Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: BOG Petition against Unit 13 Tier II Regulations, copy mine!

  1. #1

    Default BOG Petition against Unit 13 Tier II Regulations, copy mine!

    Don't just complain, but file an Administrative Petition with the Board of Game against the new Unit 13 Tier II Caribou subsistence hunting regulations. Copy, cut and paste mine, add your points and name and send it in! Unity is strength! What have you got to loose, and you might get your hunting rights back:

    Kenneth Manning
    P.O. Box 775
    Kasilof, AK99610

    BEFORE THE ALASKA BOARD OF GAME AND FISHERIES
    Kenneth Manning, )
    Petitioner, )
    Vs. )
    Alaska Board of Game )
    P.O. Box 115526 )
    Juneau, AK99811-5526 )
    _____Respondent__________) PETITION TO THE BOARD OF GAME

    I, Kenneth Manning, hereby PETITION the Alaska Board of Game (hereinafter “BOG”) in accordance with 5 AAC 96.625(a)and(f) of the Joint Board Petition Policy, to repeal the new Unit 13 Tier II Caribou regulations passed by the BOG and approved by the ADFG for the 2007-2008 Tier II subsistence hunts, specifically: 1) the new $51,640 income eligibility limit for the main Tier II Unit 13 Nelchina caribou subsistence hunt; 2) that a Unit Tier II Caribou or Tier II Moose permittee cannot hunt that species anywhere else in the state for that regulatory year; 3) that the head, hide, kidneys, bones must be salvaged from the field, and 4) off-road vehicles limited to 1500 lbs.
    These new regulations violate the equal treatment and protections of the laws where no other subsistence or harvest hunt has these requirements, and impose an undue hardship on only Unit 13 Tier II subsistence hunters. The regulations further violate the long time traditional subsistence use and customs of the Nelchina hunters. The regulations cumulatively violate the intent of the enabling statute AS 16.05.258 et seq to give consideration to long time subsistence use and dependence, where now income totally controls eligibility over past use and dependence on the resource. The regulations are without rational basis and are arbitrary and unreasonable.
    RELIEF REQUESTED: It is requested that enforcement of new subsistence regulations be immediately STAYED pending further review by the BOG and a public hearing be held on the new regulations under authority of 5 AAC 96.615(a) and AS 44.62.190-.210.

    Dated: July 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted:
    Kenneth Manning, Petitioner

  2. #2

    Default

    Clarification note: the Relief Requested does NOT ask to stay the hunt, but requests that enforcement be stayed pending further review and public hearing. They will not stay the hunt with permits already issued, but they can stay enforcement of the unreasonable conditions. Send a Petition to the BOG, what have you got to loose but one postage stamp!

  3. #3
    Member crossfoxAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    155

    Default Horns

    What About Adding The Part To Where You Have To Cut One Antler Off Or Split The Skull Plate To Destroy Trophy Value?

  4. #4

    Default Yes, add in destroy trophy value to your Petition!

    Quote Originally Posted by crossfoxAK View Post
    What About Adding The Part To Where You Have To Cut One Antler Off Or Split The Skull Plate To Destroy Trophy Value?
    Yes, I agree, add it into your Petition! I also believe it unreasonable to require Unit 13 Tier II Caribou subsistence hunters must destroy trophy value. Lets make the Board of Game justify by Petition for review! It costs nothing to submit a Petition, and have a public hearing; its the BOG's own process for reviewing and challenging unreasonable regulations, so what you don't like - file a Petition, its a start! Its like speak now or for ever quit complaining. I encourage everyone to copy cut and paste my Petition and add your own points. The Board must respond to each and every Petition concering subsistence hunting! Lets hear from anyone else who submits a Petition!??

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crossfoxAK View Post
    What About Adding The Part To Where You Have To Cut One Antler Off Or Split The Skull Plate To Destroy Trophy Value?
    Why is this unreasonable? As long as it is classified as a "subsistence" hunt, it seems that destroying trophy value makes sense.

  6. #6
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default unbelievable

    http://www.classifiedads.com/attorneys-ad483791.htm

    http://www.merchantcircle.com/bullet...-Kasilof-99610

    Just an FYI to everyone. There are people out there who love to sue and litigate, whose lives revolve around stuff like this. The above two links reference Ken Manning (alaskasourdough). Rather than go into all this again, I urge everyone here not to be taken in by Mr. Manning's "call to arms" as it were. Manning's recent court ruling did not benefit anyone opposed to using income as a Tier II requirement. In fact it ensured that this will be upheld as legal for any future cases! For God's sake read the Manning decision that is posted on this site elsewhere, read what the justices said was legal according to our constitution and what wasn't. Every case sets precedent; that's how things work. Sometimes that precedent is not good and in fact further screws things up.

    Mr Manning's posts have smelled fishy from the very beginning when he first logged on here and said that caribou hides were worthless because even when tanned the hollow hair slipped off the hide. I mean, c'mon...how many real boots-on-the-ground longtime hunters would say such a thing? This would have been the argument he made before the Board had not others here called him on his ridiculous statement. Think of what type of hunter argues this stuff via petition and via litigation. Think of how they can totally mess things up for the rest of us.

    This petition request posted, that Manning asks you all to copy and paste and add your own name to, asks that there be no enforcement this fall of the new requirements to salvage head, hide, internal organs, and on trophy-value destruction. Manning claims that this petition would not stop the hunt this fall. On the face of it, what that means if this petition (or a whole VOLUME of them from hunters on this board sucked into this) is successful, is that every Nelchina caribou hunter would not have to abide by these new regs this fall, also to include the off-road vehicle weight limit of 1500 lbs. Many hunters here likely read that and say "Right on!"

    But I'll bet few of you stop to think of any negative repercussions at all to this down the line when this too goes to court and the court decides once and for all (again) what is consitutionally legal. And few of you stop and think about the actual source/person behind all this. You want to push all this right now like this? Guess where it will end up? Hey, click or cut/paste the top link above into your browser and order your own free copy ($6.95 shipping and handling fee!) on how to be your own lawyer <grin>. Go ahead and litigate away...after all it's the "right" of all Americans.

    I'd read Manning's petition more closely were I you folks on this forum. I'd review his motives of the past, and his motives now, and just what is going on here since his first post.
    Sincerely, (oh, ps, if you open the top link above and then click on "contact seller," this comes up:
    http://www.classifiedads.com/contact.php?483791)
    Last edited by bushrat; 07-18-2007 at 13:06. Reason: added PS

  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    .....You want to push all this right now like this? Guess where it will end up? Hey, click or cut/paste the top link above into your browser and order your own free copy ($6.95 shipping and handling fee!) on how to be your own lawyer <grin>. Go ahead and litigate away...after all it's the "right" of all Americans....
    Just imagine the fun we'll be having with an army of "lawyers" arguing their individual positions in court, backed with a $6.95 legal education.

    This circus is devolving faster than I ever imagined.

    Now I'm wondering what the bottom is going to look like...........

    Maybe next we'll be seeing biologists with mail order credentials..........

  8. #8

    Default Fight for your rights, don't be fooled by cowards!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Just imagine the fun we'll be having with an army of "lawyers" arguing their individual positions in court, backed with a $6.95 legal education.

    This circus is devolving faster than I ever imagined.

    Now I'm wondering what the bottom is going to look like...........

    Maybe next we'll be seeing biologists with mail order credentials..........
    Just imagine all the fun you'll have sitting at home without a hunting permit, nothing to do but post blogs on a hunting forum, complaining and wishing you could go hunting, too!
    A BOG petition is NOT in court, it is the administrative remedy process. Someone asked me what did you do before you went to court, did you try to solve it before sueing? Here's your answer, exhaust administrative remedies first, then at least you tried before going to court, too.

    Otherwise, yes, that's it, just wait and "play all their silly games" and "do nothing" when denied your own hunting rights, just like Mark and Bushrat are doing, too scared to even write a one page Petition to the BOG. Blame everyone else but don't do anything! Don't be fooled by cowards, they always have some excuse why they shouldn't do anything but ***** to protect their rights.
    Think and act for yourselves people, use the system that is taking your rights, to protect them and get them back. The $6.95 legal self-help worked for me, I won my case in the Alaska Supreme Court! And I regained Tier II hunting rights for thousands of Alaskans, AND yes Tier II is as close to an open draw as you are going to get when you are NOT denied Tier II eligibility based on your community of residency! Don't like the new income cutoff? Don't just post blog complaints, file a BOG petition! And yes, if the BOG gets a few hundred petitions maybe they will listen, its worth a try! Each petition must be answered by the BOG within 30 days, and they may grant a public hearing where everyone can express their comments "on the record" of the BOG. Everyone should at least file a Petition to the BOG for themselves and each member of your family, protect their rights, too. Here are some BOG web site links to educate yourself on what the BOG does and what you can do to fight for your rights, think for yourself folks:

    Alaska Board of Game web page:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/forms/petition.php
    Board of Game Findings Nov. 2006 -170
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/regs/06170bog.pdf

    Board of Game, get on the BOG electronic e-mailing list:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/bbs/contact/mailist.php

    Board of Game Member List:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/member/gmemadd.php

    Apply to become a Board of Game member:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/member/membcm.php

    If you don't like the system, then do something to try to change it! If you are not willing to be part of the solution process, you are stuck with the problems forever!

  9. #9

    Default Why be denied trohpy value?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Why is this unreasonable? As long as it is classified as a "subsistence" hunt, it seems that destroying trophy value makes sense.
    What does destroying trophy value have to do with subsistence hunting? Why should subsistence hunters be denied their trophy, just because they shot a large bull trophy that probably has 150 lbs of meat or more, and has a trophy rack? Should trophy hunters be denied the meat, because they are trophy hunters (caribou, moose, sheep, etc)? What is the rational basis for the state to make such a ruling, what is the state's interest in destroying trophy value of subsistence hunters, how is it a rational or reasonable denial of that right just because that person is a long time customary and traditional subsistence hunter? There is none, again arbitrary and unreasonable regulations. Once the game is downed, it is property of the hunter, NOT the State. Next, they are going to tell you how to cook and eat it! All the new regs are arbitrary, capricious, without rational basis for the State's benefit, and thus are "unreasonable."

  10. #10
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskasourdough View Post
    Fight for your rights, don't be fooled by cowards!....
    Don't confuse wisdom and intelligence with cowardice.

    I certainly don't confuse selfishness with courage or gallantry.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Just imagine the fun we'll be having with an army of "lawyers" arguing their individual positions in court, backed with a $6.95 legal education.

    This circus is devolving faster than I ever imagined.

    Now I'm wondering what the bottom is going to look like...........

    Maybe next we'll be seeing biologists with mail order credentials..........
    Just imagine all the fun you'll have sitting at home without a hunting permit, nothing to do but post blogs on a hunting forum, complaining and wishing you could go hunting, too!....
    I hunt more than once per year, every year. I don't need a TC566 permit every year in order to hunt.

    And posting on an Alaskan hunting forum beats time spent in courtrooms arguing with ADFG administrtors and judges any and every day of the week.

    ....Even with a $6.95 law degree........

    ....Otherwise, yes, that's it, just wait and "play all their silly games" and "do nothing" when denied your own hunting rights, just like Mark and Bushrat are doing, too scared to even write a one page Petition to the BOG.
    The problem is precisely that there are already too many people like yourself out there "doing something".

  11. #11

    Default Stand up and Protect your own rights!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post

    And posting on an Alaskan hunting forum beats time spent in courtrooms arguing with ADFG administrtors and judges any and every day of the week.".
    But that won't change a thing. That won't get your rights back for being denied eligibility into the main Tier II applicant pool of long time subsistence hunters, denied based on income. Just like I said, cowards that do nothing but complain and aren't even willing to file a BOG Petition to challenge unreasonable regulations to get their rights back, don't deserve those rights. They are the ones that must continue filing Tier II applications for their daughters and hide behind their skirts instead of fighting to regain their own rights. Yes, just continue to "do nothing" but cut, quote, and paste replies to blogs, that's about all some people will ever be able to accomplish, and achieve nothing to protect their rights, and foolishly try to justify their cowardly actions in more blogs.
    For those who are willing to do more than just complain, here again are the BOG web site links, educate yourself and fight for your own rights. And if anyone has any questions I would be glad to answer in the Private Messages also.

    Board of Game Findings Nov. 2006 -170
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/regs/06170bog.pdf
    Board of Game, get on the BOG electronic e-mailing list:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/bbs/contact/mailist.php
    Board of Game Member List:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/member/gmemadd.php
    Apply to become a Board of Game member:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/member/membcm.php

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default No Criticism, just curiousity

    AKSourdough, I can understand your frustration over the income limit, but why the last 3 stipulations in your petition. The reg that you can't hunt the same species else where in Alaska isn't really that different than standard practices. If I draw on a moose here in SE AK for Unit 1 I can't get a tag for unit 3. Thats part of the game, you make the choice about where to hunt. The harvest of hide, kidney's, bones, and meat from the field, I don't see how that prevents hunting or limits a persons rights. And the limits on the size of off-road vehicle, that just good habitat conservation. If you allowed large off-road vehicles you get a lot more damage to the habitat. I think that you're petition is maybe just too much. It's the same reason why people wouldn't pass the law against bear baiting, it just was too broad. We can't rid of all regs, maybe just focus on ones that prevent you from getting drawn for a tag.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskasourdough View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark

    And posting on an Alaskan hunting forum beats time spent in courtrooms arguing with ADFG administrtors and judges any and every day of the week.".
    But that won't change a thing.
    And continued (or accelerating) assaults on the Board or courts will bring us many new surprises, just like the past few years have shown.

    What's next?

    Bring out the hooves? All meat/hide/head/chopped-up-antlers must be packed out without any motorized vehicles at all and in a single load? Blowguns and atlatls only? Income cap go down to $20K? Hunting proficiency tests? Must eat the heart raw at the kill site before packing out the entire animal?

    Before you state that those points are ridiculous, please note that where we're at now is already ridiculous. Most of us never would have dreamed that we'd have devolved so far so fast.

    ....That won't get your rights back for being denied eligibility into the main Tier II applicant pool of long time subsistence hunters, denied based on income....
    I know you just don't understand this point, but getting myself "back" into the "preferred position" isn't my goal.

    Again, that's the problem.

    The goal is social justice and equal access, not "me first".

    ....Just like I said, cowards that do nothing but complain and aren't even willing to file a BOG Petition to challenge unreasonable regulations to get their rights back, don't deserve those rights....
    Nor do selfish people who care only about "their" rights and nobody elses.

    .....They are the ones that must continue filing Tier II applications for their daughters and hide behind their skirts instead of fighting to regain their own rights....
    I'm playing the game that comes from Board and court imposed changes.

    Thanks, partner. Keep fighting. Go get 'em, tiger. You're really "making a difference".

    Besides, this is probably the first chance my daughter has had an opportunity to hunt caribou in years.

    It's her turn. Others deserve a shot, too.

    But, of course, only after you get your permit...................

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default coward?

    Whoa now Ken, implying I am a coward is pretty strong words.

    Isn't personal, never was. I'm not sure of your real motives and agenda here. All I know is that from the get go things don't quite add up. I'm not sure if you're looking for fame, looking to con others into joining your fight in order to further your own next lawsuit or what. I'll leave well enough alone and not intervene any longer so you can do what you can here to influence others to "fight for your subsistence rights!"

    Wait...did I really say "YOUR" subsistence rights...whoops, I meant "their" subsistence rights. Wouldn't want others fighting for Ken Manning's subsistence rights, whatever the heck those really are. Hang on...I hear "savage drum music" in the background...better run and see what's going on.
    Cheerio,

  15. #15
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    And the fight goes on.............................

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  16. #16

    Default Don't give them any new ideas for unreasonable regulations!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Nor do selfish people who care only about "their" rights and nobody elses.

    I'm playing the game that comes from Board and court imposed changes.

    Thanks, partner. Keep fighting. Go get 'em, tiger. You're really "making a difference".

    Besides, this is probably the first chance my daughter has had an opportunity to hunt caribou in years.

    It's her turn. Others deserve a shot, too.

    But, of course, only after you get your permit...................
    Mark, you just don't understand what striking down the "denied by community of residency" game ratio alternative criteria did for 68 communities and thousands of Alaskans, not just one hunter.
    I am glad for your daughter, even if you did file the application for her, and she can thank Manning v. ADFG for continued rights to hunt regardless of her community of residency. I hope with every bite of her next caribou you remember Manning v ADFG. If you don't want to fight for your own rights, then don't belittle those who are willing to protect their rights. You don't have to reply to this with more insults; my case is over, done, and I am proud to say the results benefit thousands whether you understand or not. If you don't want to do anything about loosing your hunting rights, then don't do anything, that is up to you, but you sure have been doing a lot of complaining about the new regs yet you don't want anyone else to do anything about it; very hypocritical posts.

  17. #17
    Member jmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    At the end of the cul-de-sac
    Posts
    964

    Default

    I am with AKBoater on this one, and am curious as to the position taken on each one of the criteria challenged in the regulations. The income eligibility cap will certainly present an interesting issue and in due time will likely end up in court as well. But the requirement to take out the skull, hide, etc. seems like something BOG can require for any hunt, let alone a subsistence hunt, just as the DMV will allow you to drive a car on the road as long as it passes the IM test every so often. Also, allowing weight limits for vehicles seems like something BOG or any other administrative agency can regulate (DNR, etc.).

    Just as a suggestion to Ken Manning, or anyone else jumping on his bandwagon - and I mean this just as advice, not ridicule or saying you should not go any other way - don't confuse "it is my right to do X" with "I sure don't like that." Without doing much research, it seems like there might be something to the income cap, and after reading Manning v. ADFG, the court might go for a challenge on something like that where individuals are put into classes - whether by race, community citizenship, income, whatever. I'm not saying start a lawsuit on it, just saying there might be something that could actually be challenged.

    As for the other criteria listed though, they seem to me to be well within the regulatory purview of the administrative agencies. Agencies very broad authority to regulate activities such as hunting, fishing, etc. and they can come up with rules to regulate those activities. I believe that in some areas you cannot bone out your meat. You cannot use headlights, flood lights, etc. to locate game. You cannot fly and hunt on the same day. You cannot use cell-phones, radios, etc. to locate game with hunting partners. You can't (I believe - but most certainly shouldn't, as we've all learned from the "Tundra Trucks") drive your vehicle across the tundra on the haul road to get caribou. These are all as legitimate - whether you like them or not - as requiring that halibut not be cut up to prevent identification of number of fish before the boat comes back to shore.

    I guess what I'm saying is that there seems to be a difference in complaining about things such as an eligibility cap, which could eliminate individuals altogether based on some arbitrary income number, and things that might make the hunt a little bit harder, such as bringing out the hide. In my opinion, if you argue all of them, you lose credibility on those that might actually get you somewhere. Sort of a "boy who cried wolf" effect.

    Just my $.02.

  18. #18

    Default BOG Petition web site

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Whoa now Ken, implying I am a coward is pretty strong words.

    Isn't personal, never was. I'm not sure of your real motives and agenda here. All I know is that from the get go things don't quite add up. I'm not sure if you're looking for fame, looking to con others into joining your fight in order to further your own next lawsuit or what. I'll leave well enough alone and not intervene any longer so you can do what you can here to influence others to "fight for your subsistence rights!"

    Wait...did I really say "YOUR" subsistence rights...whoops, I meant "their" subsistence rights. Wouldn't want others fighting for Ken Manning's subsistence rights, whatever the heck those really are. Hang on...I hear "savage drum music" in the background...better run and see what's going on.
    Cheerio,
    If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. You stated my posts "smelled fishy from the start" as well as other very negative remarks. If thats not getting personal, well I am defending myself against someone who doesn't understand the facts, nothing personal.
    I have heard a lot of people complaining about new regs, and I am telling them what I did in my court case that I won, and what I am doing now, as well as how they can protest to the BOG as a start without filing suit against the State, yet. My court case is done, it took 7 years, but its over, affirmed by the Alaska Supreme Court, and it regained Tier II hunting rights for thousands of Alaskans, and is probably the closest thing to an open draw that we are going to get for many years now that all communities have equal eligibility again (since 2003). If you don't want to do anything to protect your rights, that is your business, but don't belittle those of us who are going to fight for our rights, thats how our system works, like it or not, we are living in a legal system, and you have to get in the legal system to change anything (i.e., start with a Petition to the BOG), or you are stuck with whatever unreasonable regulations are forced upon us all.

    For anyone else that wants to at least speak up to the BOG, here is a BOG web site on Petition To The Board, and I copied my Petition as a Template for anyone else to use and add their 2 cents to the BOG because here is no "form" for a petition so mine is a start for anyone who wants to fight the new regulations. Its the necessary process before going to court, and may avoid another long drawn out court case.
    Alaska Board of Game Petition web page:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/forms/petition.php

  19. #19

    Default

    JMG, as you know the State must promulgate regulations on a "rational basis" at a minimum which requires they must have a legitimate State interest and benefit to justify denying any rights or imposing regulations, especially infringing constitutionally protected rights under Article VIII. Where constitutionally protected rights are infringed upon, a higher scrutiny level must be applied. The court in Manning v ADFG stated "a demanding scrutiny level" must be applied for the challenged gas and groceries criteria, but not the highest "strict scrutiny" level.
    Therefore, one must ask what is the minimum "rational basis test" for the State to require only Unit 13 Tier II Caribou hunters, i.e, not required of any other subsistence, drawing, or harvest hunts. They obviously are zeroing-in on Tier II caribou hunters WITHOUT a justified reasonable or rational State-wide interest that can only be protected by the new regulations. It fails the lowest level rational basis test thus will not even get to the higher strict scrutiny level of review. And without any reasonable or rational basis, clearly equal treatment and protections of law are violated by the new regulations. Simple as that! The ADFG has NOT stated what State interest or benefit is so important as to put undue hardships on just Unit 13 Tier II subsistence hunters, and no one else in the State! So, if we don't fight unreasonable regs, now, they will be enforced with fines and denial of future permits, etc.

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskasourdough View Post
    Don't give them any new ideas for unreasonable regulations!
    Like standing before the Supreme Court arguing against the gasoline and grocery cost indexing and "that these criteria are not narrowly tailored because criteria
    based on income would be a more accurate measure of dependence on subsistence hunting"?


    ....I am glad for your daughter, even if you did file the application for her, and she can thank Manning v. ADFG for continued rights to hunt regardless of her community of residency....
    I'll have her send you a Thank You card....

    ....I hope with every bite of her next caribou you remember Manning v ADFG....
    Oh, you can be assured that I will.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •