Anyone heard how the central rac went

Sounds like most of the people want to go with option 1, did you learn anymore on how it will work?
 
+1 to 2lumpy for his comments at the RAC last night. Seems to be one of the few in the room that got it.

I personally was for option #2. I don't support tag reductions with any option as I don't think less hunters reduces the overall harvest. There was data presented that supported that last night from a couple folks.

I also get very wound up when they talk about increasing tag prices to offset the revenues of cut tags. I don't understand why we as sportsman need to pay more for piss poor management within the division. If they can't manage to objective then get rid of them.

I was shocked that the division thinks that our habitat will only support the current deer population and put forth the opinion that we have what we have and manage within it. What a Joke!!!!

I got tired of hearing Utah being compared to Nevada...really?

Colorado's plan seems to grow an larger number of deer, I'd think the division should try to learn from them but of course that may take some effort on their part so it will never happen.
 
Tworay, You say you don,t support tag
reduction, but then you say that you
think they need to follow Colorados plan?

In CO the residents do not get to hunt
what unit they want every year, because
of lower tag numbers in the better units!

That is the main reason they made all units
in the state draw units, less tags, better
quality hunts, and you can manage them better!

Whoever presented the data that lower tag
numbers does not help I think is wrong.

Look at C.W.M.U s in the state, do they not
have better hunts than the state ran units!
 
Option 2 is the step in the right direction,
and tag reductions needs to happen, it is easier
to manage if the state were broke up into
several smaller units!

Option 1 is no change, it is just the state
trying to show us that they are trying to
accomplish something for the better!

The nothern Rack voted for option 1 also,
Nothing better will come from this option!
 
HNTBIGBULLS,

Please educate me; how much overall hunter oppurtunity has been lost through Colorado's plan on a whole?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-10 AT 10:56AM (MST)[p]Wanna know why Colorado has more and bigger deer? BECAUSE IT"S COLORADO!

Disputing biologists who study this stuff on a daily basis is asinine and just plain stupid. Bashing the division for trying to implement biologically sound plans while fending off or pleasing special interest is also STUPID.

There's a reason that option one has been voted 22-1 so far. It's because it makes the most sense biologically and socially and closely represents the desires of the MAJORITY (There was a formal survey) of Utah hunters.

Based on results, it seems that they pushing for option 2 are doing their best to only acknowledge information that supports their stance, refute any and all information that the BIOLOGISTS bring up that contradict the necessary truths that option 2ers need in order for their push to be valid.

And can you guys really support a politically and financially motivated wildlife board that tries to slip in an action item, completely contrary to the existing infantile mule deer plan, 2 weeks before the RAC's start????
 
Two, Look back at where CO deer numbers
where in the late 80s to late 90s,
They were as bad as Utah's are now,
they had to do some major changes to get
back to where the entire state was a quality
hunt. They cut tag numbers for several years,
then as the herd sizes increased, so did the
tag numbers. Each year you see units increase
and decrease tags, that is how it should be done.

We cannot compare Utah and Colorado apples to
apples, but if you do it on percentages you
can see what micro management can do.

Our "biologists" use that word lightly, cannot
cannot determine the # of deer on these 5 units
we have now, they are too wide spread!

With all this discussion, I still can not understand
why people do not believe in tag reduction, it is not
all about the harvest numbers, but the amount of pressure!

Answer me this, Why are deer numbers on CWMU's and private
land better than our public land.
 
They say that in under option 1 they will eliminate a unit from a region if it falls below the objective of 12 bucks per 100 does. My guess from what I am hearing every hunter say is that all these units are below 12 bucks. So, I guess that means we will shut the state down as all units are below this objective, or if one or two are considered above we will move all tags to these two units and kill it off. Is that how you see it happening?
 
I'd question "their" hunting prowess before I took "their" word over guys who spend their days doing this for a living. Silly DWR, they should have spent their college years laying concrete and driving truck instead of learning all of that useless information......

www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
Soutah, it is sad to say but, is there
any other way to get the buck/doe ratios
higher other than killing less bucks
every year?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-10 AT 01:16PM (MST)[p]In 1999 Colorado went from largely OTC deer hunting to hunting by permit only, and effectively cut deer permits in the state by more than 50%. In the mid 2000's trophy quality was WAY up in CO. CO has approximately 600,000 mule deer and currently gives approx. 90,000 buck tags each year. UT estimates that they have 280,000 to 300,000 deer and gives approx 95,000 buck tags each year. That is why in general quality is higher in CO than UT. However, overall deer numbers in CO didn't necessarily follow the same upward trend as trophy quality. Just cutting buck permit numbers doesn't grow deer populations. It will grow more bucks and older bucks, but bucks don't give birth to fawns. In a unit that is limited by habitat (has reached carrying capacity) keeping bucks in excess of what is needed to breed does may actually decrease population growth rates. Those excess bucks will out-compete fawns and does for scarce resources, lowering fawn and doe survival.

For those that say they state needs to "manage" deer in the 29 units, what do you mean by "manage"? I am not trying to start a fight, I am genuinely curious as to what you mean by manage. Are you just referring to hunting permits, or do you think that making small hunting units would help with some other forms of management too? What other forms of management are you referring to? How does smaller hunting units affect management differently in CO and NV other than allocation of permits? I guess I just don't see how smaller hunting units will affect mule deer population growth. The DWR already collects buck to doe and fawn to doe ratios, and estimates deer populations on the small unit scale.

Here is a link to an interested report CO put together about deer declines in their state.

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf



Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.
 
I even quoted Anis Auode who said to the Central RAC last year you can limit harvest by limiting the number of hunters, "they" just do not want to put that into practice. As for the bucks to doe ratio, how come all the sportsmen who spend alot of time in the outdoors have not seen the bucks that are out their somewhere, oh let me guess, to much water they are scattered, not enough water they are concentrated in a secret place, they have not migrated yet, which one do you buy into? Maybe just maybe there is not any!!!
 
>I even quoted Anis Auode who
>said to the Central RAC
>last year you can
>limit harvest by limiting the
>number of hunters, "they" just
>do not want to put
>that into practice. As
>for the bucks to doe
>ratio, how come all the
>sportsmen who spend alot of
>time in the outdoors have
>not seen the bucks that
>are out their somewhere, oh
>let me guess, to much
>water they are scattered, not
>enough water they are concentrated
>in a secret place, they
>have not migrated yet, which
>one do you buy into?
>Maybe just maybe there is
>not any!!!

You can reduce harvest and what Anis said was SIGNIFICANT tag cuts. Any person can see that they a harvest less animals on the Henry's than they do on the Manti, but it is at a cost much higher than the majority hunters want to see. Sure, some trophy guys don't mind waiting several years to hunt deer in a quality area, but they are a minority and the social aspects of deer management should NEVER cater to the wishes of the minority, unless it is biologically sound.

Tell me this, why would the division (Not the board) skew current buck to doe ratios? Supposing these numbers are being skewed, who is benefitting? Why would they single out areas like the Oquirrh mountains to restrictions because of lower buck to doe ratios?
 
I am not saying anyone is necessarily skewing numbers but I think the formula of classifying deer numbers is giving only a guess. I realize that you cannot get it right on, but come on you may be the only one that believes our deer herd is in good shape and our bucks are ok. If that were the case we would not even be having these meetings. Common sense and the sportsmen seem to understand that our deer herd, including bucks is declining very fast, and all we are trying to do is save a tradition in Utah for the future. Claiming that everything is fine is not going to cut it. Cutting a mere 7,000 tags is not going to cut it. We have a real problem in many areas. As for what Anis said I will quote the minutes of last November in the Central region he said "You CAN limit harvest by limiting the number of permits". True statement if you ask me, and I agree with you it does have to be SIGNIFICANT, not 7,000. I guess what your are telling all of us is that we should not cut tags to reduce harvest and just leave it alone sit back and it will all work out. Don't think it is going to happen.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-10 AT 01:17PM (MST)[p]The reduction in harvest is not directly proportional to the reduction in tags. If you want to reduce harvest 25% you may have to cut tags 50%. As you start cutting tags success rates increase.

Here is another link to a good article about hunting and mule deer http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinthewest/harvest.html

Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.
 
>I'd question "their" hunting prowess before
>I took "their" word over
>guys who spend their days
>doing this for a living.
>Silly DWR, they should have
>spent their college years laying
>concrete and driving truck instead
>of learning all of that
>useless information......
>
>www.bowhuntersofutah.com


Tree, I've worked with a lot of lawyers, business and finance people that were highly educated....doesn't mean they are good at what they do.
 
Dax,

You are exactly right, and that is why a mere 7,000 tags will not do much at all.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-10 AT 01:34PM (MST)[p]Tony's statement and numbers regarding the last 30 or so years of hunter decrease, while seeing a virtual planing of harvest numbers speaks to this. Mule deer numbers have ebbed and flowed with the weather, predator numbers and a very significant increase in elk numbers. Hunters have had a negligible added impact in the overall numbers.

The days of poisoning predators for the sake of ranching are gone. The days of over-grazing sheep and cattle, which created more suitable deer habitat have gone by the wayside. (Remember WW II? There were millions of sheep during this time to supplement clothing for the war, not to mention all of the people over seas tthat weren't harvesting deer back home)

Since the 70's, which deer were over populated. (My grandfather and father killed does and bucks on the winter range by the horse trailer load. They both worked for the UFG) we have seen a decline in numbers, mostly due to severe winter kill and several years of drought. Other than these significant blows to the population(s), the deer herd has stabilized and increased afterwards.

I'm of the opinion that with these things being a given that an objective of 420,000 animals is ridiculous and far fetched. Unless elk are harvested to a greater degree, predator numbers return to what they were during the poisoning era and we experience many consecutive years of favorable weather, the deer will not not increase on a significant level.

Lastly, reduced numbers of buck harvest will do NOTHING to alleviate the aforementioned items and in the long run, an over-population of bucks stands to add to the problem of diminishing deer numbers.

On the flip side, a state full of big bucks and no hunters stands to fetch quite a bit of conservation money to improve a herd that very few of us will be able to hunt. Hmm, sounds kind of like our elk...........
 
Saving bucks does not grow more deer it only hurts fawn recruitment. Why does no one realize that CO. has twice the deer we have. UT can't hold that number of deer so we will never see the bucks CO brings to the table and have any semblance of a majority hunt. And for all of CO management what has hurt it in the last couple of years? A hard winter and everyone and there brother piss' and moans that the gunnison basin doesn't have a deer in it. God knows it wasn't there poor management because CO is the shizzle. Deer are more sensitive to problems out of our control more than any big game in the state. A few mild winters and some good rain and the herd will be helped more than all the things the WB is trying.
alpinebowman

>>>---shots that are true pass right through--->
 
Tree,
At the Northern RAC I asked Anis what the deer count for Utah was last year. He said 308,000 to 310,000. I asked him how they come to that number and his answer was through calculations and a model. I then asked him if this was the same model used to count pronghorn on the Parker unit. His answer was YES! The point of that is this. The local biologist told the DWR that the herd numbers were way down on the Parker and tags should be cut. The Division said their "model" showed plenty! They issued over 500 tags on the unit. Hunters and even the sheepmens association started to be alarmed at the low numbers over the summer. An emergancy count was asked for and finally done. The actual number ended up being 50% of what the "model" showed. The doe hunts were canceled finally!
My point is the DWR does not even listen or plan according to what their own experts say! All of the boiligist I have spoken with put the deer herd closer to 240,000. So you tell me why we should support and trust Anis and his merry band of number spinners. They lie and always will without the sportsmen calling them out!!!! Sportsmen and the sheepmens association (of all people) saved the Parker pronghorn herd, NOT THE DWR! I can only pray we can do the same for our deer herds!

There are not enough deer in Utah...FOR REAL.
 
>Tree,
>At the Northern RAC I asked
>Anis what the deer count
>for Utah was last year.
> He said 308,000 to
>310,000. I asked him how
>they come to that number
>and his answer was through
>calculations and a model.
>I then asked him if
>this was the same model
>used to count pronghorn on
>the Parker unit. His answer
>was YES! The point
>of that is this.
>The local biologist told the
>DWR that the herd numbers
>were way down on the
>Parker and tags should be
>cut. The Division said their
>"model" showed plenty! They
>issued over 500 tags on
>the unit. Hunters and
>even the sheepmens association started
>to be alarmed at
>the low numbers over the
>summer. An emergancy count was
>asked for and finally done.
> The actual number ended
>up being 50% of what
>the "model" showed. The doe
>hunts were canceled finally!
> My point is the
>DWR does not even listen
>or plan according to what
>their own experts say!
>All of the boiligist I
>have spoken with put the
>deer herd closer to 240,000.
> So you tell me
>why we should support and
>trust Anis and his merry
>band of number spinners.
>They lie and always will
>without the sportsmen calling them
>out!!!! Sportsmen and the
>sheepmens association (of all people)
>saved the Parker pronghorn herd,
>NOT THE DWR! I
>can only pray we can
>do the same for our
>deer herds!
>
>There are not enough deer in
>Utah...FOR REAL.

HAH HA, now I know what you look like.

I thought you brought up a good point, but when was the count done? On what basis? I sincerely think that Anis is not the problem and is definitely caught between a rock and a hard place. I spent time on the parker in the spring (What potion we could get to) and I can definitely see how the winter kill in that region could have been substantial.

I truly don't know when or where they did their counts and where the input came from for that particular unit, so I will refrain from commenting.

My question in regards to this is,; what is a better way to count? I believe they are using the best model possible with the resources available. Would it be better if they could fly every inch of the state, every single year? Hell yes. Maybe Don and the boys can pony up for a plane ore two in lieu of doing habitat projects on private property this year? Maybe spend the money that they have spending on cat food...errrr....sheep the last ten years?


www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
Tree:

Since we can agree that the counting of deer may not be real accurate and the fact that the winter kill was not good, I think it is safe to say the deer herd is down including the buck herd. So if reducing tags is not the answer, what should we be doing. Just seems like if we keep heading down the road we are on it is not going to just improve.

Maybe you have some good tips for us, but remember they are only giving us option 1,2, or 3 so which one works and why?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-10 AT 02:18PM (MST)[p] Muley_73
> My point is the
>DWR does not even listen
>or plan according to what
>their own experts say!
>All of the boiligist I
>have spoken with put the
>deer herd closer to 240,000.


Adam Bronson wrote an article in huntin fool about his time as a southern utah big game bioligist. To sum it up it talks about bioligists making recommendations and the dwr doing something completely different from what was recommended by the bioligists.
 
I'd wager that it's not the DWR changing things, rather a heavily influenced wildlife board. I've seen first hand as the took recommended items and changed them at the WB meeting to something completely different, often times not resembling the original proposals.

They are the problem.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
Happens all of the time. Special interest knows that it's not the RAC that they need to be pandering to, it's the board. Ultimately, they are the ones making the decisions and they answer to no one. They can do as they please, which is often times the case.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-10 AT 03:43PM (MST)[p]Tree I have also seen the wildlife board pull this BS and yes people it happens more often then not. I also know that a good majority of this BS comes from everyones favorite special interest
group that believes they can run the whole state better than anyone else so long as it benefits there interest and the hell with everyone else.
 
Man after being to the last couple RAC meetings I can only hope you guys are right! Maybe the board will make the right decision and go with option 2.

Tree,
Unbelievable that you would say the SFW should pay for counts. That is what we pay the DWR to do. They are just not doing correctly! That does not mean some other group should be responsible to do it. It means that they should do their job correctly and honestly! Which they have not done...if they had SFW would probably ne nonexistent!

There are not enough deer in Utah...FOR REAL.
 
I went to the northern region meeting on Tuesday and they voted for option 1, 12-0. I was personally for option 2, and I even got up and voiced my opinions. I think a few of those guys there were about ready to through me out of the meeting when I said hunters are lazy. But at least I got to speak my peace. Option 1 is a whole lot like throwing a little more dirt on the problem in my mind, but that is ok. I do like that they are going to manage the really poor units for three years by pulling them out of the general regions.

I had to laugh when guy who asked Anis if the system we use to count deer numbers in Utah was the same we use to count the Antelope. We all know that they cancelled that hunt this year because they didn't have as many antelope as they thought (possibly because of winter killed). Don't get me wrong I like Anis, but I would have hated to be him at that moment.
 
Can someone tell me if a unit falls below objective and is managed differently will they lower tag numbers for that region?
Are tag numbers set for several years at a time?
if so, won't you just be piling more hunters into less hunting area if you don't adjust tag numbers year to year if needed?
Will that unit that is below objective be closed? or just have a shorter hunting season like the monroe this year?
 
>Man after being to the last
>couple RAC meetings I can
>only hope you guys are
>right! Maybe the board
>will make the right decision
>and go with option 2.
>
>
>Tree,
>Unbelievable that you would say the
>SFW should pay for counts.
> That is what we
>pay the DWR to do.
> They are just not
>doing correctly! That does
>not mean some other group
>should be responsible to do
>it. It means that they
>should do their job correctly
>and honestly! Which they
>have not done...if they had
>SFW would probably ne nonexistent!
>
>
>There are not enough deer in
>Utah...FOR REAL.

I was being sarcastic.

So, what exactly is the "correct" way to do winter counts under their current budget?

Also, please let us know what they have been dishonest about.
www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation predation.

Now I'm blue in the face. If its been said once its been said 100 times.

I'll trust the over 60 set who witnessed first hand the proper way to increase a deer herd and hunt it at the same time.

I don't care what option the DWR goes with. None of the three will do anything to increase overall numbers. And that is what 90% of deer hunters want. And if there were more deer then I bet the horn guys would get there's too.

Mark my words we will never have a significant increase in the deer herd unless predation in decreased. And any nominal gains we get from reducing hunter harvest will be consumed by our unchecked predator population.
 
If SFW would have followed the rules and tried to push this proposal through a year in advance with the muledeer comity it might have went through but when they try to bastardize the current plan the committees all worked on throughout the year is asine. No special interest group should be able to do this type of behavior. NO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR!!!

The division dosent count deer in Utah any different then they count deer in any other states!

The only reason colorado has such good hunting is they have 600,000 deer and 90,000 hunters. So you telling me you want to cut the tags in utah to 45,000 all so you can all go out and shoot a buck out your truck window like you do in colorado.

It is already 3 year wait for a southern deer tag if your not a dedicated hunter. So cutting the tags in half will make it a 6 year wait so you can all shoot a 22" 4 point out your truck window..

Micro units are not going to magically create more bucks. Major tag cuts are the only way to get more bucks. It all comes with a price however.. Major years off your life..... Its not worth it especially if you get off your backside and get out and hunt.

If you want to be able to hunt more deer do things to increase the deer herd. increase the bear tags, kill female cougars, kill coyotes. Build some highway fences, and take out some elk....

But saying micromanagment like it is some kind of magic word is foolish.

People in Utah want to hunt. If you distribute the tags 33% archery 33% rifle 33% muzzy will allow more deer to survive and still allow more hunters in the field without affecting the buck numbers like the current system..

4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg


The harder you work the luckier you get!!
 
>Can someone tell me if a
>unit falls below objective and
>is managed differently will they
>lower tag numbers for that
>region?
>Are tag numbers set for several
>years at a time?
>if so, won't you just
>be piling more hunters into
>less hunting area if you
>don't adjust tag numbers year
>to year if needed?
>Will that unit that is below
>objective be closed? or just
>have a shorter hunting season
>like the monroe this year?
>

What was stated is that if units fall below 12:100 buck to doe ratio, they will be put in a separate draw with a significant tag reduction until the objective is met.

As was stated, tag reductions, unless they are significant (I'd speculate over 1/3 or more) will result in a negligible reduction in buck mortality. So I'd surmise that the statewide quota would remain the same.


www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
SWB. I agree with you. i archery hunt. I dont like seeing more people on that hunt, but i'd rather see more people on that hunt than not be able to hunt at all. no matter how many people you throw into the archery hunts, the success rates will still never be like those of the rifle and muzzy hunts.
 
After talking to a few old timers and biologist and seeing pics of the olden days, our habitat is in the tank right now. You used to see large areas of sage brush that was thick and tall and so on. I wish I could find some of the pics taken to show that major decline in quality. It was scary to see the pics side by side and see the huge decline in food.

And yes, predators. We can do alot with predators as sportsman fairly easy, but the habitat takes time and mother nature MUST BE on our side. We need mild winters, with wet springs and summers for several years in a row to help the deer herd. Better quality habitat = better/more quality deer = more does and fawns = more bucks.

Southern utah has not lost habitat, but the quality has gone down significantly.

What can "WE" do to help the habitat now is my question?
 
Dax - the Colorado report was great reading (everyone should read it if you haven't)

Deer reductions are a result of multiple factors. I believe they are habitat, predation, increaed elk, significant increase in road kill and significant harsh weather patterns. Our current hunting permit system takes out minimal deer (primarily bucks) relative to all the other factors.

So, what is being done about these other factors: there is alot going into habitat restoration (not enough places yet but, it's costly, yotes are being taken out in some places (we can all help with this one all winter long), some mountains have alot more elk on them than there was 30 years ago (I don't see this one changing much due to $$), there are fences going up on some of the more critical road kill roads (again costs money but, it's getting some attention, harsh weather (only mother nature can cure this one).

SWB - I think your spot on!

Smokepole
 
Dax - the Colorado report was great reading (everyone should read it if you haven't)
Deer reductions are a result of multiple factors. I believe they are habitat, predation, increaed elk, significant increase in road kill and significant harsh weather patterns. Our current hunting permit system takes out minimal deer (primarily bucks) relative to all the other factors.

So, what is being done about these other factors: there is alot going into habitat restoration (not enough places yet but, it's costly, yotes are being taken out in some places (we can all help with this one all winter long), some mountains have alot more elk on them than there was 30 years ago (I don't see this one changing much due to $$), there are fences going up on some of the more critical road kill roads (again costs money but, it's getting some attention, harsh weather (only mother nature can cure this one).

SWB - I think your spot on!

Smokepole
 
Dax,

what is your solution to INCREASE Utah deer population to 425,000 deer, it is probably at 250,000 or less ?

that is THE MAJOR POINT here, increase deer populations then we can fight over hunting strategies to produce bigger bucks or more opportunity, or a diversity of options.

Point number TWO: THIS IS NOT an SFW agenda, at all.

SFW's foucs has been getting $100 Million to restore habitat, $500,000 a year to kill coyotes, get tens of millions to fence highways, and other activities to GROW more deer.

The BOARD and RAC asked for inputs, we surveyed our community leaders, held a 4 hour board meeting, went back to committees and placed votes. The SFW Board voted 60% in favor of option TWO, 40% in favor of option One.

The SFW emphasis at the Baord is to fix the deer herd, until that is done, neither option really matters. As byron Bateman said, it is simply re-arranging the chairs on the deck of teh Titanic
 

Similar threads

H
Beaver mt. goats
Replies
0
Views
230
hoss
H
usafvet
44-1 Lope
Replies
11
Views
558
usafvet
usafvet
LMB
How Does Anyone Find A Hunting Buddy and/or Mentor?
Replies
2
Views
229
Blackbear1
B

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

B0D754ED-14F7-4647-B1BC-EF7FA1D96F66.jpeg
2C2E6150-92D1-4B28-8BD8-D6392BBFEB77.jpeg
IMG_7564.jpg
IMG_7164.jpeg
B89AE4AD-25E6-49F4-8B5D-5F90C146DC14.jpeg
IMG_20201017_115024112.jpg
IMG_2904 copy.jpg
A0FA0CD7-B7D2-47FF-AD02-675C6229FDD8.jpeg
39DA1DC5-B2AF-437B-A6E4-FE63064C8282.jpeg
IMG_6576.jpeg
Resized_image0000.jpeg
Elk 1.jpg
Back
Top Bottom