Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > General Adirondack Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-17-2012, 08:48 AM   #81
fisher39
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wldrns View Post
But if the permit might apply to day hikers, how does one distinguish between someone who "hikes" a minimally short distance (feet, yards, fractions of miles, or stopping on the roadside to walk the dog a bit down the trail) on public land, as different from one who hikes considerably further? Where do you draw the line in which person needs a permit and which does not?
Like with anything, we'd have to rely on the good judgment of whoever has the authority to enforce such a rule. Is someone carrying a bow hunting, or headed out for target practice? Is the person fishing when trout season opens, but bass are off limits, fishing for trout or bass? If he catches a bass, does he get ticketed? Is it illegal to use tube jigs and spinner baits when bass are out of season?

These are all questions best answered by the person authorized to make the judgment, based on the circumstances!
fisher39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 08:50 AM   #82
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
What if the obligatory course for free hiking cost $2500.00?


Only for those from Canada.

Lets just say for the purposes of this discussion that the course is also free.
__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 08:51 AM   #83
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connecticut Yankee View Post
The services and facilities referred to would be state campsites the VIC places like that I should think. BUT.....
I agree that's almost certainly the intent. The real test though would be the Indian Lake Islands Campground and the Saranac Islands Campground. Despite the names and the entrance booths charging admission, neither campground exist, technically speaking. When you go to Indian Lake and pay DEC money for a weekend of camping on the east shore of the lake, you are paying a mandatory fee to use a primitive campsite in the Siamese Ponds Wilderness. There is no facility other than a picnic table and an outhouse, and because the tables are non-conforming in wilderness areas they will need to be removed. Some of the sites may need to be closed and others moved back from the water to meet SLMP guidelines. But DEC has no intentions of ever eliminating the campground fee.

Likewise, the island and west shore campsites are part of the Jessup River Wild Forest, where the only key difference is that the picnic tables can stay. The Saranac Lake campsites are part of the Saranac Lakes Wild Forest.

For comparison, the campgrounds that most people associate with that word, like Lewey Lake, Nicks Lake, Golden Beach, etc., are included in a special classification that allows the development and maintenance of recreational facilities. At Indian Lake and the Saranacs, you are paying to use "run-of-the-mill" state land. The facilities are no different than in any other backcountry setting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissionpoint View Post
@ Bill I: The Dannemora restriction is due to the prison there.
Understood that state land in Dannemora enjoys a separate status due to the prison, although I think the full explanation is a bit more multi-faceted. I think that the prison itself owns land that the state wanted to make clear was not part of the Forest Preserve, but there is also state forest acreage in the town for which I know of no user restrictions. In fact, some of this was recently purchased during the Pataki years.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 08:57 AM   #84
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisher39 View Post
Like with anything, we'd have to rely on the good judgment of whoever has the authority to enforce such a rule. Is someone carrying a bow hunting, or headed out for target practice? Is the person fishing when trout season opens, but bass are off limits, fishing for trout or bass? If he catches a bass, does he get ticketed? Is it illegal to use tube jigs and spinner baits when bass are out of season?

These are all questions best answered by the person authorized to make the judgment, based on the circumstances!
Well if you are out waist deep in the Battenkill next April jigging with tubes I'm sure nobody will bother you. They might shake thier head a little, but will probably not crowd you at all.

We occasionally pull out a bass during closed season while fishing for lakers and salmon here. You just let it go is all. Its not like you were targeting that species, and the greedy ba$tard just took your lure.

If you have your bow in the woods and the season is open, sorry, you are hunting. You'd have about as much luck saying you were just out for target as you would saying you were just 'practice casting' on the Au Sable during closed season.
__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 09:13 PM   #85
Sapien
outlander
 
Sapien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Woodbridge VA
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissionpoint View Post
No. Sales tax dollars go to the General Fund at a rate of 4%, the rest goes to the county you bought that thing in. Room and bed taxes go to tourism projects in places where they have those types of taxes. (eg. Warren County)

None of that money goes to trails. Sorry. You just end up funding the same vacuum the rest of us do.
I think you made an assumption that the original proponent did not appear to make -- that the fees collected would be earmarked for trail maintenance. According to the article, he stated they would be for generating revenue for the State.

I presume all those nice roads and roadside parking areas for accessing trails are not built & maintained by volunteers.

If they start charging hiking fees, paddling fees, backcountry camping fees, cross-country skiing fees, cycling fees, sleeping in a lean-to fees, walking around town fees, breathing the fresh mountain air fees... well, those effectively end up being dollars to the state instead of spent in the local economy.

Sounds like it's academic anyway, since what the man proposed appears to be against the spirit of the law.
Sapien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 11:39 PM   #86
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by madison View Post
I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare hiking with hunting and fishing with regard to purchasing a liscense. When you buy a hunting or fishing liscence you are not paying for the right to go into the woods on public land- you are paying for the right to harvest resources. The requirement of liscences is one of the means by which the DEC regulates this harvesting and maintains a healthy population, which I think most would agree is absolutely necessary. And in the case of hunting, liscences are also a way to ensure that the hunters have at least some degree of safety instruction, to minimize the dangers to others. Again, I think most would agree that this is also neccesary.

Hiking is about as low impact a recreational activity as you can get. Asking hikers to pay to simply walk on the land that they already fund with their considerable taxes seems unreasonable.
Backpackers impact the environment just by being there. One cold make the argument that since hunters help in "Harvesting"the herds by acing in place of the predators we have displaced, they are aiding the environment and herefore should not have to pay a fee.

So, and group can point to another and say they should and I shouldn't because..........

As far as I'm concerned it's all a bunch of BS coming from a culture (Americans) who feel that are entitled. In this cse to use and do what they want and not have to pay for it.

I see people post about the super new gear they bought, $300 sleeping bags, $200 soft shells, etc, etc etc and then whine like babies at the thought about having to pay a reasonable fee for the use of the resources.

Personally I favor a fee just with the hope that it will keep a lot of people away. Then maybe the impact won't be as bad. I also believe that paying a fee to be able to chase my rainbows is perfectly justified and that I should be grateful for the fact that some of the land is still undevopled. I'm all for buying and protcting as much land as possible regardless of whether I can backpack on it or not. Just to save it for the future.

I really don't think that mans footprint and handprint have to be on everything. In fact most things would be better if man couldn't make any mark on it at all. But if we are going to infringe where we really don't fit in, then lets have to pay for it.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 06:30 AM   #87
rollinslover64
Member
 
rollinslover64's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 369
Let's just say for a moment that the Adirondacks was just a tract of land owned by no one,without the name Adirondacks,and anyone could use it.There are no private landowners,the state owns none of it,and there are no developments.The place is just filled with trails that people have made over the years,they are not maintained,only used.Would we still be arguing about a fee for using this tract or how much impact a particular activity causes? Just curious as to what people have to say about this.
And one question Redhawk.When we go to the Adirondacks or this unnamed tract of land in what way are we infringing where we don't belong? Before there were any developments man lived,hunted,and propogated in the forests.I just don't see how we don't belong there.Are we all supposed to just stay out the woods and remain in our houses and apartments? When an unwanted animal enters our home should we charge them a fee for impacting our environment?

Last edited by rollinslover64; 10-18-2012 at 06:42 AM..
rollinslover64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 07:19 AM   #88
adkman12986
Member
 
adkman12986's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tupper Lake
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollinslover64 View Post
Let's just say for a moment that the Adirondacks was just a tract of land owned by no one,without the name Adirondacks,and anyone could use it.There are no private landowners,the state owns none of it,and there are no developments.The place is just filled with trails that people have made over the years,they are not maintained,only used.Would we still be arguing about a fee for using this tract or how much impact a particular activity causes? Just curious as to what people have to say about this.
And one question Redhawk.When we go to the Adirondacks or this unnamed tract of land in what way are we infringing where we don't belong? Before there were any developments man lived,hunted,and propogated in the forests.I just don't see how we don't belong there.Are we all supposed to just stay out the woods and remain in our houses and apartments? When an unwanted animal enters our home should we charge them a fee for impacting our environment?
Sounds very similar to Agenda 21
adkman12986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 09:33 AM   #89
madison
Member
 
madison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 434
For the record, I never said hiking was a no-impact activity- I said it was about as low impact as you can get. That would be in comparison to the motorboaters and atv's and jet-ski's, who create noise pollution and spew pollutants into the water and rip up the trails, or to hunters and fisherman, who harvest resources and, in the case of hunters, endanger everyone in the woods around them and shoot at least a few other people every year, and in the case of fisherman, introduce invasive species to waters and negatively affect fish populations.

In contrast, hiking is extremely low impact. Of course, there are those who leave campsites trashed behind them. In my experience, this is far more likely to happen in easily accessible car camping areas and local "party spots." Most back country users are conscientious and low impact, and I think the best way to deal with the few bad seeds is to ticket and fine the offenders.

In a society where the cost of everything is going up and up, it is a great comfort to me that at least the solace of the woods is free. (in the adk's, anyway) My overall tax liability has gone up by thousands of dollars in the last decade. The costs associated with travel have increased. I live about 3-5 hours away from the places I recreate in the Adirondacks. It is not cheap to take a canoe/backpack trip there. Between gas, supplies, and time off from work, any trip I take up there already costs several hundred dollars or more. You add in access fees and it might become unaffordable for a lot of people. I guess this is a plus for a lot of you, but I'm not sure it would be a good thing for a region that has become economically dependent on tourism.
madison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 09:37 AM   #90
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollinslover64 View Post
Let's just say for a moment that the Adirondacks was just a tract of land owned by no one,without the name Adirondacks,and anyone could use it.There are no private landowners,the state owns none of it,and there are no developments.The place is just filled with trails that people have made over the years,they are not maintained,only used.Would we still be arguing about a fee for using this tract or how much impact a particular activity causes? Just curious as to what people have to say about this.
And one question Redhawk.When we go to the Adirondacks or this unnamed tract of land in what way are we infringing where we don't belong? Before there were any developments man lived,hunted,and propogated in the forests.I just don't see how we don't belong there.Are we all supposed to just stay out the woods and remain in our houses and apartments? When an unwanted animal enters our home should we charge them a fee for impacting our environment?
Man doesn't belong because man always tries to alter the habitat to suit himself. Either for comfort or for profit. So when man enters the wilderness and passes through or stays he destroys it for most other species. That is why I say we are intruders.

As for the unwanted animals that enter our homes, many poison, trap or shoot them. Is that another alternative that should be considered against humans?

What about having a lot of wilderness land that is undeveloped or unused? What's wrong with that? Why do we humans feel the lnd is wasted? Since plants have much to do with producing the air we breath and affecting climate, is the land really being wasted? No. In fact it's producing the very thing we humans need to live, oxygen, and consuming the carbon dioxide. Therefore huge tracts of undevoped forest are the most benficial things to man. So undeveloped forest lands are not a "waste", they are a valuable asset even, make that especially if we never set foot in them.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 10:20 AM   #91
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Man doesn't belong because man always tries to alter the habitat to suit himself. Either for comfort or for profit. So when man enters the wilderness and passes through or stays he destroys it for most other species. That is why I say we are intruders.
If man doesn't belong in the woods, then why do we go?

If I'm an intruder in an alien environment, then why the heck do I feel so at home in the wilderness?

We preserved these areas because we have a cultural need for wild places to exist. Heck, an appreciation for nature in general is ingrained in our DNA. The species Homo sapiens has been around for 200,000 years; Homo erectus was around for 3 million years or something. We didn't evolve in a city gutter. The first humans were hunters that roamed what was essentially a planetary wilderness, beyond anything any modern human could conceive. Cities developed only a few thousand years ago, and people have lived in them for only 3% (my best guess) of the total time our kind has existed. For 97% of the existence of Homo sapiens our forebears were dependent upon natural cycles and processes, and they were no doubt in possession of knowledge that was lost millennia ago. So I have always believed that we return to the wilds because we have a strong genetic urge to retain some connection with our roots.

For anyone convinced that man doesn't belong in the woods and is an intruder who destroys everything he touches, I will simply point out that nothing compels any individual to go anywhere he doesn't feel comfortable.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 10:40 AM   #92
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 814
For the reasons that Bill I mentioned, I think it quite astonishing for someone to say that "man doesn't belong" - and yet the same people saying this indicate a desire to limit access to others so that "their" experience is more rewarding.

A bit of a double standard, to say the least.................
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 10:49 AM   #93
WinterWarlock
One foot in front of the other
 
WinterWarlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,218
Moderator here...

Just wanted to say that a) I understand this is a contentious issue, and b) we're starting to tread closely to that line of calling individuals out...let's be careful here so that we can continue the discussion.

Thanks.
__________________
ADK High Peaks Wiki

Enjoy Every Sandwich!
WinterWarlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 01:29 PM   #94
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Since plants have much to do with producing the air we breath and affecting climate, is the land really being wasted? No. In fact it's producing the very thing we humans need to live, oxygen, and consuming the carbon dioxide. Therefore huge tracts of undevoped forest are the most benficial things to man. So undeveloped forest lands are not a "waste", they are a valuable asset even, make that especially if we never set foot in them.
From seed germination to death and complete decay a plant's CO2/O2 balance is zero.

Regarding man's negative impact on wilderness environments I have one observation that I think is germane. In the Dix Wilderness one can bushwhack between East Dix and Spotted Mountain then on to Elizabethtown Number Four along a ridge-line. I have done it 3 or 4 times over the past decade and it is a magnificent hike with alternating woods and open rock. One reads about it over the internet and people like me have posted pictures. It may even be written up in the Discover the Adirondacks series.

The first time, 10 years ago, I noted a very faint but, nevertheless discernible, herd path through some of the wooded portions. People tend to follow the line of least resistance, hence the faint path. The path is not easy to follow through the entire length and it tends to disappear abruptly. Navigation skills are required.

Subsequent trips over the years (last time was 4 months ago) have shown no increase at all in herd path definition. What is happening is that the rate of herd path erasure due to deadfall, branch and leaf litter is equal to herd path formation. For now, this seems to be an interesting example of balance between human impact and natural regeneration.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 02:33 PM   #95
ADKeagle
Member
 
ADKeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Saratoga County, NY
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by madison View Post
in the case of hunters, endanger everyone in the woods around them and shoot at least a few other people every year
Holy inflammatory and ignorant statement batman!
__________________
- Kevin
ADKeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 02:49 PM   #96
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
In the Dix Wilderness one can bushwhack between East Dix and Spotted Mountain then on to Elizabethtown Number Four along a ridge-line. I have done it 3 or 4 times over the past decade and it is a magnificent hike with alternating woods and open rock. One reads about it over the internet and people like me have posted pictures. It may even be written up in the Discover the Adirondacks series. (emphasis added)
Indeed Spotted is listed as a bushwhack in DTAHP, and will remain so in the 2013 edition, if I ever find the time. I hiked up there from the South Fork Boquet in 2009 and saw nothing more egregious than a few cairns here and there. Although I assume you followed a herd path to get to East Dix; to keep things in perspective, that trail was probably once a bushwhack route that developed into a trail from repeated use, probably within your lifetime (according to all the generally held assumptions about herd path development in the High Peaks). In other words, it was used so frequently that the process you described bin your post was prevented from occurring.

Although this is drifting from the topic at hand.

My posts are all over this thread, so I'll say this one last thing regarding user fees and then shut up. The volume of people in the High Peaks on a summer weekend is comparable to what I've seen in other popular parks and wilderness areas, and since fee permits are often used in these areas as a recreational management tool, their introduction to the High Peaks specifically, as well as perhaps places like Lake Lila and Pharaoh, would hardly be ground-breaking or extraordinary. In fact, as far as I'm concerned such fees are already being collected for the primitive sites on Indian Lake and the Saranac chain.

For the High Peaks, the biggest problem that I see is campsite crowding. In most parts of the Adirondacks I can venture into the woods and count on finding a campsite with some measure of privacy, just the way I like it. In the High Peaks, the terrain severely limits the number of potential sites, and the "competition" for these sites from other backpackers is impossible for me to predict. A location may only have one available campsite, and if I arrive to find it already occupied what do I do? Move in? Move on? Camp illegally off-trail?

However, if I knew ahead of time that that campsite was already taken I would adjust my route accordingly, go someplace where I knew I could find an open campsite, and enjoy my stay much more. But of course the only way for this to happen is if there was a way to reserve sites ahead of time, which would of course imply that a fee was being collected if for no other reason than to cover the overhead of such a system.

This ties back to my original post back on page 1, where I talked about camping permits that could be issued through local vendors in Long Lake, Newcomb, Keene Valley, Tupper, Lake Placid, etc. Backpackers would need to plan their itinerary in advance, reserve their sites, pay the fee, pick up their permits, and go. Rather than 6 parties converging on the 3 legal sites at Feldspar, they might be dispersed across sites at Lake Arnold, Uphill, and Lake Colden as well as Feldspar, each party in its own private site or lean-to. The number of people actually camping in the High Peaks Wilderness is not necessarily reduced, but the perception of overcrowding goes away because at the end of the day everybody has a spot to call their own.

This is an idea that I've had for a while, regardless of what certain state legislators may or may not be saying. I am under no illusion that none of this will be implemented overnight, or even that it ever will. I am saying that this is something I've seen at work in other states, and it is something I'd be willing to pay for here in New York, where the situation warrants it.

So long and good night.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 03:00 PM   #97
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by madison View Post
and shoot at least a few other people every year,
Indeed, this is a somewhat frightening and eyebrow-raising statement. I'm not jumping on you or anything but would need to see some official documentation before I believe it.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 03:12 PM   #98
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill I. View Post
Although I assume you followed a herd path to get to East Dix
I bushwhacked to East Dix from Wyman (via Lindsay Brk.) on one occasion, bushwhacked from West Mill Brk to South Dix and took the herd path from there to East on another and did the route from Rte 73 in order of E-Town-Spotted-East on yet another.

Just let me know if you want me to write anything up for the new guide book, it'd be a pleasure considering the beta you've generously given me over the years.

The herdpath to East that you speak of should be made into an officially marked and maintained trail anyway IMO with a few sections re-routed.

I agree with the rest of your post, whether fees are involved or not. The internet is an efficient and powerful tool in that regard. I suppose though if it was free then people would reserve lean-to or camping space and not show up, which would defeat the purpose.

Good night Bill!
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 06:37 PM   #99
rollinslover64
Member
 
rollinslover64's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Man doesn't belong because man always tries to alter the habitat to suit himself. Either for comfort or for profit. So when man enters the wilderness and passes through or stays he destroys it for most other species. That is why I say we are intruders.

As for the unwanted animals that enter our homes, many poison, trap or shoot them. Is that another alternative that should be considered against humans?

What about having a lot of wilderness land that is undeveloped or unused? What's wrong with that? Why do we humans feel the lnd is wasted? Since plants have much to do with producing the air we breath and affecting climate, is the land really being wasted? No. In fact it's producing the very thing we humans need to live, oxygen, and consuming the carbon dioxide. Therefore huge tracts of undevoped forest are the most benficial things to man. So undeveloped forest lands are not a "waste", they are a valuable asset even, make that especially if we never set foot in them.
I would argue that animals do the same.Beavers cut down trees to suit their needs for food and a home.In addition they alter the flows of streams by building their dams.Deer scrub trees and scrap the ground to mark their territory.All sorts of animals dig holes for their homes all causing as you say impact.But I am assuming that it's O.K. that the animals alter the landscape to suit their needs because that's just nature.Overall given their sheer numbers I would say that animals impact the environment and forest far more than us few humans do.
rollinslover64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 08:09 PM   #100
Pete_Hickey
Member
 
Pete_Hickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hull, Quebec
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapien View Post
I presume all those nice roads and roadside parking areas for accessing trails are not built & maintained by volunteers.
Note that a bunch of trailhead parking/improvements that were done were paid for by federal dollars. If the DEC had that money, it most likely would have been used for something else. There was some kind of federal program where the money could only be used for trailhead improvement and signs.
__________________
Senility is a terrible thing. I blame society. That and years of substance abuse.
Pete_Hickey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 -4. The time now is 03:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.