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 05-30-2017, 09:30 AM   #1
SpencerVT
Member
 
SpencerVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brattleboro, Vermont
Posts: 58
Why is North Hudson the Detroit of the Adirondacks?

Why is North Hudson the Detroit of the Adirondacks? So many nice towns as you go up the Adirondack Northway and throughout the park, but then in North Hudson many businesses are closed, abandoned, and the area feels blighted.

I think this article answers most of my own question:
http://www.governing.com/topics/tran...tier-town.html

However, it's been almost 20 years since Frontier Town closed. I wonder why the town hasn't rebounded more?, or what it will take to get the town revitalized? North Hudson is in a beautiful Adirondack area, it would be great if they could revitalize or reshape the town to look less blighted. Tearing down the old seemingly abandoned decaying structures would help a lot.
__________________
Spencer Bigfoot
SpencerVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 10:12 AM   #2
nutmeg creeker
Member
 
nutmeg creeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Haven Ct & North Creek
Posts: 397
I remember Frontier Town in its heyday, but North Hudson poses a question for me: What was there before Frontier Town? Many ADK communities had thriving local economies which extended back to the early days of the last century. The decline was long and painful as the local industries and businesses closed. Did North Hudson have such prosperous times before the baby boom fueled its unique growth?
__________________
"Days in the woods are days beyond time"--Paul Jamieson
nutmeg creeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 11:39 AM   #3
BillyGr
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutmeg creeker View Post
I remember Frontier Town in its heyday, but North Hudson poses a question for me: What was there before Frontier Town? Many ADK communities had thriving local economies which extended back to the early days of the last century. The decline was long and painful as the local industries and businesses closed. Did North Hudson have such prosperous times before the baby boom fueled its unique growth?
From the descriptions of the original builder of the park, not much.

The park site itself had had some farming (he mentions a burned out farmhouse, and a barn that was eventually made into living area upstairs), but with the conditions it had been basically unused when he arrived to buy it (mentions a weather beaten for sale sign).
Also mentions that the town then had about 100 residents (so even smaller than today).

He also mentions that most worked at cutting logs (for the paper and saw mills in surrounding areas) or at one of two mining operations (about 25 mi east and west of the area, run by National Lead and Republic Steel).

Additionally, it mentions that there had been a forge there years earlier (until the late 1800's), which was actually the site where they rebuilt those things (saw mill, grist mill and such) - that forge had made iron during the Civil War, some of which was used for the Monitor.

Also - there is an article in today's Times Union, saying that the state is looking for anyone interested in doing something at the site (to add to what they already plan in camping and visitor's center) - asking for those interested to make proposals by July.
BillyGr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 11:57 AM   #4
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,436
If you travel widely in the Adirondacks, you will see that is essentially Appalachia. If you stick to the popular corridors that are driven by the large tourist attractions, you will not see that side of this place. The Northway; the Route 73 corridor to Lake Placid; the Route 28 corridor to Gore Mountain - along there you see development and "nice towns." Go off these tourist paths and you see a LOT of poverty. And it's rapidly getting worse. Almost every story is about an aging population; no jobs; kids moving out; no money for ambulance and fire services; towns consolidating; opioid deaths; etc.

Several reasons for this, and none of them are going to get fixed. It's quite sad, really. I don't experience it - I live in Keene, which is doubly blessed being on the LP corridor, and having a long history as the vacation home of the wealthy, even long before LP was developed. But it's tough for folks who live away from the tourist paths.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 12:14 PM   #5
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
Almost every story is about an aging population; no jobs; kids moving out; no money for ambulance and fire services; towns consolidating; opioid deaths; etc.
.
This doesn't sound any different than any other (rural) part of upstate NY, except the population of these places is even lower.

If you can't rape and pillage the natural resources or exploit tourism, what else is there? The problem with the rest of NY is there is nothing anyone actually wants. You could get into agriculture... there's a lucrative business that in order to be successful needs to destroy everything in its wake, at least on a large scale that is affordable to most other people.

Comparing North Hudson with Detroit is an insult to Detroit. Numbers don't matter, until they do... Millions of people vs a hundred? It's a lot easier to displace and fix the problem of North Hudson than it is of Detroit.

Towns went boom and bust all over this nation, but they certainly hurt a lot more when it's a large population that feels it rather than a small town. Again, easier to diffuse the population and absorb the economic impact of bankruptcies.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 12:50 PM   #6
SpencerVT
Member
 
SpencerVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brattleboro, Vermont
Posts: 58
My Detroit comment wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Just commenting that it's too bad there is such blight in North Hudson, especially in light of it being situated amongst such a beautiful natural environment. I have traveled all over the Adirondacks and rural parts of the Northeast, and indeed the "Appalachia" type phenomenon exists off the beaten path all over. It's really sad.
The closed/decaying/abandoned buildings are just more concentrated in North Hudson however, and it would be nice if they could just tear them down and restore the natural landscape; it would look a lot better for the town.
__________________
Spencer Bigfoot
SpencerVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 02:52 PM   #7
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 702
Sorry, but it just kills me to hear the whining of the people who live inside the blue line. They need to go visit some of the rest of "Appalachia" that exists everywhere in this state, and maybe some of the crumbling cities too... not just the few towns are struggling inside the blue line, which can be conveniently blamed on the APA, the governor, etc...

You know, I know a few things about the political climate of the Adirondacks, and it's predominantly libertarian and conservative. In that sense, these communities need to take care of themselves, look to their local governments and be more self resourceful if they want the privilege to live where they do. No one forces anyone to stay anywhere and you don't really see a great influx of inner city poverty making its way to those areas, yet you see it go the other way, so you can't say you don't have choices.

Anyway, the predominant voice is they are being held back, their local governments can't do what they want because of state government intervention, etc... yet when you actually look, they are often times better off than the poorer towns outside of the blue line, where there is no APA or big focus from the Governor's office. OP, you don't know, because you don't go to those parts of the NY. Why? There is nothing there for you. I'll make you a list, it will make North Hudson seem like a drop in the bucket.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 03:16 PM   #8
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 684
I've seen towns all over New York that have the same issues. That goes for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and states out west. Some small towns just don't have the resources to draw on that others do and that's not the government's fault. Also, a lot of those towns along Rt. 9 did much better before the Northway was built.

Then there are towns that are just victims of their own location. Fort Ann has the Hogtown area that is popular for outdoor recreation. As hard as the town tries to capitalize on it (and they do in some manner), many of the visitors come from the south and west and spend their money just across the town/county line in Queensbury on their way to and from. Not that anyone wants another Wal-Mart in the ADKs, still, they built a second one in Queensbury just west of the county line with Washington County, which could sure have used that tax revenue. And the Price Chopper in Warrensburg is not really in Warrensburg, it's in Lake George, as is the Lake George Escape Campground, which is a real cash cow.

These may not be ideal Adirondack staples in many of our eyes but they do bring commerce that is unfortunately directed back into towns that are already wealthy. Perhaps when the opportunity for commerce presents itself the option for it to benefit towns that really need it should be considered, such as appears to be happening with North Hudson.
__________________
Life's short, hunt hard!
Buckladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 05:13 PM   #9
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,436
Slow down a bit, guys. Of course I did not suggest that there is not poverty in other places. Central and Western NY have plenty of poverty. SOME of the same reasons for it apply there as apply here in the Adirondacks. And some of the reasons are different.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 05:18 PM   #10
MrKawfey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 136
It's important to consider the relationship between local trends and national trends. A very comprehensive regional study was done not long ago that showed the economic declines in rural areas nationally vs in the Adirondacks. While the Adirondacks were certainly in decline, the study showed that they were LESS in decline than other rural areas nationally (and I believe it also showed they were fairing better than other NYS rural areas, but I'd have to verify it).

The rational response would be to say "Hey lets look at what we are doing differently and try to enhance that". However, all of the online commenting that I read was irrationally focused on trashing the authors of the study for "arguing that the Adirondacks were doing economically well"

It's hard for people to accept that conservation and preservation is an economic boost to their area when they are doing so poorly. Especially when they feel like the restrictions that result from conservation efforts are making it harder for businesses to thrive. However, the conclusion should be that the Adirondacks are different (eg not declining as fast as other rural areas) specifically because of the conservation. It's really the only differentiator.
MrKawfey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2017, 06:08 PM   #11
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 702
There are different reasons. The issue here is that the Adirondacks are a very special case of NY that needs even higher scrutiny than the other places, that is why it's not a good idea to just say, let's throw this idea at it (it being any given town) because it worked in the past. Most economic growth in the past inside the blue line had detrimental impacts (these impacts happen outside and should be considered as well, but seen as how the proper agencies are in place to "protect" these areas, we need to leverage those to our advantage).

The solutions to the overall economic decline in NYS are not easy to fix, and even more difficult to identify... well not really... it's actually pretty simple, and it affects all of us, it just happens to affect those who are more desperate even more. And those are the individuals that seem to buy into the bad ideas that get us into these mess... case in point: shopping at Walmart. The poorest are forced to shop here because that's all they can afford, but corporations like this provide low paying jobs with little benefit, attract crime, don't pay much tax into the local coffers, draw people away from local businesses who can't compete price-wise and export money to a very select few and out of this country.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 07:56 AM   #12
Adk Keith
Telemarker
 
Adk Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Igerna
Posts: 799
The Northway killed a lot of small towns along it. With Rt. 9 as the main corridor it was slow enough so you'd have to stay the night somewhere. Most of the run down businesses in North Hudson are cabin colonies. motels and diners. Frontiertown certainly added as a destination, but many of the clients were just travelers along Rt. 9.
__________________
'I would rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself, than be crowded on a velvet cushion.' - Henry David Thoreau
Adk Keith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 08:59 AM   #13
Fly Rodder
Member
 
Fly Rodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adk Keith View Post
The Northway killed a lot of small towns along it.
Well, crippled certainly. Change takes a long time. Overall, the slow drip of the rural to urban movement has been going on for a little more than a century now. I think acute movements are related to ag, timber, and tourism. Agriculture in the ADKs isn't feasible. The people who tried it moved out long ago. Then it was logging for timber and tanneries. That proved out to be economically difficult (outside of the protected areas). Remaining populations held on after the extraction industries were shuttered and moved out by staying busy with tourism and retail. And the northway cleaned out a chunk of tourism by focusing tourism impact to a couple of easy access areas.
Fly Rodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 12:28 PM   #14
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
This doesn't sound any different than any other (rural) part of upstate NY, except the population of these places is even lower.
Actually most of upstate NY does relatively okay since there are some economic opportunities in terms of farming, livestock and resource management. Obviously their standard of living and wealth is perceived in a relative fashion to that of more urbanized areas. But most towns in the ADK's that are outside of the big tourist corridors pretty much shut down during the winter and early spring seasons due to a lack of economic activity...most of the towns in the rest of rural upstate NY don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
If you can't rape and pillage the natural resources or exploit tourism, what else is there? The problem with the rest of NY is there is nothing anyone actually wants. You could get into agriculture... there's a lucrative business that in order to be successful needs to destroy everything in its wake, at least on a large scale that is affordable to most other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
Sorry, but it just kills me to hear the whining of the people who live inside the blue line. They need to go visit some of the rest of "Appalachia" that exists everywhere in this state, and maybe some of the crumbling cities too... not just the few towns are struggling inside the blue line, which can be conveniently blamed on the APA, the governor, etc...

You know, I know a few things about the political climate of the Adirondacks, and it's predominantly libertarian and conservative. In that sense, these communities need to take care of themselves, look to their local governments and be more self resourceful if they want the privilege to live where they do.
So you think it's a bad thing for people to make a living by "raping and pillaging" the land but then you fault them for not taking more initiative in "taking care of themselves?" I think you owe it to yourself to actually visit and talk with people from some of these towns before you levy that sort of self-righteous judgement and accuse them of "whining".

The simple fact, that I'm sure many on here will refuse to accept, is that the regulatory curtailing of industrial activities within the blue line has had a significant and negative economic impact on many of the towns and its citizens. Tourism never has and never will be capable of sustaining the ADK's economy throughout the year, at least not in all of the regions. It's a great supplement, but it is not a replacement for the major industries that have mostly left the "park." And I think that's a concept that many people who read ADK magazine can't wrap their heads around: even though we call it a "park" the ADK's are really more of a working wilderness. There are towns with full-time residents, there is hunting and trapping, there is still some industry on the private lands. Unlike a typical national park or monument, there are entire communities of people there who need to make a living and fill the freezer for year round. Tourism helps them to that effect, but it's far too seasonal and unevenly distributed to support all of the regions and towns year-round.

And I'm not making the case that we should be doing massive clear cuts like was done in decades past. But I do think there is a good balance to be had between economical, environmentally-friendly forestry management/resource extraction and good conservation practices. In fact, in some cases, I think the two go hand-in-hand (especially as it relates to promoting certain types of wildlife and mitigating wild fire risks). There are plenty of examples of working forests in Maine and Canada that see far less human visitors and have far more wildlife than what the ADK's has. So the idea that you can't have true wilderness if you have any sort of industry in the area is absurd.

Last edited by Bounder45; 05-31-2017 at 12:40 PM..
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 03:37 PM   #15
Hard Scrabble
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adk Keith View Post
The Northway killed a lot of small towns along it. With Rt. 9 as the main corridor it was slow enough so you'd have to stay the night somewhere. Most of the run down businesses in North Hudson are cabin colonies. motels and diners. Frontiertown certainly added as a destination, but many of the clients were just travelers along Rt. 9.
I agree, Keith.
I 87 killed the small businesses in Chestertown, Warrensburg, Schroon Lake, N. Hudson and so on as we go north.
I guess that's called progress.
Jim
Hard Scrabble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 04:03 PM   #16
Fly Rodder
Member
 
Fly Rodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
... But I do think there is a good balance to be had between economical, environmentally-friendly forestry management/resource extraction and good conservation practices.
Wood extraction is no longer economical in the Adirondacks and it's not all regulations despite what some people want to believe. The issues are larger than state politics. The wood products industry is declining everywhere - including Maine, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.

Over the last few decades, wood rapidly declined as a raw material through replacement with alternative materials (compressed sawdust, plastics, steel, etc.). Logging also generates fewer direct and indirect jobs per million board feet harvested than it did even just a few decades ago due to automation. Also, logging in the ADKs is much more expensive than Canadian lumber imports and SE US tree farms. The trees just grow faster there (more material) and are easier to get to (less labor cost).

Things change and it's no longer economically feasible for the ADKs to sustain a large population on resource extraction. It sucks for people who live there and want to continue living there, but this is something that's happened since humans abandoned the nomadic lifestyle. Adapt and/or move on. The alternative is encouraging the local communities in the ADKs to out-compete some other declining rural or rust-belt area for limited manufacturing in a race to the bottom - which the ADKs would lose without heavy investment from public coffers to improve infrastructure in an area that's supposed to be a bastion of conservation. And why would a company want to move their operations to say Indian Lake when they could put it in Gloversville or Little Falls and be closer to I-90?
Fly Rodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 04:26 PM   #17
MrKawfey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post

The simple fact, that I'm sure many on here will refuse to accept, is that the regulatory curtailing of industrial activities within the blue line has had a significant and negative economic impact on many of the towns and its citizens.
You're right, I don't accept that argument. It's similar to the argument that regulations killed coal mining in Appalachia. Analysis after analysis has shown that the jobs were moving west for cheaper deposits regardless of regulations.

With respect to the Adirondacks I don't think the regulations and land protections were a major force in the decline of resource extraction type industries. Iron ore extraction had been tried long before regulations were a problem and it was never feasible. Graphite mining came and went. Farming was always tough due to climate, soil and rockiness. Other mineral mining (garnet) was here but never huge. Plus all of these types of industries have reduced labor input by orders of magnitude due to improvements in equipment and automation. In addition, the relentless downward pressure on price and cost meant all of the resources were more efficient to collect elsewhere.

Logging was a little different than the other industries because of the sheer scope of the industry. However, these areas were logged so early in our nations history that in recent times there is nothing but second and third growth available anywhere. Without old growth hardwood these areas would have a hard time competing on cost and production when compared with timber plantations out west.

Automation also played a big part in reducing the labor needed for harvesting a board foot of lumber. Think about how much work one guy in a feller-buncher can do compared to guys with axes and hand saws. Think about using skidders instead of horses. There was a whole industry around care and feeding of horses. Local farms supply food, blacksmiths and tack shops for harnesses and equipment, stud services, etc. With skidders, all of that is gone. Fuel comes from outside the park and one mechanic can handle many machines.

We have all heard certain public officials advocate for allowing logging on state lands and managing them like the USFS manages timber rights on US forest land. However I truly believe that this would benefit the owners of the big timber companies in a totally disproportionate way. The more mechanization/automation we have the more lopsided the split becomes in distributing the proceeds from the sale of resources. The timber/paper company owners keep more of the money because they need fewer laborers and they pay them less.

And it's worth remembering that there still is a large logging industry in the Adirondacks. It just doesn't employ as many people as it used to.

Finally, those places in Maine and Canada that have working forests don't have the same population centers that need to be supported like the Adirondacks.

Last edited by MrKawfey; 05-31-2017 at 05:15 PM..
MrKawfey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 04:57 PM   #18
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly Rodder View Post
Wood extraction is no longer economical in the Adirondacks and it's not all regulations despite what some people want to believe. The issues are larger than state politics. The wood products industry is declining everywhere - including Maine, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.

Over the last few decades, wood rapidly declined as a raw material through replacement with alternative materials (compressed sawdust, plastics, steel, etc.). Logging also generates fewer direct and indirect jobs per million board feet harvested than it did even just a few decades ago due to automation. Also, logging in the ADKs is much more expensive than Canadian lumber imports and SE US tree farms. The trees just grow faster there (more material) and are easier to get to (less labor cost).
A lot of what you're bringing up here is getting into transnational politics and economic policies. Canadian lumber isn't inherently cheaper, easier to get to or faster-growing than what we have in the northeast. Rather the companies harvesting and selling that lumber have two important advantages over many, though not all, American lumber companies: they have economy of scale (access to a lot of trees) and they get subsidized access to that wood (most of the Canadian companies are leasing crown land from the Canadian government for a cheaper price than what American companies have to pay to buy or lease private land here in the States).

If the current administration follows through on one of its promises, the Canadian lumber industry may lose one of its key advantages. And this has been a hot-topic between the two nations for well-over a decade now (go google the Canadian-US softwood lumber dispute).

I would also think that if people were being truly conscious of the environment, they would rather purchase raw materials (like lumber) from a local source rather than buy stuff that had been transported by truck and/or train 1,000 miles or more from across the border.

There still are active logging operations on certain pieces of private land, and in fact there are land trades that take place between the state and these logging companies which serve to help consolidate public land and give those companies access to fresh forests. So obviously there is still some feasibility left in that industry, otherwise the companies would have called it quits by now. And there are economic activities that used to, and to some degree still do, take place in the blue line, like mining and quarry extractions.

The state government needs to find a way to encourage those industries in a way that is still compatible with outdoor recreation and overall conservation goals.

Edit: and you're right that these raw material industries don't employ the same #'s that they used to due to increased automation. But some jobs are better than none for some of these towns and hamlets that have absolutely nothing going on during the off seasons. And the state could easily structure the taxes to ensure that some of the money generated was going back into local public works and conservation efforts (similar to how hunting and fishing-related sales taxes go towards conservation efforts).

Last edited by Bounder45; 05-31-2017 at 05:14 PM..
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 05:58 PM   #19
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,813
All over the world people are moving from rural areas into cities. Following the money I would guess.

But regarding upstate New York and the Adirondacks in particular the problem is simple. There's no damn money. Telling folks to get their act together and start taking care of themselves is like telling someone to squeeze water from a stone.

What does work is broadband internet, which allows some people (probably with good jobs and some disposable income to spread around) to move to the Adirondacks and work from home. I know several who have done just that.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2017, 05:59 PM   #20
MrKawfey
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Edit: and you're right that these raw material industries don't employ the same #'s that they used to due to increased automation. But some jobs are better than none for some of these towns and hamlets that have absolutely nothing going on during the off seasons. And the state could easily structure the taxes to ensure that some of the money generated was going back into local public works and conservation efforts (similar to how hunting and fishing-related sales taxes go towards conservation efforts).
This is where the rubber meets the road. Rural America is learning that "some jobs is better than none" is not so simple. In my mind (as opposed to legally) the local resources "belong" to the local people. In some sense, they get to choose how to monetize them. In most of rural America they are finding that allowing businesses to extract these resources results in economic decline. Harvesting the natural resources takes the total market value and ships much of it out of the region for energy and equipment purchases, a large amount goes in the shareholders pockets (usually they are out of the region too) and leaves a less and less for the laborers (reduced employees and reduced wages) and government taxes (lower margins means less profit means less tax revenue).

The Adirondacks are also in economic decline. Because there has always been a philosophy of conservation, protection and recreation, the Adirondacks are LESS in decline than other rural areas.

By using the tourism potential of the area the monetization happens at a very local level and is inexhaustible. It may be less total market value than harvesting the resources, but apparently more of it stays local.

At the end of the day, the success or failure of a regional economy is as simple as more money coming in from outside than going out from inside. If an industry results in net outflow of local value, even if it creates jobs, then it will contribute to overall decline.

Edit: It is probably true that the tourism industry can't support the whole region. However, it seems to me (may be wrong, i'm no expert) that if you use a data focused approach and not rhetoric, you will conclude that in many cases tourism is locally more beneficial (or at least more egalitarian) than resource harvesting.
MrKawfey 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 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.