Guest Mutts4Me Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 [quote name='Seijun']Sanctuaries exist because if IRRisponsible owners obtaining Big Cats. [/quote] Yes, and 99% of the private owners who have big cats are irresponsible owners in how they take care of and contain their cats. The other tiny group of "responsible" big cat owners are still irresponsible in my eyes for reasons I've already listed. Like Tigger and Tasha, the lion and tiger who had been kept by a "responsible" owner in a decent enclosure. The cats were in pretty good shape, and were probably taken care of well enough. But since the laws in his county changed and forced him to give up his "pet" kitties, Tigger and Tasha came to live with us. So it's not just your definition of an "irresponsible" owner that contributes to the problems. [quote]Why can you not take my question seriously? I'm just asking, do you consider sanctuaries responsible caretakers of Big Cats? Everyone here has such a high opinion of sanctuaries, [/quote] OKay, fine. Due to the small amount of time I have online, and the large amount of time I've spent on this thread, and the fact that we're not getting anywhere, I didn't really intend to keep debating, but I'll give my opinions on these matters. Do I consider Sanctuaries responsible caretakers of Big Cats? It depends on the Sanctuary. The government doesn't help sanctuaries in the least bit, so most are nonprofit and rely on donations to survive. They do the best they can on their meager incomes. The question is, after they refuge does the best they can, are the cats still in good shape and happy? If their best isn't good enough, then they shouldn't exist and I would say NO. If they exploit their cats in the name of conservation or fundraising - breeding to attract customers, making their cats perform, etc - then I would say NO. If they operate under the guise of a "sanctuary," perhaps by taking in unwanted animals (thus rescues) and put them in barely-legal conditions and operate as a roadside zoo type deal, then I would say NO. Sanctuaries aren't perfect. Even the one I volunteer for has its problems, and it's also had a somewhat shady past under slightly different management. But I can tell you first hand that we're responsible caretakers of our animals. At the same time, I'll be the first one to cheer if TCWR ever closes its doors - not because they were unable to care for their owners, but because there were no more animals left to be saved. And maybe I [i]wouldn't[/i] be the first to cheer, because there are people who've been here for years and seen a lot more than me, and I'm sure they'd party til they dropped. [quote]but if it is a PRIVATE owner taking care of a Big Cat, you all seem to think that is something bad, even if that owner provides a life for his cat that is even better than what a sanctuary could provide. [/quote] Let me tell you about when I first came here. I fell in love with a cougar named Misty. She's the sweetest cat, very friendly, very playful. Her owner had given her up because she was no longer safe to "wrassle" with. She lives in a cage. She has enough room to run around, chasing you (from the other side of the bars), and she has a little tire hung up to bat around and play with, plus her bowling pin, which she loves to attack. But she's in a cage. And it broke my heart. And I started having these wild ideas of getting a place with a big backyard, and making her a 1/4 acre pen or something on the grass, with trees, and asking if I could let her live with me. I didn't actually think that'd ever happen, but I did think about it a lot. Slowly I started to understand that that wouldn't be a good idea. Yes, the pen I dreamed up for her would be a lot nicer than the cage, but I could never be certain that I would always be able to care for her. Laws could change, I could go broke, I could die. And then what? Take her back to the refuge? They'd have already filled her spot, and they probably wouldn't have room. So your favorite thing to say is "well, that could happen with a cat or a dog." And yes it could, but we're talking about a cougar here. If I died and left a dog or cat behind, a family member could probably take it in, at least until they found a home for it. If I went broke, I could probably still afford to take care of a dog or cat (a bag of dog food is a lot cheaper than 30 pounds of raw meat per week for a cougar), at least until I found a new home for it. But my sister or parents couldn't just bring a cougar into their house on a whim (nor would that be legal in Michigan), and if I had to move, I couldn't just pack up a cougar with me and let it run in the backyard while I built it a new enclosure, if I could even afford to build a new enclosure. So now when I see Misty, I'm just happy she has a forever home... and I'm also excited that in the past few days, we've been trying to introduce her to other cougars for the next cougar habitat which is in the planning stages! Oh yeah, and TCWR would never let me take her, no matter what I built for her. The refuge is a forever home, and they won't take the chances of releasing an animal out to someone just to have disaster strike. Dog breeders and rescues sometimes make new owners sign a contract saying that if they can't keep the anima for whatever reason, they'll return them to the breeder to be rehomed properly. A Big Cat refuge can't do that because you can only house as many animals as you have room for, and in today's society, we're always full. [quote]Also, PLEASE answer my other question as well. Would you consider a Big Cat owner a responsible owner if he had RESCUED his cat, instead of buying one from a breeder??[/quote] Only if that owner got non-profit sanctuary status and made efforts to bring in more animals. If they were only willing to take in that one rescue, just so they could have it as a pet, then they're still just someone trying to make something a pet that isn't a pet. Those are my honest opinions. I don't know that I can keep going with this discussion much longer. It's wearing me out. I'm giving a speech this weekend to our customers about present laws and the laws that need to be enacted asap regarding exotic pet ownership. I'm starting to worry that I'm never going to get through to anyone. Which is silly, because everyone else posting on this thread already agrees with me, and I didn't need to do any convincing :) [quote name='bk_blue'] All wild animals should be IN THE WILD. I don't really like zoos, even. I would personally rather see an animal become extinct than stuck in a cage for the rest of its life, even though it may be the nicest cage imaginable. [/quote] I agree with you, too. With our animals, they're already here, so we try to do our best for them, but I wish we didn't have to exist. I don't support "species preservation" programs in zoos, because it's not like they're ever going to be released into the wild anyway. They're just breeding to bring in money and swap animals with other zoos. In 50 years, tigers will likely be extinct in the wild, and people will still be able to see them as zoos. They'll probably look like tigers, but they won't be a fraction of what the tigers really were. Eventually, the gene pool will dwindle to the point of constant inbreeding and genetic defects... Basically, what's already happening with white tigers, which are all inbred messes with excessively high infant mortality rates, but continue to be promoted by zoos as "saving" a rare Endangered Species. BS. [quote name='Shenanigans'] Like rescues, I'm willing to bet that sanctuaries wish every night before they go to bed that they didn't have to exist.[/quote] Thank you :) I tell people this on almost every tour I give, and I mean it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seijun Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 [quote] I'm starting to worry that I'm never going to get through to anyone. Which is silly, because everyone else posting on this thread already agrees with me, and I didn't need to do any convincing :) [/quote] :D I Kinda noticed I was the only one standing on my side. Don't let it get to you Amber. It's near impossible to change most of my opinions. I am used to standing alone with them anyway. [quote] I don't support "species preservation" programs in zoos, because it's not like they're ever going to be released into the wild anyway. They're just breeding to bring in money and swap animals with other zoos. [/quote] True, they do breed these animals to sell to other zoos, but if it's an endangered animal, the more breeding, the better. The more animals that are produced for other zoos, the better the chance is that someday numbers will be high enough to release them to the wild. Endangered animals cannot be restored in the wild through reintroduction unless there is a large enough and stable enough captive population. Take the Mexican wolf for example.. Their population once declined to less than 8 individual animals. In the late 1970's captive breeding operations began with only 5 individual animals. This was WAY too small a population to start reintroduction with. They needed help with breeding the wolves to produce as many as possible with the greatest genetic diversity as possible. They used zoos and wildlife sanctuaries to accomplish this (by buying, trading, and selling endangered animals, zoos are able to increase a particular animal’s captive population, giving them larger genetic boundaries, and therefore helping pave the way to endangered species reintroduction). By 1996, 150 animals were living in captivity in zoos and wildlife sanctuaries. It wasn't until 1998 that captive Mexican wolves were actually released into the wild to start off the reintroduction program. There are now only about 200 Mexican wolves in captivity, in 40 different zoos and wildlife sanctuaries. There are still less than 100 Mexican Wolves in the wild, but it is because of the breeding effort of zoos and sanctuaries that they even exist on this earth anymore. ~Seij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malamum Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 [quote]Why does a person have to keep a very large and very risky *wild* animal as a pet? I guess that's the question. I can't for the life of me think of any good reasons[/quote] Shananigians I'm with you there.. the million dollar question is why? I also can't see any valid reason other than the owners self gratification. I have been giving this whole topic a good deal of thought over the past few days as it is something that has disturbed me quite a bit. The whole idea of exotic pet ownerships is just another indicator that as a species us humans are so self absorbed that we always put our own selfish wants before another living things needs......it's really quite sad and depressing...... :( :( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtnek Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 yes it is. I dont see the reason for owning a wild animal, although for years I wanted a wolf, until I got a dog that the vet believed was a small part wolf. and he was a major handfull. they never get over their wild instincts. I thank the sanctuaries for trying to repopulate the breed, and the zoo's, but I see no reason to keep them as pets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefeathers! Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 [quote name='Seijun']Sanctuaries exist because if IRRisponsible owners obtaining Big Cats. If all owners were responsible, we wouldn't have much need for ANY sanctuaries now would we. [/quote] And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't be busting their butts hopping all over the place. If all people were honest, we wouldn't have locks on doors. If all people used common sense, there wouldn't be warnings on chainsaws not to use genitalia to stop it. I fail to see what "if all owners were responsible" has to do with anything. We could "if" it to death. What's sad to me is that they're only deemed irresponsible AFTER a mishap, or something tragic happens. How do we determine responsibility beforehand? [quote]Why can you not take my question seriously? I'm just asking, do you consider sanctuaries responsible caretakers of Big Cats?[/quote] Frankly, because it seemed like a loaded question. Still, I'll answer. I consider sanctuaries a necessary evil. Not something I would ask Santa Claus for, but again... that whole irresponsible, selfish people who put their own wants above all else thing. I reckon I would consider them responsible in the sense that they are cleaning up the messes of those less responsible. [quote] Everyone here has such a high opinion of sanctuaries, but if it is a PRIVATE owner taking care of a Big Cat, you all seem to think that is something bad[/quote] That's right. That's exactly what I believe. [quote]Also, PLEASE answer my other question as well. Would you consider a Big Cat owner a responsible owner if he had RESCUED his cat, instead of buying one from a breeder??[/quote] See Amber's answer to this question. Again, I agree. While you are pleading for answers, several people have asked repeatedly what's so important about being able to own a Big Cat as a pet? Without diverting the topic into rights, other exotics and such, WHY is there a need for Joe Citizen to be able to obtain their very own Big Cat for a pet? I get the whole "because we can" thing, but WHY? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seijun Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 [quote]What's sad to me is that they're only deemed irresponsible AFTER a mishap, or something tragic happens. How do we determine responsibility beforehand? [/quote] Well, here I go on another "if" :wink: Right now, there aren't that many laws in place regulating exotic ownership. If you wanted a tiger, and they were legal in your area, then you could go out and get one. That's the problem. Almost anyone who wants a tiger can go out and get one no problem. Laws should be in place that would make it so difficult to obtain something like a tiger, that only the people best qualified to own one would be able to get one. If breeding was limited to only responsible breeders (i.e - does home checks, educates buyers, breeds limited litters, will take back unwanted animal if necessary) then ownership might also be limited to only responsible owners. Responsibility can't always be measures before the fact, but most of the time it can. Just like how shelters screen potential adopters, to make sure that person will be able to take care of the dog they adopt, so it might also be possible to screen potential exotic animal owners. However, as we all know, only very strict laws regulating exotic ownership would even come [i]close[/i] to accomplishing this goal. You ask me why someone would want a Big Cat for a pet. Well, honestly, I have no clue. Personally, I would not want one, but obviously, some people do. I have people ask me why I like to keep wolfdogs as pets. They just can't understand why anyone would want an animal that is so hard to take care of. Well, it's because I like them, just like some people like Chihuahuas, and would never own anything BUT a Chihuahua. Maybe some people just like Big Cats and like being able to spend their lives close to one, to watch how it behaves and grows, as opposed to seeing them just on nature programs. You may consider them dangerous wild animals, but maybe to someone who owns a Tiger, they are more like just an 800 lb kitty cat. I wish that there was a Big Cat owner here who could enlighten us as to why they would want to keep one, but there isn't. I never bothered to ask my friend why he wanted a pet lion and tiger, I assume it's because he loves being around them, and he wanted to know what it was like to live with one. Some times I see people who have pet cockroaches, now why in the heck would ANYONE want a pet [b]cockroach[/b]?? Well, they must have a reason, I just can't see it. I am not here to debate WHY anyone would want a pet tiger, lion, zebra, or whatever else it is that people like to keep as pets. If you think about it, every pet we have we got because we liked it. Something about that pet was so awesome you had to have it. In today’s modern world, most pets really don't serve any necessary purpose, other than to provide entertainment for their owners. Most of us have pets because [b]we[/b] wanted one. ~Seij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefeathers! Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 [quote]You ask me why someone would want a Big Cat for a pet. [/quote] No, my question is why is there a NEED for lions and tigers to be available as pets? Basically, all I see is that because people like them, they should be able to have them. I like sharks and dolphins, but I don't think I need to build a big enough tank and own some to enjoy them. Sorry. I just don't see anything in the argument that leads me to believe there is ANY such thing as responsible Big Cat PET ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seijun Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 I don't think anyone really [b]needs[/b] a tiger as a pet. Like I said before, almost all pets are here because we want them, not because we really need them. Just as you may want a dog or a rat as a pet, some people want large exotic cats as pets. I can't explain why, but IMO, its not always to look cool, or to be able to say they have tamed a wild animal. My friend likes his tiger and lion as a pet, just as someone may like a dog as a pet. ~Seij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mutts4Me Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Mexican Wolves- that's awesome, I know all about it. But the problem with tigers is that there's nowhere to release them. Their habitats are declining rapidly. Land is scarce, and so is prey. And for those who do exist in the wild, they're also at high risk from poachers who want them for their pelts and parts, which can sell at prices higher than some of the pricier drugs on the blackmarket. And as people expand into the former wildreness, tigers will continue to stumble into villages and be shot, or wander into a livestock field and be hunted. So I stand by my opinion that species preservation programs are all but useless, because unless something major happens, all the wild tigers will die, and there will be nowhere for the captive ones to go. [quote]Maybe some people just like Big Cats and like being able to spend their lives close to one, to watch how it behaves and grows, as opposed to seeing them just on nature programs. You may consider them dangerous wild animals, but maybe to someone who owns a Tiger, they are more like just an 800 lb kitty cat. [/quote] See, when I see something noble and magnificent, I want it to stay that way. I want to admire it for what it is, not change it so that I might keep it. I watched a lot of horse movies when I was little. Okay, fine, I still do ;) And it just makes me think of those movies where there's this wild horse, and someone sees it, and thinks "that is the most magnificent thing on four legs, it must be mine." And then they go out to capture the horse and break it. If it's a feel-good movie, the person realizes that it's never meant to be broken, and they let it go. Obviously, life is not a feel-good movie. An 800 lb kitty cat. That's exactly the problem. People think, "well, if I bottle raise them and leash train them, and work with them just like a dog, they will turn out to be a giant dog." And some will grow up to be sweet, but some will grow up to be unfriendly. No matter what, they will all grow up to be wild animals whose instincts tell them to attack when someone - even their beloved handler - turns their backs to them or falls down. That doesn't mean they're evil, or bad. It means they're tigers. The tiger that was kileld in Florida? Two years ago he bit a woman in the back of the head when she went into his cage to paint it. The owner's response? He said that Bobo would never intentionally hurt someone and "Bobo's a puppy, not a tiger." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seijun Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 [quote name='Mutts4Me'] But the problem with tigers is that there's nowhere to release them. Their habitats are declining rapidly. Land is scarce, and so is prey. And for those who do exist in the wild, they're also at high risk from poachers who want them for their pelts and parts, which can sell at prices higher than some of the pricier drugs on the blackmarket. And as people expand into the former wildreness, tigers will continue to stumble into villages and be shot, or wander into a livestock field and be hunted. So I stand by my opinion that species preservation programs are all but useless, because unless something major happens, all the wild tigers will die, and there will be nowhere for the captive ones to go. [/quote] You disagree with [b]all[/b] species preservation programs just because tigers cannot ever be fully reestablished due to habitat loss? I am not trying to be rude or anything, and I may have misunderstood your words, but it seems a bit 'selfish' to dis all species preservation programs because not all are able to be successful... It sounds to me that it is not the preservers who should be hated, but instead it is development and a failure to protect wildlife habitat that should be hated. [quote name='Mutts4Me'] [quote]Also, PLEASE answer my other question as well. Would you consider a Big Cat owner a responsible owner if he had RESCUED his cat, instead of buying one from a breeder??[/quote] Only if that owner got non-profit sanctuary status and made efforts to bring in more animals. If they were only willing to take in that one rescue, just so they could have it as a pet, then they're still just someone trying to make something a pet that isn't a pet. Those are my honest opinions.[/quote] Not everyone is able to start and maintain a Big Cat Sanctuary. Isn't it enough if a person is able to give just one Big Cat a good home, even if it is with a private owner? I am not saying the person goes out and adopts from a sanctuary, I am talking about a person who takes in, say, a friend's unwanted Big Cat if a sanctuary could not be found for it. Keep in mind though, that even sanctuaries are not immune to tragedies. I have seen more than one sanctuary bite the dirt when they lost sanctuary property, or were unable to make enough money to care for the sanctuary residents. ~Seij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shenanigans Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 [quote]You may consider them dangerous wild animals, but maybe to someone who owns a Tiger, they are more like just an 800 lb kitty cat. I wish that there was a Big Cat owner here who could enlighten us as to why they would want to keep one, but there isn't. I never bothered to ask my friend why he wanted a pet lion and tiger, I assume it's because he loves being around them, and he wanted to know what it was like to live with one. [/quote] I asked a similar question, and I think the answer to this question is fairly important. It's not that *I* consider them wild animals, they *are* wild animals. I bottle fed my GSD, I considered him a cute puppy dog, and baby him still, but he's a 120lb dog who could be trained, who is part of a lineage that has been sitting by the fireside for thousands of years. Tigers have not had this history. They have been removed from the wild for how many generations? Even if I'm generous and say ten, that's very little time to transform them into big kitty cats. And why someone would want to remove the majesty of a super predatory cat to make it their personal kitty cat is motive enough for me to suspect that their wishes are not in the best interest of the animal, but rather for themselves. If all the people who are "practicing" tiger conservation through zoos, private breeding programs, pets were to concentrate their efforts into wildlife protection, habitat protection, I believe changes could be made to keep these animals safely in the wild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mutts4Me Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 [quote name='Seijun']You disagree with [b]all[/b] species preservation programs just because tigers cannot ever be fully reestablished due to habitat loss? I am not trying to be rude or anything, and I may have misunderstood your words, but it seems a bit 'selfish' to dis all species preservation programs because not all are able to be successful... It sounds to me that it is not the preservers who should be hated, but instead it is development and a failure to protect wildlife habitat that should be hated.[/quote] No, I'm sorry. I'm all for specied preservation programs where new land is developed for the animal to repopulate, such as the Mexican Wolf... and even the gray wolf, being transported back into Yellowstone several years ago. If something's on the brink of extinction, and they can be brought back, that's a wonderful thing. But my opinion on the matter is that at this point, there is nowhere for tigers to repopulate, and thus [b]tiger[/b] preservation programs in the United States are bunk. Those animals will never be released into the wild, and after several generations in captivity, they couldn't be released into the wild and still be the same tigers who were ripped our years ago. ZOO "species preservation" programs are an excuse to breed animals because they bring in money, and the babies certainyl attract even more customers. Plus I will never respect a program that continues to breed white tigers when they're all inbred messes at this point and could never survive in the wild - they're breeding FOR a destructive trait, kind of like Australian Shepherd breeders for whatever reason breeding double merles. Except if the white tiger breeding for a destructive trait wasn't bad enough, all captive white tigers are descended from a single white tiger named Mohan, captured in 1951 :evil: On the other hand, species preservation programs on reserves in the tigers' natural habitats would be another story entirely, because they'd likely be more true to what they should be, and they've got land there to live in a natural setting - their true natural setting. And if people suddenly do wise up and stop destroying the habitats and poaching them, then the animals in reserves there are more likely to be able to be released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seijun Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Hmm.. I didn't know that stuff about the white tigers :( I thought that they were just freak occurances of nature, and I figured it was pretty rare. I guess not if they breed for it on PURPOSE. That ticks me off a little bit. I think the whites are very beautiful, but I don't think they should purposely breed for it. ~Seij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitbullEmily Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 [quote name='Mutts4Me'][quote name='Seijun']You disagree with [b]all[/b] species preservation programs just because tigers cannot ever be fully reestablished due to habitat loss? I am not trying to be rude or anything, and I may have misunderstood your words, but it seems a bit 'selfish' to dis all species preservation programs because not all are able to be successful... It sounds to me that it is not the preservers who should be hated, but instead it is development and a failure to protect wildlife habitat that should be hated.[/quote] No, I'm sorry. I'm all for specied preservation programs where new land is developed for the animal to repopulate, such as the Mexican Wolf......ZOO "species preservation" programs are an excuse to breed animals because they bring in money, and the babies certainyl attract even more customers. ... ....[/quote] I agree with you to a very large degree, but I think you're overgeneralizing. The golden lion tamarin program looks like it might be working: the animals raised in captivity in zoos are being released back into the wild. There are some other captive breeding programs that you might consider zoo programs as well (California condor, blackfooted ferret) that look like they're working. The case with the great panda is highly questionable.. the pressure to take pandas out of China to use them as fundraisers is enormous. Whether or not there will be any degree of breeding success, and whether there will be wild pandas in the future is up in the air. Certainly, as you say, the issue of whether there is any habitat left for the animals to be re-released into is critical. If there are no tigers/pandas/condors/etc in the WILD, the world is a much lesser place. Sadly, the future for all the large predators and all species that have unique habitat requirements is exceedingly grim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mutts4Me Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 [quote name='Seijun']Hmm.. I didn't know that stuff about the white tigers :( I thought that they were just freak occurances of nature, and I figured it was pretty rare. I guess not if they breed for it on PURPOSE. That ticks me off a little bit. I think the whites are very beautiful, but I don't think they should purposely breed for it. ~Seij[/quote] They were freaks of nature when they existed in the wild, and they were rare. They vanished from the wild a long time ago due to their coat color. White tigers are Benglas, not Siberians and some people assume, so a white creature sticks out like a sore thumb in the Indian jungles. This was problematic for them for several reasons. It made it extremely difficult to sneak up on prey, so many starved to death, and the white coat also made them very visible to hunters. That's why I say it's a destructive trait, because they weren't able to survive in the wild. The last one captured alive was Mohan, in 1951, and he was bred numerous times to an orange female in hopes of getting white cubs. It repeatedly failed until they bred him back to one of his daughters, who then produced a couple white cubs. The first white tigers in the US were from a breeding of Mohan and his daughter, and they are the foundation stock for all captive white tigers. Because it's a double recessive trait, the easiest way for breeders to get white cubs is to breed white tiger to white tiger, but because the gene pool is so small, birth defects are very very common, and a small percentage of the cubs actually survive, which is why they're still "Rare" in captivity. BYBs often resort to breeding brother and sister combos because the only way they can get two whites is to go to a single litter and pick out a male and a female. One of these days I'll do a post devoted to our white tiger family, so people can really see what inbreeding can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seijun Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Geeze, talk about inbreeding :o I'm surprised [b]all[/b] the poor whites aren't full of deformaties.. I mean, I like them, but it seems a bit selfish to me if a person would go to such destructive lengths in order to produce them. ~Seij Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.