Jump to content

interesting article


asal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just sounds like justification for hurting dogs in the name of training :shrug: 

The trouble with using the "but nature" argument is that often, it totally ignores other examples of how nature works. In nature, small dogs like chihuahuas would not survive. Simple fact. But here we are, breeding something unnatural and keeping them in an unnatural setting (our homes), and protecting their health in a variety of unnatural ways (vaccination, parasite preventatives, etc.). So the "but nature" argument doesn't fly, while you're happily ignoring other things that are perfectly natural- like your dog dying from heavy roundworm burden as a young puppy.

The "but nature" argument totally ignores the fact that there is nothing natural about the lives of domesticated animals. You pet dog doesn't have to learn how to hunt for food, or learn how to avoid potentially lethal conflicts with dogs straying into its territory, because we humans have completely changed how the dog lives.

If you want to hurt your dog to teach it how to behave, I guess that's your business but let's not pretend that it's better management, because it really isn't.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is I DO teach boundaries with my dogs...people are stunned when they see that in action. But I also want to build a fantastic training relationship with my dogs such that I teach resilience. They are not afraid of failure. They will try, try and try again - with JOY - until they get it right. Which makes them great workers in the field, sports dogs and house pets. 

 

And what people forget about “Nature” is that she has swift and exquisite timing. Something that I practice and video and work on every single day. Humans have notoriously crappy timing. They use reinforcement poorly and punishment even worse. And they assume the dog has a frontal lobe like ours and they “know” when they are naughty. Bull$hit. Dogs do what is reinforcing. If we are talking about experiences with conspecifics, well at least they are adept at reading body language and respect the wide eye of resource guarding, for example, instead of punishing the dog. The latter is what makes dogs anxious not the former. 

 

When I watch someone scruff their dog for not being steady to shot (and the dog continues to fail) and then I get success by teaching self control through a fun GAME it’s a no brainer.

 

This is a video I made recently...notice there are no commands to sit and stay. Being released is the reinforcement.  Positive not permissive. 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I can appreciate this rationale to a degree. Our pei has 'quirks', loads of quirks! And strangely her quirks and fears have changed over the years (at 6 she recently became shaking in a ball fearful of storms and now barks and whines whenever it even rains). She's also very vocal so if something is upsetting her you will know about it! But she also has definite fears so I would say certain things make her anxious while other things make her prone to be anxious. I try to minimise what truly makes her anxious and I try to help her through the other stuff because I don't want to add to her list of crazy by reinforcing anything (like we treat rain differently to an actual storm as I see them as being two different scenarios with two different behaviours). So she hears a strange noise and starts her crying and ears pivoting and looking around for help. I might ask her what is it and take her to investigate. I tell her what it is and say it is ok or if it is something I want her to alert me to I will thank her for letting me know. Then we all go back to what we were doing or we do something else distracting. I suspect in nature that is what a pack might do - one dog might alert the pack leader to potential danger and the pack leader determines what response the pack should have. But if a dog was always finding danger where there was none I suspect the pack leader would not be shy in chastising them and pulling them back in line. And of course my pei's behaviours when she is truly in fear are different so I think I can tell how to respond to which. But I wonder if some people dump  all fears in one basket and use the same cotton wool approach rather than treating the serious ones differently? And they label their dog as anxious when they are only anxious under certain criteria? 

 

That's how I read this anyway, that some discomfort is good for a dog. They are smart problem solvers. It's up to us to determine what is a true fear they need protection from and what is just a learning experience that might take them out of their comfort zone for a time. I don't really see the whole chaos thing but I guess many of us have experienced the fears of owners impacting on the social growth of their dogs (little dogs not being able to play with bigger dogs because the owner fears they will be hurt immediately comes to mind) and trying to share an off leash public area with said dog and owner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying LG, but I don't think that picture is really the same thing. In your case, it sounds like a reasonable way to deal with fears. But the difference here is that you are not intentionally causing distress to "teach" your dog a lesson. Would you throw your dog outside during a storm to make her "toughen up"? If I know you anywhere near as well as I think I do, I'm guessing the answer to that would be no.

People like CM (I know, I know- it's like the Godwin's Law of dog forums) are big on forcing animals into confronting, stressful situations when there are better ways of dealing with those issues. The CMs of the world might appear to get instant results (when the dog completely shuts down) but the long-term results could be fear/anxiety issues that are even worse than before. One of my dogs was very scared by the vacuum cleaner but we didn't hit him with the vacuum or chase him around with it, to help him "get over" it- we made the vacuum cleaner into a fun game (he now thinks the vacuum cleaner is his chasey friend- he's not the sharpest tool in the shed), made his experiences positive and taught him that vacuum cleaners are not something he needs to fear. Because unless our vacuum becomes sentient and decides to eat whippets, there is no real reason he should fear this human object. If the object in question was a neighbouring pack of wolves, sure, he'd probably need to learn some caution but realistically, there's still no need to teach through fear or pain. Pick any given situation/object/whatever and you can teach an appropriate response without fear or pain. 

I know we have plenty of people here on the "balanced" training side of the fence- and I'm rather dunk my feet into boiling oil than get into the argument of which side is right- but I think this is more than just a training issue, because it suggests that using (actual) scientific methods of humane behaviour modification are weak, humanising and will leave a dog dangling without leadership. And that's just crap. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing about dogs is I'm smarter than they are, and I have more tools at my disposal, and better foresight, and I'm more compassionate and empathetic, and much better at planning. Nature gave me those advantages, so I'm happy to use them and call that "natural". ;) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I didn't realise it was a CM thing! I'm surprised he hasn't been eaten in his sleep already! And yes I get it now. I wasn't reading fanatic into it but rather an ok premise not worded that well because I do worry about so many dogs being labelled as anxious when often it just an anxious response to certain triggers. Some can be worked through and others maybe not (if the owner sees fit to assess for that). I see no reason to force any animal into a full on confrontation with their darkest fears or even to be forced to deal with what we might see as their weaknesses. If they need to be desensitised to them for their own safety and sanity there are ways to attempt that without causing lasting, further harm like you have said Maddy. Otherwise minimisation, distraction and giving comfort are other options until the fear passes (the dentist tried all 3 techniques on me recently and I still bit his thumb).

 

And lets be real - there is a lot of instinctual behaviour in canines but unless there is an apocalypse, few of our furry companions will ever be leaving our houses, returning to live in packs in the wild, depending on each other for survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's that general brand of crap. CM used to do a lot of it for anxious/fearful dogs and it was horrible to watch. I can still remember one in particular, a Great Dane who was scared of slippery floors, and he just dragged this dog down a long hallway and everything about that dog's demeanour was terrible fear. Right up until the dog shut down, anyway. Its eyes were fixed, its posture/gait were stiff/sluggish and it just went wherever he dragged it. And CM proclaimed it a great success. Distressing to watch and even more so, to know that people would copy his methods and cause harm to their own pets :( 

I'm quite.. uncomfortable around fish (I won't say scared, but the thought of touching one makes me want to panic-vomit up my intestines) and if someone forced me to put my hand in a fish tank- as a shitty, god-awful teacher did to me a few years back- it sure as hell won't help my anxiety around fish. And after being made to do something I clearly communicated that I didn't want to do, I was left with zero respect or trust for that teacher. Negative outcomes for everyone. And forcing dogs to confront things they aren't comfortable with, same thing. I want my dogs to trust me- to trust that I won't ever drop them in the deep end, and to trust that I'll listen when they communicate with me. I managed to teach a greyhound to get into the bath by himself (which was a pretty big deal for him) and that was just trust. He trusted that I'd abide by certain rules (like not getting his ears or face wet, or not using cool or cold water) and once we'd established that trust, life became so much easier. Trust is a huge part of bonding, and you can't form trust if you're hurting or scaring someone.

 

As for an apocalypse.. my dogs would be doomed. I think they'd immediately die of horror once they discovered that chickens do not naturally come in a "kiev" variety :scared:

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

same problem with kids/then adults too, no training or responsibility for their actions anymore. what hope have our dogs when those women who beat up the paramedic n put him in hospital, doing his job got off scott free because they had a traumatic childhood. he now has a traumatic adulthood and been unable to work since.

 

dogs like kids have so many different temperaments and need to be treated accordingly, no one size will ever fit all.

 

but this constant assumption that a timid dog was mistreated is ignoring the fact that many were born that way, ive breed four different breeds over the last 50 years and the variation in temperament per litter is unmistakable, you socialise them according to those differences and many times end up with such little differences people would never realise what they were showing as babies when they first began to experience the big world out there.

others stay that way despite your best efforts. but can still learn to pretend to be brave with encouragement and reward when they do try.

 

as for the bully, if they never learn NO means NO. behaviour unacceptable its just as much your fault for the damage done to others by that dog.

 

kids aren't set boundaries anymore either. otherwise we wouldn't be bombarded with all the knifing and bashing's and so on every nigh ,n morning for that matter, its not worth turning on the news, none of it is good.

 

as for the bullying that goes on social media, apalling

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2018 at 3:32 PM, asal said:

same problem with kids/then adults too, no training or responsibility for their actions anymore. what hope have our dogs when those women who beat up the paramedic n put him in hospital, doing his job got off scott free because they had a traumatic childhood. he now has a traumatic adulthood and been unable to work since.

 

dogs like kids have so many different temperaments and need to be treated accordingly, no one size will ever fit all.

 

but this constant assumption that a timid dog was mistreated is ignoring the fact that many were born that way, ive breed four different breeds over the last 50 years and the variation in temperament per litter is unmistakable, you socialise them according to those differences and many times end up with such little differences people would never realise what they were showing as babies when they first began to experience the big world out there.

others stay that way despite your best efforts. but can still learn to pretend to be brave with encouragement and reward when they do try.

 

as for the bully, if they never learn NO means NO. behaviour unacceptable its just as much your fault for the damage done to others by that dog.

 

kids aren't set boundaries anymore either. otherwise we wouldn't be bombarded with all the knifing and bashing's and so on every nigh ,n morning for that matter, its not worth turning on the news, none of it is good.

 

as for the bullying that goes on social media, apalling

 

Ah, the old "People these days, no respect, etc., etc., etc." 

These days, it's socially unacceptable to spit on someone, to beat them within an inch of their life, to murder them because they've annoyed you, to use certain language, to toilet in front of other people, to say racist/sexist things, to break any one of the tens of thousands of unspoken social rules. Being a human is literally the hardest it's ever been. And the slightest infraction can become viral news in a matter of minutes. People are not "worse" now than they were at any point in time. It's a fallacy that gets trotted out to justify any number of (ironically) shitty things, such as capital punishment or beating children. 

Hitting a child who bullies other children will not cure that child of the problem. We know better than that now. We understand that behaviour must serve the individual some purpose, and that if we discover this purpose, we can resolve the problem, without more violence. Hitting someone does not cure them of anything. Period. Same applied to animals. 

 

Clearly, you're okay with the idea of corporal punishment and as I said, you're welcome to your views. However, I absolutely disagree with you and to be honest, I find your views to be outdated and unscientific. Old ways are not necessarily better ways. And in the case of behaviour modification, definitely not the better way.

Having said that, if you have studies that confirm the "natural" way is better, please feel free to link them, I'd be very interested to read any sort of evidence for your claims.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Maddy said:

Ah, the old "People these days, no respect, etc., etc., etc." 

These days, it's socially unacceptable to spit on someone, to beat them within an inch of their life, to murder them because they've annoyed you, to use certain language, to toilet in front of other people, to say racist/sexist things, to break any one of the tens of thousands of unspoken social rules. Being a human is literally the hardest it's ever been. And the slightest infraction can become viral news in a matter of minutes. People are not "worse" now than they were at any point in time. It's a fallacy that gets trotted out to justify any number of (ironically) shitty things, such as capital punishment or beating children. 

Hitting a child who bullies other children will not cure that child of the problem. We know better than that now. We understand that behaviour must serve the individual some purpose, and that if we discover this purpose, we can resolve the problem, without more violence. Hitting someone does not cure them of anything. Period. Same applied to animals. 

 

Clearly, you're okay with the idea of corporal punishment and as I said, you're welcome to your views. However, I absolutely disagree with you and to be honest, I find your views to be outdated and unscientific. Old ways are not necessarily better ways. And in the case of behaviour modification, definitely not the better way.

Having said that, if you have studies that confirm the "natural" way is better, please feel free to link them, I'd be very interested to read any sort of evidence for your claims.

you wrote it so I presume your serious, so the women who beat up the paramedic and got off scott free have your backing?

 

they certainly have no reason to modify their violet behaviour in future

 

I gave it that title for the reason I found it interesting. At no time did I say I agreed with it.

I have no idea what could be the best avenue to reduce the violence against others .

 

but as usual you make decisions about me based on nothing but your opinion.

as my mum used to warn me , "remember what you accuse someone of is more likely what you would do. 

you have no idea what they may be thinking"

 

my friend posted this on fb I so agree with her

 

 

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2018 at 12:45 PM, Maddy said:

Ah, the old "People these days, no respect, etc., etc., etc." 

These days, it's socially unacceptable to spit on someone, to beat them within an inch of their life, to murder them because they've annoyed you, to use certain language, to toilet in front of other people, to say racist/sexist things, to break any one of the tens of thousands of unspoken social rules. Being a human is literally the hardest it's ever been. And the slightest infraction can become viral news in a matter of minutes. People are not "worse" now than they were at any point in time. It's a fallacy that gets trotted out to justify any number of (ironically) shitty things, such as capital punishment or beating children. 

Hitting a child who bullies other children will not cure that child of the problem. We know better than that now. We understand that behaviour must serve the individual some purpose, and that if we discover this purpose, we can resolve the problem, without more violence. Hitting someone does not cure them of anything. Period. Same applied to animals. 

 

Clearly, you're okay with the idea of corporal punishment and as I said, you're welcome to your views. However, I absolutely disagree with you and to be honest, I find your views to be outdated and unscientific. Old ways are not necessarily better ways. And in the case of behaviour modification, definitely not the better way.

Having said that, if you have studies that confirm the "natural" way is better, please feel free to link them, I'd be very interested to read any sort of evidence for your claims.

you wrote it so I presume your serious, so the women who beat up the paramedic and got off scott free have your backing?

 

they certainly have no reason to modify their violet behaviour in future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more interesting article, she was being interviewed today and she made a very good comment.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/jacqui-lambie/9492014

 

"

 

"If I hadn’t gone public, he’d be dead": Jacqui Lambie on revealing her son’s ice addiction
WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2018 9:28AM
 
  • Jacqui Lambie on revealing her son’s ice addiction
  • In 2015, Tasmania’s colourful Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie made a powerful speech in the Senate.

"I am a Senator of Australia and I have a 21-year-old son who has a problem with ice," Jacqui Lambie said, "And yet even with my title, I have no control over my son.

"I can’t involuntarily detox my own son, because I’m not talking to my son anymore, I’m talking to a drug."

Skip YouTube Video

FireFox NVDA users - To access the following content, press 'M' to enter the iFrame.

Almost three years on, a lot has changed for Jacqui Lambie and her family. For starters, Jacqui Lambie realised she wasn’t as “bloody Australian” as she originally thought - and was booted from Parliament amid the Citizenship fiasco last yearAnd for Jacqui Lambie’s son Dylan, his mum’s speech in Parliament ended up being a major turning point in his life."If I hadn’t gone public, like many other mums and dads out there who’ve got kids on ice, my son would either be in jail, he would be dead, or somebody else - more than likely - would have been affected probably in a negative way because of his actions," Jacqui Lambie told Hack."That ice really affected my son very very quickly. He ended up spending nearly 18 months in Toowoomba for his rehab. He’s now been clean for 2 and a half years, and he’s held down a damn good job for the last 12 months, and he’s got plenty of money in the bank."And by the way, he’s doing one step better than his mother because he’s found love"
"So good on him, he’s done really really well for himself."Jacqui Lambie told Hack that Dylan didn’t speak to her for "three or four months" after her speech in Parliament and while she continued to reveal aspects of his life and addiction to the media.But she says that going public - and talking about her son when he didn’t want her to - was the kind of tough love that he needed."You know, you speak to some of those awful journalists out there who say, ‘You threw him under the bus’, well you know what, when they’ve got a child on ice, and they’re in that predicament like many hundreds of thousands of other Australian mums are, come and bloody see me."You can catch up on Tom Tilley’s interview with Jacqui Lambie here, or subscribe to Hack’s podcast.Jacqui Lambie's memoir, Rebel Without A Cause is available now. It is published by Allen & Unwin.

 

 

 As she said in the interview today,  ..."unless we start teaching our children self control, responsibility for their own actions AND START educating them about the dangers of drugs in primary school  its already too late by the time they are high school age.

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

another interesting one too... They have done a marvellous job of micromanaging registered members of the ankc's.  not much success with the invisible backyarders though. Suspect the plan is everyone will have to pay for the rspca approved logo like the chook farms.
they are after the throughbreds now.
?path=components.primary-navigation&t_product=the-australian
 

Beware the RSPCA’s mischief making

Rising Fast enjoyed his gallop in the 1954 Melbourne Cup so much he went for one around Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs. Picture: Mike Keating Rising Fast enjoyed his gallop in the 1954 Melbourne Cup so much he went for one around Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs. Picture: Mike Keating

I want to let you into a little secret. There’s a big race on tomorrow.

You might have heard a whisper or two earlier in the week about a race at Royal Randwick tomorrow, a weight-for-age event, featuring a host of Australia’s best sprinters (with one from the US and another from Japan) battling it out over six furlongs.

The Everest is Australia’s richest racing event with combined prizemoney of $13 million. A gigantic presentation cheque will be handed to the connections of the winner featuring a six followed by six zeros with a couple of commas in the right places.

READ NEXT

Of course, we all know this because of the brouhaha over a brief display of the barrier draw projected onto the sails of the Sydney Opera House. A thousand or so angry folk assembled on the forecourt on Tuesday night, desperately attempting to outshine the projected images.

As I quipped on Twitter, this all took place while yesterday’s eight-race card at Wyong went tragically unpromoted.

It is probably true that the melee would not have had quite the impetus without Alan Jones’ intervention last week and his crude interview with the Opera House’s CEO, Louise Herron. Jones subsequently apologised.

It is also true that a good number of the protesters assembled to demonstrate what they felt was a loss of public space or at least what they perceived to be a corruption of it.

I understand the argument and have some sympathy for it but there is something darker at work.

I watched the protest at close quarters and followed reactions on social media. I saw one tweet from a protestor in attendance declaring the throng had stuck it up Racing NSW (I am paraphrasing to avoid offending readers’ gentle sensibilities). Upon examination of his profile, I was unsurprised to find he appeared to be a hippy, a professional protestor, in need of a good scrub down with a big soapy brush.

He was in fact part of a group at that protest who exploited public anger to further the call for a ban on thoroughbred racing.

Back in August I wrote an article along these lines, attempting to identify the areas where the racing industry was losing the argument to animal rights’ groups. I used a figure, cited by the RSPCA, of 8500 horses going missing in any given year in recent times.

After the article was published I received a number of calls from people within the industry, some angry, others calm and thoughtful. I took the time to examine the issue further and I have since learned it is nowhere near the figure cited by the RSCPA and studies undertaken by academics both within and outside the racing industry prove it.

The wastage issue, while serious, is heavily overplayed by the RSPCA. The 8500-horse figure is utterly inaccurate and a piece of mischief. Industry studies examining foaling and horses that leave racing for one reason or another reveals a much lower figure. In reality, no more than a few hundred horses are found not to be rehomed.

Regrettably, the RSPCA simply can’t be trusted on this issue or indeed in almost any statement it makes on the welfare of thoroughbred horses. It has become an advocate for the banning of the sport and even when it undertakes studies it cannot be relied upon to report on them rationally and fairly.

My real failing in that article was to ignore my own experience over the shrieking of so-called experts.

Racing is a part of my family’s history and folklore. I could tell many stories but one of my favourites relates to arguably one the greatest stayers ever to run in this country, Rising Fast. In 1954, the New Zealand gelding won Australia’s Triple Crown — the Caulfield Cup, Cox Plate and Melbourne Cup, a feat never achieved before or since.

As a six-year-old, Rising Fast was handed to ‘Father’ Fred Hoysted for training. Fred was in his dotage at this stage, his sight failing. Rising Fast was tended to for the most part by his son, Bob.

Years later Bob recalled that Rising Fast did not like being enclosed in the stables, preferring to gently graze in a paddock next door. This was all perfectly acceptable until Rising Fast decided to jump the fence and partake in a spot of tourism of the local area.

I can only imagine the shock that that must have hit Bob when he discovered Rising Fast was missing. The story of Bob running down the back streets of Mentone in Melbourne’s south east, in a breathless but ultimately successful search for a horse that would in today’s money be worth at least $20 million, amuses me possibly more than it should.

Rising Fast is given an apple by Thelma Williamson - wife of the horse's jockey, Bill Williamson in 1955. Picture pinted in  The Advertiser on 1 Nov, 1955. Rising Fast is given an apple by Thelma Williamson - wife of the horse's jockey, Bill Williamson in 1955. Picture pinted in The Advertiser on 1 Nov, 1955.

Rising Fast returned to the paddock because that is what it wanted but Bob knew to keep a constant eye on it.

I visited those same stables many years later and found it to be a menagerie of ducks, chickens, cats and dogs. Peering into the stables I was taken aback at the sight of an elderly pony, possibly in its thirties with teeth like a piano keyboard rendered by Salvador Dali. It was no Melbourne Cup fancy, put it that way.

But there, just behind the pony, was Manikato, at that time the greatest sprinter in Australia and only the second horse after the sublime Kingston Town to win a million dollars in prizemoney.

In that admirable way of animals, the pony was revered by all furred or feathered and especially by Manikato. The champion sprinter would fret in its absence, so much so that wherever Manikato went, Bob would bring the pony along for the ride. The pony became Manikato’s constant companion, the oddest of equine couples bouncing along in the float together.

Fred, Bob and Bob’s brother Bon, who had been Manikato’s trainer until his premature death, were horse whisperers who trained their charges to the second. They understood horses and cared for them better than any jumped up official from the RSPCA could or does.

The notion that industry people — owners, trainers, strappers, track riders and jockeys — could have their livelihoods roughly taken away at some point in future is real. As with the failed attempt to ban greyhound racing in NSW, it needs to be understood that a banning of horse racing would necessarily lead to the mass slaughter of animals.

I am continually astonished to see people who I regard as otherwise rational and thoughtful espousing the line that horse racing should either be banned or regulated to within an inch of its life.

But that is what the RSPCA wants and in its public mischief-making legitimises the ugly foot stompers who reside at the outer edges of animal rights activism. I worry that these people are slowly but surely winning the public over.

The industry has changed since Rising Fast galloped around the streets of Mentone but what drove it then is the same force that drives it today. With almost all people in the industry that force is not just a proper regard for equine welfare but a love of horses.

But don’t just take my word for it. Go to the races tomorrow and see for yourself. And have a little fun while you still can.

jack_the_insider.png
COLUMNIST
Peter Hoysted is Jack the Insider: a highly placed, dedicated servant of the nation with close ties to leading figures in politics, business and the union movement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok absolutely nothing to do about dogs.

 

but forget the incredible semi's apparently they are real not computer generated?

Cant imagine Japan would have roads long enough or wide enough to take these,

but that song, love it

anyone Chinese? whats it about and its name?

 

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my boss goes to China on a buying trip he shops in a district where buildings are literally whole neighbourhoods in size. You can walk for literally kilometres inside one building. One day he reckons he walked 17 kilometres inside one building with no backtracking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2018 at 7:56 PM, asal said:

you wrote it so I presume your serious, so the women who beat up the paramedic and got off scott free have your backing?

 

they certainly have no reason to modify their violet behaviour in future

What an absurd question. Did you read and understand what I wrote? I try to be patient with you, asal, but christ, you make it hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...