
User avatar
climb2core
Loser
Loser
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby caribe » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:06 am

"Most of those decisions aren't even made in Kentucky"
Ha ha well now I know you are wrong.
User avatar
caribe
Archer Jerry
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: the 1980's

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby rjackson » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:59 am

Always interested in the topic, but not unless I know who I'm talking to . . . Heath uses his name, and I'll out Art Cammers as Caribe and Ian as climb2core (in case there's one last user that doesn't know). And yep, rjackson is r(uss) jackson . . . so what's up gumby ":-)" . . . ???
Pick myself up, stop lookin' back.
Grand Funk Railroad
User avatar
rjackson
Full of (sh)It
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 11:26 am
Location: Between a sport and a trad place.

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby heath » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:01 am

If you read my post, I did mention the bolts. The original anchors were not safe or sustainable. I went back to one of the climbs after a winter season and a nut that couldn't be hammered out in the fall was easily lifted out the next spring. I'm not trying to sling a bunch of unnecessary steel in the rock. I am however, replacing unsafe, unsustainable anchors. Which as I understand falls within the guidelines. I'm not playing dumb, I'm merely interpreting a vague rule in effort to make a couple of climbs as safe as they can be. And I'm not trying to convince you to be ok with that either.

What trail building? The approach to Ky Wall follows an old logging road.

If you're concerned this wall is gonna be the crag that blows up 9B youre insane. It genuinely has one of the best 5.10 cracks in the Red and to my knowledge it's never been repeated. I only know of two parties that have visited that wall without me. And I've sprayed my face off about that route! Most Red climbers don't give a shit about the North Gorge. Fact. Especially that drainage.
"You're a long way from home now, Buddy" - Ted kindly pointing out a ran out mess.
User avatar
heath
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Frankfort, Ky.

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby caribe » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:27 am

"a nut that couldn't be hammered out in the fall was easily lifted out the next spring."
Do not conflate this fact with an unsafe placement. Nuts are of course directional and metals have a greater coefficients of expansion then sandstone so after cold weather the metal gets smaller faster and when it warms up slowly it partially unseats. However, weighting the placement again shouldn't be any less secure than weighting it the first time.
Last edited by caribe on Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
caribe
Archer Jerry
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: the 1980's

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby caribe » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:40 am

rjackson wrote:Art Cammers as Caribe

Outed! ... shit! :D If you've been on this site for any time at all you pretty much know me and you may hate me. :wink:
I give zero credit to anonymous posters, and very little credit to people who conceal their identities. I am happy to see discourse on RRC.com again however. Anonymous means unaccountable and this kills discourse.
User avatar
caribe
Archer Jerry
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: the 1980's

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby rappm » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:33 am

It seems to me like the ethic on bolting in climbing areas is set by the people who climb there. If you don't like safe anchors go climb the routes and chop them, or you could snitch on Heath Rowland to the authorities who don't seem to care about what he's doing VERY PUBLICLY anyway.

I'm really psyched to go check out Kentucky Wall. Thanks for all your hard work, dude!
rappm
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 12:50 pm

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby DrRockso » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:06 pm

Oh yes, because whining to officials and making it a pain in the ass for them is going to make relations better...
DrRockso
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:59 pm
Location: Northern Kentucky

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby rjackson » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:13 pm

caribe wrote:
rjackson wrote:Art Cammers as Caribe

Outed! ... shit! :D If you've been on this site for any time at all you pretty much know me and you may hate me. :wink:
I give zero credit to anonymous posters, and very little credit to people who conceal their identities. I am happy to see discourse on RRC.com again however. Anonymous means unaccountable and this kills discourse.


Love you man! :-)
Pick myself up, stop lookin' back.
Grand Funk Railroad
User avatar
rjackson
Full of (sh)It
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 11:26 am
Location: Between a sport and a trad place.

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby rappm » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:09 pm

DrRockso wrote:Oh yes, because whining to officials and making it a pain in the ass for them is going to make relations better...


My point exactly :D
rappm
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 12:50 pm

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby :-) » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:29 pm

If I wanted to report someone, I would have picked up the phone and reported someone. I didn't.

If you flip back in this thread, you'll see my original post was to note that publishing illegally bolted crags can cause problems. That's it. DrRockso is the one who first mentioned KY Wall being on FS land. Caribe first mentioned Heath's name. Everyone knows there's illegal bolting on state land in the Southern Region too, and I've seen more than a few bolts on lines I know other people put in the wall up North. I didn't out anyone or anything.

I wish no ill-will to Heath. But, I do care about climber relations with landowners and managers. This discussion became heated only after several people asserted that placing new bolts on FS land is legal. It is not. Since apparently not everyone knows the history, we'll talk about that.

Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country. - John H. Bronaugh
:-)
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:14 am

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby :-) » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:01 pm

The FS’s mission is to balance economic, recreational, environmental and cultural concerns. In RRG, “economic concerns” historically has meant timber. Recreation means climbing, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, etc. The FS has been very clear about what its environmental and cultural concerns along the cliffs has been.

In 2004, the FS issued “FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Land and Resource Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest” (See https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_032460.pdf)

Regarding Rock Climbing, the Final Environmental Impact Statement reads:

Rock climbing is another type of “trail” use that has grown tremendously since the 1985 Plan went into effect. The Red River Gorge is a favorite of rock climbers. As demand for places to climb continues to increase, there is much interest in how this recreational activity is managed. And with growing demand comes increased potential for damage to Forest resources as well as user conflicts.
(See page 1-24)

... A few other types of dispersed recreation have also caused impacts on a localized basis. Rock climbing, which has not been addressed on a Forestwide basis, requires attention.

The Red River Gorge Geological Area (RRGGA) continues to experience increasingly heavy use and resource impacts. This changing use and the resulting impacts are a concern for this area, which is renown for its unique archaeological and biological resources. As recreation use and crowding has increased, so has public exploration into remote areas of the RRGGA that had previously seen little use. Clifflines and rock shelters are particularly popular with visitors. Historically, these areas were frequently used by Native Americans and thus contain important archeological information. Recently, heavy use by campers has damaged or destroyed many important heritage resources as well as some unique biological resources. To protect these, camping in rock shelters and near the base of clifflines has been restricted. Clifflines in the RRGGA are also known internationally for their superior rock climbing experiences. The growing popularity of this activity nationwide has been reflected in a significant increase in rock climbing in the Gorge. Over the past five years, rock climbing has moved from an incidental recreational use to a major activity. This increased use has required much closer management to protect sensitive heritage and biological resources as well as quality rock climbing experiences. (Page 3-256)

The Statement continues:

Activities associated with rock climbing can impact heritage resources in various ways. The primary impacts of this activity are from foot traffic that result in erosion and compaction on deposits within rockshelter sites. The use of chalk can cause a visual problem for other visitors to heritage sites located in rockshelters. In general, impacts from recreation and public use result from increasing human access to an area. The steadily increasing demand for outdoor recreation has resulted in increased impacts to heritage resources. For example, a recent sample survey within the Red River Gorge revealed that 62 percent of the archaeological sites visited had recognizable impacts and 84 percent of the prehistoric cultural components considered eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register have been impacted.

Effects are often unnoticed by the casual observer but develop into greater problems. For example, user-developed trails lead visitors unknowingly to areas that may contain sensitive resources and the increased access could increase the threat for archaeological site damage. Studies have shown a link between ease of access and the occurrence of site looting. Site looting is considered the greatest threat to the archaeological resources located on the Forest. In 1996, 25 archaeological sites, including 5 listed on the National Register were revisited to assess their condition. Nearly one-fourth of all the sites including three of the 5 sites listed on the National Register had suffered additional damage from looting. Six of the 25 sites that were revisited showed an additional loss of between 5 and 30 percent of the remaining intact cultural deposits from continued looting.
(page 3-296)
:-)
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:14 am

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby :-) » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:09 pm

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires the FS to develop periodic plans for the management of national forests. (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg2949.pdf). The current plan for covering RRG is the Revised Forest Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest of 2004. The FS took public comments from May 2003 – August 2003 while preparing the Revised Forest Plan. (see https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_032535.pdf)

When adding the public comments, the FS summarized the pro-rock climbing comments as:

Writers say that the Forest Service should specify rock climbing goals, objectives, and standards in the cliffline community prescription area to reduce confusion and make regulations simpler for rock climbers to understand. Writers also offer recommended that the Forest Service should specify standards for development or modification of bouldering routes as well as for vegetation removal. They suggest provisions that would allow the maintenance or replacement of fixed anchors within existing climbing areas and the development of a quota system for overuse. Respondents state that the Forest Service should develop a climbing management plan and provide a full spectrum of climbing opportunities and manage climbing on an area basis (instead of a route-by-route approach) while providing district rangers with the discretion to approve new climbing areas, and manage climbing, bouldering, and rappelling as uniquely different activities. (See page I-9)

Comments 418 - 441 deal specifically with rock climbing. They are:

418. Public Concern: The Forest Service should specify a minimum height above which the installation of fixed anchors does not require Forest Service authorization for route development.
Response: We believe that specifying a minimum height will not accomplish the intended objective of streamlining the authorization process because it does not mitigate the concerns related to route establishment.

419. Public Concern: The Forest Service should be more specific (amount, location, size) regarding the removal of vegetation in Standard 1.C-REC-2.
Response: We believe the current wording is adequate because it allows for reasonable judgment to be made. An attempt to apply specifics for vegetation removal would presume that the environment at each site is unvarying, but that is not the case.

420. Public Concern: The Forest Service should approve access trails for an entire wall/area.
Response: The Revised Forest Plan standard at 1.C-REC-2 has been reworded, as suggested.

421. Public Concern: The Forest Service should inform the climbing public prior to closing climber trails, and give climbers the opportunity to rehabilitate or reroute trails.
Response: The public is notified prior to such actions. Volunteer assistance in such endeavors is appreciated and welcomed.

422. Public Concern: The Forest Service should specify a standard regarding authorization requirements for bouldering route development in non-cliff areas.
Response: Bouldering route development in non-cliffline communities is now addressed in Chapter 2 of the Revised Forest Plan with the standard at DB-REC-6.

423. Public Concern: The Forest Service should reconcile the difference between the desired future conditions stating that uses such as climbing are “generally allowed” and the standards for route approval relative to archeological resources.
Response: The phrase “generally allowed” does not mean that there will be no climbing restrictions. Nevertheless, Standard 1.C-REC-2 has been reworded and no longer specifically mentions archeological resources.

424. Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow climbers to add metal plates and soil at the base of rock climbing areas and use climbing areas until archaeological studies are conducted.
Response: We will provide for mitigation of resource damage, where possible, on a case-by-case basis since each situation presents its own unique challenges.

425. Public Concern: The Forest Service should incorporate all standards related to rock climbing into the Cliffline Community recreation standard I.C-REC-2.
Response: Except for standards specific to Wildernesses, nearly all standards related to rock climbing are within the Cliffline Community prescription area. A standard pertaining to bouldering was made Forestwide because bouldering could take place away from the areas falling into the Cliffline Community prescription area.

426. Public Concern: The Forest Service should better analyze various climbing issues.
Response: We believe that we have adequately addressed the significant items related to rock climbing and its associated trails. The Limits of Acceptable Change process to be conducted for the Red River Gorge, and additional monitoring, will provide additional analysis of climbing issues.

427. Public Concern: The Forest Service should develop sub-goals and objectives for rock climbing, as recommended.
Response: Goal 7.3 has been modified to include rock climbing.

428. Public Concern: The Forest Service should educate and manage rock climbers to address serious adverse impacts in the Red River Gorge.
Response: The Forest Service and the rock climbing community are working together to address these concerns.

429. Public Concern: The Forest Service should develop a quota system to limit the number of people in the Red River Gorge to help reduce overuse from hiking and rock climbing.
Response: Quotas for use of public lands have not generally been well received by the public. However, we understand your concerns and will be working through the Limits of Acceptable Change process with the public to address overuse issues.

430. Public Concern: The Forest Service should survey proposed new climbing routes to protect natural resources.
Response: Proposals requiring authorization by the Forest Service will be subject to the environmental analysis requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Some level of survey will typically be part of this analysis process.

431. Public Concern: The Forest Service should survey existing climbing areas for sensitive resources and develop limits of acceptable change, but leave all existing routes open during this process.
Response: For the most part, management direction in the Revised Forest Plan is consistent with your survey suggestion, and we believe this direction will adequately protect resources and provide for climbing opportunities. However, it may be necessary to close some routes prior to completion of the Limits of Acceptable Change process is they are resulting in excessive damage to forest resources.

432. Public Concern: The Forest Service should modify language in the DEIS related to rock climbing to reflect that there is quality rock climbing outside the Red River Gorge, and also correct statements that exaggerate the status of rock climbing on the Forest.
Response: We realize that the Revised Forest Plan can be interpreted differently, depending on a reader’s perspective. While we may not agree with the commenter’s characterizations of certain text, we have made some modifications that we think better reflect the rock climbing situation.

433. Public Concern: The Forest Service should clearly define the term “fixed anchors,” specify that slings or chocks are not permanent installations, and allow the use of safety bolt installation.
Response: The Revised Forest Plan has been reworded to address slings and chocks more accurately. If these are left in the Forest they still have similar adverse effects as bolts and are still considered “fixed.” We will continue to manage our designated Wildernesses as specified in the Revised Forest Plan. Even though this may present too much of a challenge and risk for some, it is in keeping with Wilderness legislation.

434. Public Concern: The Forest Service should clarify the historical number of climbing routes existing in the Red River Gorge on page 3-243 of the DEIS.
Response: We realize that historical information regarding numbers of climbing routes is not easily verified and have reworded the FEIS to avoid references to specific numbers of routes.

435. Public Concern: The Forest Service should provide the full spectrum of ROS experiences for the various climbing opportunities that climbers seek.
Response: The Cliffline Community prescription area, where climbing occurs, was developed for the unique natural ecosystem it provides and will continue to be managed for the ROS categories stated in the Revised Forest Plan.

436. Public Concern: The Forest Service should give district rangers the discretion to approve new climbing areas regardless of the presence of fixed anchors, constructed trails, removal of vegetation, or known archaeological sites.
Response: With appropriate analysis and public input, district rangers have the authority to make individual decisions. (A deviation from the Revised Forest Plan will require a project-specific amendment to the Revised Forest Plan.) The district rangers have provided input, review, and approval of the direction contained in the Revised Forest Plan and believe it provides the appropriate consistency of protection for cliffline resources.

437. Public Concern: The Forest Service should modify Standard 2.A-REC-5 to allow maintenance or replacement of fixed anchors within existing climbing areas in the Clifty Wilderness.
Response: We have considered the recommendation but we believe the current wording for this rockclimbing standard is appropriate for the Clifty Wilderness.

438. Public Concern: The Forest Service should not treat climbing, bouldering, and rappelling the same, because these are different activities.
Response: We believe the current standards for climbing, bouldering, and rappelling adequately reflect any differences. For example, DB-REC-6, regarding bouldering, was made a Forestwide standard because we recognize that the activity could take place outside the Cliffline Community prescription area.

439. Public Concern: The Forest Service should modify Standard 1.C-REC-2 to require authorization of climbing routes located within 300 feet of a known cave or rockshelter.
Response: We agree that caves and rock shelters require adequate protection, and such will occur with the site-specific analysis that will be part of any authorization of new climbing routes.

440. Public Concern: The Forest Service should develop a climbing management plan for managing rock climbing, bouldering, and rappelling.
Response: The National Forest Management Act requires that each national forest develop and maintain a single comprehensive management plan covering all forest resources and uses. The analysis and public involvement that will occur during the Limits of Acceptable Change process for the Red River Gorge (3.EObjective 3.A.) may identify additional management direction pertaining to rock climbing, bouldering, rappelling, and other recreation activities, that should be amended into the Forest Plan.

441. Public Concern: The Forest Service should work with climbing groups to solve climbing related problems on the Daniel Boone National Forest.
Response: We will continue to work with climbing organizations to achieve the goals of quality climbing opportunities and protection of natural resources.
:-)
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:14 am

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby :-) » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:16 pm

The final Revised Forest Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest begins:

For the next 10 to 15 years, the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (also called the 2004 Forest Plan or the Plan) will guide coordination of multiple uses (such as outdoor recreation, minerals, timber, watersheds, fish and wildlife, and wilderness, etc.) and promote sustained yields of products and services on the DBNF.

Full Revised Forest Plan document: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_032532.pdf

For all areas in DBNF along the cliffline, the Revised Forest Plan decrees:

1.C-REC-2. Any new areas developed for cliffline related recreation activities, e.g. rock climbing, bouldering, or rappelling, must receive Forest Service authorization prior to development. Improvements to existing developments that may substantially increase use of a cliffline related area must also receive prior authorization from the Forest Service. Activities that constitute development include, but are not limited to:

a) Permanent installation of safety devices such as bolts, straps, cam devices, or chocks

b) Construction of access trails

c) Clearing of vegetation
(Page 51 of the .pdf)

Again, that’s for the entire DBNF. For the Clifty Wilderness (Wall of Denial, Funk Rock, Mariba Fork, etc.), the Revised Plan reads:

2.A-REC-5. No new rock climbing routes with fixed anchors are allowed. However, maintenance or replacement of existing approved fixed anchors is allowed by non-mechnized [sic] means. (page 85 of .pdf)

The Revised Forest Plan called for a Limits of Acceptable (LAC) change statements for the RRG region and for the Clifty Wilderness (See pages 98 and 84 of .pdf) .

The Limits of Acceptable Change process focuses on human-induced impacts to the environment. FS officials, mainly in Winchester, Ky., worked on the LAC document from 2004-2009. Both the Access Fund and the RRGCC were involved in this process. (See https://www.accessfund.org/news-and-events/news/red-river-gorge-ky-lac-process-nears-completion and https://www.accessfund.org/news-and-events/news/lac-final-meeting-scheduled-red-river-gorge-ky)

Full LAC document may be found at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346567.pdf

The LAC reads:

The DBNF shall ensure that the following stipulations are carried out:

IV. INVENTORY AND EVALUATION A. For actions that are identified by the DBNF through the LAC process and planned for implementation at the completion of LAC (as well as actions proposed in the RRG outside of the LAC process), the DBNF shall complete the identification and National Register evaluation of these project areas in accordance with the DBNF’s existing Agreement with the KYSHPO for the Management of Heritage Resources (Appendix D).
These actions include:
1. construction, realignment, or formal designation of official Forest Service trails, trailheads, campsites, parking areas, toilet facilities, climbing areas, river access points, etc. within the RRG LAC study area; and
2. Reclamation of decommissioned-official or user-created trails, trailheads, campsites, parking areas, river access points, etc. within the RRG LAC study area; The DBNF, ACHP, and KYSHPO will develop a similar but updated Programmatic Agreement (PA) for management of heritage resources throughout the DBNF, initiating consultation in calendar year 2005, with completion during FY 2006.


Note, however, the state historic preservation officer has concerns about even low level visitation by climbers. The LAC reads further:

The draw of a National Forest has led a variety of people seeking recreational activities to the area. Red River Gorge is an internationally known rock climbing venue. In the 1970s, the problems caused by a constantly increasing visitation rate, erosion of slope soils, traffic congestion, littering, theft, rock climbing, camping, and other activities was already noted to be a problem (e.g., Cowan and Wilson 1977).” (See page 14 of pdf version)

Also, the LAC is not entirely binding. It can be voided by any party:

X. FAILURE TO COMPLY / TERMINATION If the DBNF, KYSHPO, or ACHP determines that the terms of this MOA cannot be or are not being carried out, then the DBNF, KYSHPO, and ACHP shall consult to seek amendment of the MOA. If the MOA is not amended, either the DBNF, KYSHPO, or ACHP may terminate it by providing thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other parties.


I could see KYSHPO terminating the LAC if climbing lead to destruction of a significant archaeological site, but who knows.
Last edited by :-) on Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:-)
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:14 am

Re: The Kentucky Wall

Postby :-) » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:29 pm

So, where does that leave us? The FS is worried about even 1970s level climbing activity along climbing walls can cause problems. They’re worried about impact on cliffline ecology, and they’re worried about damage to archaeological sites. It's not the bolt or webbing; it's the foot traffic. No new climbing routes of any kind are allowed in Clifty, and new routes outside Clifty require authorization from the FS.

But, as the DBNF website currently reads:

No authorization process currently exists for new climbing development within Daniel Boone National Forest. However, the Forest Service is working with the climbing community to develop Climbing Management Plans that may include procedures for the review and authorization of new climbing development.

(See https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/dbnf/recreation/climbing)

Climbing is written into the plan, but you’re going to need a balanced approach with biological and cultural resources. This is all climbing groups out West do all day long; here, most of the climbing has been on private land so that's where the focus has been. Want to develop on public land? Chatting up a ranger doesn't do much. The 10-15 year timeline of the 2004 plan is up. It’s time to renegotiate forest-wide. They say they’re willing to work with climbers. Don’t ignore this invitation. Donate to the Access Fund and/or RRGCC, and then ask these organizations what you can do to help get a legitimate authorization process in place.


Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country. - John H. Bronaugh
:-)
Gumby
Gumby
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Trad

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest