Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Looking at the sale of dogs and can't help but wonder , whats with this mains and un mains sales ,,  In the past  over 35-38 years  i've purchased a springer spaniel ,, then 2 boxers , then a staffie , then a shepard , then a rotty then another rotty , last rotty  being 15 years ago , all from breeders ,, and every single one of them have been fantastic dogs true to there breed and a credit to the breeders , all  fantastic looking dogs ,, now all of them  came with a pedigree and were bought and kept has pets ,, I'm not interested in the showing or breeding ,, dipped my toes and found it was  a bitchy   scene suited to women  who like to gossip  men has well .

 

But one thing  that stood out about all of them was i bought a pedigree , i paid top dollar for a pedigree  and i got the papers , and the right to show , or breed if i wanted too , thats why i payed out top dollar , my staffie the breeder seen him and virtually begged me to show him , thats when i dipped my toes , and did'nt like it ,  then they wanted to pay me to use him has a stud , but naaw he was a pet only  , but point is all of them breeders bred great sppecemins and all of them were proud of there dogs  and wanted them shown , 

 

Now i'm looking for another dog  and keep coming across ltd registar only  ,  get stuffed if i'm gonna pay top dollar for a dog thats supposed to be  top shelf i want the right to breed or show IF I WANT TO ,, ok,,, can tell you now i never would because i could'nt be bothered but if i'm asked to fork out 4 grand  i excpect too ,, I had a conversation with a breeder , that went along the lines of ,  my dogs  are not to be used by byb , when i asked  which of her two dogs  had won competitions , answer was  we don't show them , Ok which had won   agility , or anything else ,  we don't do that ,,  so my question is what makes your dog worth that money , because you have only threw two together  and claim to be a breeder , Has far has i'm concerned its just cutting out any competition so she can inflate prices   , Like i said i don't want to show , or breed ,  but if i decided i do , then i want to be able too for the money i payed ,,  otherwise   what do you do , Go on gumtree  look and wait at the pound and buy  a byb dog  with no pedigree if you see the parents  , you know what they are , if its from the pound , you know what they are if you know your dogs .

 

Breeders of old i bought of were proud of there dogs , wanted you to show them , wanted you to keep the line going , and  you paid for it , but if they had a  dog that did'nt conform  you payed a bit less , so what its a pet who cares  if its got a floppy ear ,,, Now alls i see is   mostly people in a bitchy scene who have 2 dogs they throw together and they want the money  associated with pedigree dogs , but don't want you to show them or breed them , because i suspect a lot are beneath standard , 

 

Rant over ,  my little dog will get a big playmate who will get a loving home for all his life , but i'm stuffed if i'll pay 3,, 4 ,,, 5 grand to line some   unemployed ,single mothers pocket just because  she says she's a breeder  and  yes before you all carry on  , i've looked at 7 dogs and 5 of them have been  unemployed or single mothers  claiming to be breeders , but of course  main reistrar  papers don't go with the dogs ,,, If these peanuts think i'm stupd enough to believe they have imprted semon or payed big money for  there dogs ,  pigs can fly

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird. As if BYB care about limited register. Sell entire dogs and believe a bit of paper will keep them from being bred from. :flame:

 

I don't know the politics of breeding though. Perhaps someone will explain the logic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its eletist ,,, Sam my old shepard , the breeder told me you ever want to  put him out to stud , with his pedigree  give me first option to keep his line going ,  , Ebony my rotty Breeder who sold her me once again  wanted first choice if i wanted to breed her ,  , like i said not interested , but  for the top dollar  i'm stuffed if i would pay  huge amounts and be told i'm not allowed to show and MUST desex my dog ,, if its worth the money far has i'm concerned its worth keeping the line going IF I CHOOSE ,  On the other hand demanding  you de sex  the dog you buy for huge amounts and no mains registrar , to me that just means either there dogs do not conform to a high standard OR they don't want competition ,, and  i reiterate , i will not show or breed a dog , but if i wanted too    i should'nt be stopped

 

Its just like  Porche  telling the world they have the fastest car ,  Asking  a million dollars for there  top of the range car , but tell you if you buy one , then  its goverened to only do 100 klm p hr  because they don't want you going fast ,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO limited register should ONLY be used to prevent breeding of dogs that shouldn't be bred from, especially for reasons of health OR temperament.  Problem: Many such things cannot be identified by 8 weeks. 

As stands the two tiered register is used for various things.  Increasing revenue.  Preventing competition.   Perpetuating some interpretation of a breed standard.

Pretty stupid.  The system needs a major overhaul.   I'm not optimistic it's getting one any time soon.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sandgrubber said:

IMO limited register should ONLY be used to prevent breeding of dogs that shouldn't be bred from, especially for reasons of health OR temperament.  Problem: Many such things cannot be identified by 8 weeks. 

As stands the two tiered register is used for various things.  Increasing revenue.  Preventing competition.   Perpetuating some interpretation of a breed standard.

Pretty stupid.  The system needs a major overhaul.   I'm not optimistic it's getting one any time soon.

The more i look the more i think its about revenue , and preventing competition ,, Like i said the pedigree dogs i bought years ago , the breeders kept in touch loved the way there pups turned out and wanted to show or breed them it was me who declined , hey were proud of there good stock ,, but the choice was mine because i payed a premium for a pedigree , instead of a bitza from the pound , but has far has i'm concerned there  shooting themselves in the foot ,,, creating a system wheres theres a lack of good pedigree pups , entices others to  fill the gap

 

Look on gumtree at the mastiffs , i've rang a few , they want 2-3000 dollars for a mongrel ,   cross a neopolitin mastiff  with an bullmastiff all you want its not a pedigree  its a cross of two similar but different breeds , but yet they ask and recieve so much money because the mastiffs  will be more ,  ,  so go get a pedigree and be told ltd papers , you cannot show it if you wish ,  whats the point go get the cross and just haggle with the byb on price ,

 

I personaly want an older dog , i've answered a few  from breeders wanting to rehome there out of date bitches , thinking yep i'll give them a good home ,,,  I'm being told , you will have to get it desexed , not a problem , i want it desexed ,  no papers  not a problem i want a pet  not a showdog ,,, price 2500-3000   get stuffed for a 4 year old rotty that will only live 3-5  YEARS MORE ANYWAY ,,, i SHAKE MY HEAD AND THINK  AND THERE AGAINST PUPPY FARMS  they breed a few litters and then discard ,  and still want top dollars ,, the whole industry needs a shake up

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

they say they are 'ethical and responsible' as if its garlic to ward off evil?

 

your all right, its about preventing competition with no thought for the future.  as one long time friend commented, its as if now to be an ankc member the first prerequisite is stupidity?

 

where is continuing the legacy of the breeders before you in a dead end breeder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

PETA began the chant, we have to eliminate backyard breeders and puppy farms.

 

 

even in 1980's just about none twigged, we all have a backyard so all are thus to be eliminated.

 

as for eliminating puppy farms? to pass the POCTA INSPECTION? blueprint for a puppy farm.

 

IDIOT'S

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are you saying  you just explained registar , vac /chip  , ect around $1300  .  and they cost the same  regardless mains or ltd ,, SO WHY do just about ALL breeders want to sell LTD only  and want you to desex the dog ,, On top of that the prices are  usually  around 3 grand a pup , some more some less ,,, self explanatory is'nt it ,, cost of say on average 1300 dollars your prices not mine ,,  profit of  15-1700 a pup   some more some less ,   last breeder i went to had 2 bitches she was breeding  ,  she told me her pups are always healthy  ansd strong and they usually have 8-10 pups   twice a year , thats 16 -20 pups a year , Some big money flying around and cash at that mostly ..  and the more  breeders insist on desex and ltd papers the more they  protect there income not the breed  what they claim to do

 

Now don't get me wrong i don't care how much the pups are , because your correct price on everything has gone up ,  What i question is this LTD papers  rubbish ,  i buy a dog  its mine  and if i'm paying you a premium because your a breeder  i expect that dog  to be shown if i want   or breed if i want to ..otherwise go to the pound  and grab any old dog  desexed , chipped and  $450  The money does'nt come into it  , you can ask  10 grand a pup , some will pay some will not , its irrelevant , its the restrictions placed that give me the shits .

 

Like i said before one breeder tried to justify to me her older dog was worth thousnds because she had a good pedigree  and produced good pups , when the reality was , she  was  looking to dump her breeder bitch  into someone else because its breeding days were over, this dog was never going to win a show , or produce another litter ,, but  rehoming her out of a kennel into a loving home was only on the agenda if it came with $2500 ,,, and the dog was'nt even house trained it had lived in a kennel and a run ,  , and she had the cheek to tell me  if i don't think her dogs worth it , go see a byb .   At what point did she stop becoming a BYB and become a responsible breeder ,   money was the driving force here and protecting that stream

 

I reiterate , the price is irrelevent , i said before when i bought a shepard years ago ,  The breeder shown me the litter said you cannot have that one i'm keeping it ,,, take your pick , ,  the rest are  $800 each   now that was a premium  around 30 years ago .     there pedigrees were good there temperament was good , wether or not they would be show quality  you can't tell at 8 weeks ,,, but there was no restrictions  and that is how i have bought EVERY dog i've ever bought from a breeder

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"last breeder i went to had 2 bitches she was breeding  ,  she told me her pups are always healthy  ansd strong and they usually have 8-10 pups   twice a year"

 

You must have heard wrong.   The KCs don't allow two litters a year.

 

I agree with you. ...mostly.   limited register, as practiced, is a bad institution.

Edited by sandgrubber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think limited register should not be used as the 'default', but it sure does have a place.

 

The part of this discussion which I haven't read (apologies if I have missed it) - is that not all pups will be worthy of full registration.  There are many pups which genuinely should be on limited register.   

 

The differences between registrations is (a) should not be breed from and (b) not suitable for showing.   Regardless of the registration, they can still compete in 'sports' (obedience, agility etc), is a representative of the breed and the breeder (has pedigree papers and the prefix of the breeder) etc.

 

Bottom line - some dogs are simply not suitable for the show ring, nor are suitable breeding stock.   That is not (necessarily) a reflection on the breeder, their skill, commitment or the manner they care for their dogs - it is simply that some are not 'good enough'.  

 

At its core - a dog show is a beauty contest.   Correctness to standard, form, confirmation, temperament etc is measured - but to be successful it is a measure against 'perfection' (whatever that means per breed) and some dogs simply don't measure up.    Same goes for an animal being considered a good enough representation of he breed to be considered for breeding.    Some dog/bitch combinations simply don't work, and even when they do - not all pups are created equal.   It doesn't matter if the parents are dogs, cats, horses, budgies or people.   I have yet to see the perfect formula where any male A is mixed with female B and the result is ALWAYS 100% uniform and exceptional.

 

That is where limited registration has its place.   Pup 'fluffy' is amazing - representative of his breed in type and temperament, an amazing animal that is breeder is proud to register as PREFIX Fluffy, and his owner is delighted with.   But unfortunately, regardless of how much his owner wants it, Fluffy just does not cut it for the show ring or the breeding barn (horse reference).

 

But it costs just as much to get PREFIX Fluffy (limited registration) to the point of sale as it does to get his littermate PREFIX Perfect (main registration) to the same point.  The part that does peeve me is the 'limited registration for everything'.   That is what is contributing to dwindling numbers (but that, together with 'only breed when you need something yourself' culture is a mumble for another day :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget to add on a stud fee, maybe AI's, a c section, an emergency spey, maybe import fees for the semen, sick puppies, a small size litter. Costs can then add up to a few thousand per pup.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I take on board the costs of pups and producing them and say again forget the price that does,nt matter  but 2  minutes ago i just ramdomly selected 20 kennels selling pups on this site ,different breeds and random  , Out of the 20 probably 15 went to great lenghths to say how good there dogs were  parents champions bla bla bla ,, so you would assume that they were selling good dogs  credit to the breed , however 18 off the 20 said limited papers   not to be bred , non said not to be shown  breeding from there great stock was the issue   , there not interested in preserving good dogs , just protecting an income ,,, thats all from me i  know the answer to the problem DONT  BUY  OF THEM 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, paul1 said:

Only looked at 1 in SA do all states require desexing by law 

 

 

not yet but PETA n the rspca are working to achieve it.

 

PETA TO SPEED UP THE EXTINCTION of domestic dogs n cats, rspca to increase prices n thus income for their sales of surrendered n taken for resale. the other agenda is yearly fee from all POCTA inspected breeders, aka all to pay for the 'rspa approved' logo.    

 

joe public too stupid to see the agenda.

 

it began in 1980's,  approaching fruition. 

 

 

this was published 2017, the figures bred are continuing to decrease annually

 

https://ankc.org.au/media/6598/a-forensic-view-of-puppy-breeding-in-australiav4.pdf

 

yet our population looking for a pet increases annually

 

 

interesting some have inched up, but still not in line with population growth

 

https://ankc.org.au/media/9475/rego-stats-list_2010-2020v2.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by asal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do agree my locel rspca who i,ve purchased 3 dovgs from over the years  never have dogs in now boarding seems there only concern . Money is there only concern I believe they only ,keep enough strays to ensure there govt funding  about 10 years ago i was approached to paint there kennels  i actually said i would sponsor them by supplying the paint and labor free of charge for a week , i supplied materials payed my blokes wages for a week  he done probably half of them  but to my suprise when i went to visit him , they had him only do the kennels that were boarding  where the strays were never got touched  my mates wife stopped volunteering  after she found 90%  of her time was looking after the boarding dogs  , like she said she signed up to look after strays and injured  not 40 dollar a night boarders ,,,, Its all about the money 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paul1 said:

Do agree my locel rspca who i,ve purchased 3 dovgs from over the years  never have dogs in now boarding seems there only concern . Money is there only concern I believe they only ,keep enough strays to ensure there govt funding  about 10 years ago i was approached to paint there kennels  i actually said i would sponsor them by supplying the paint and labor free of charge for a week , i supplied materials payed my blokes wages for a week  he done probably half of them  but to my suprise when i went to visit him , they had him only do the kennels that were boarding  where the strays were never got touched  my mates wife stopped volunteering  after she found 90%  of her time was looking after the boarding dogs  , like she said she signed up to look after strays and injured  not 40 dollar a night boarders ,,,, Its all about the money 

 

 

they went rogue in 1990's

 

people are incredibly slow learners

 

spotted a fb post we have until 17th sept to apply to have their powers removed  eg

 

 

this the email address,    [email protected]

 

 

you dont have long to act............ n pray for the miracle the dept actually act eh?

 

 

 

i sent this.

 

to    -     [email protected]

 

Re: the compliance section of the RSPCA (RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded

 

PLEASE

COMPLY withe the recommendations of this man.

 

WHAT HE WROTE IN 2010 IS IN EVEN MORE URGENT NEED OF IMPLEMENTATION.

 

being a Public Prosecutor he saw exactly what best practice used to be. and the unaccountable monsters that they have  allowed the RSPCA to become by our lax politicians to have now morphed into.............A MULTIMILLION corporate business,  answerable to no one. No longer a 'charity' and both 'charity' and 'royal' status should be cancelled.

"
The two submission I would like the Honorable Committee to consider are that the compliance section of the RSPCA  (RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded and that all the duties that they try to perform in relation to the investigation and brief preparation for alleged offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act), be given to sworn Constables of the NSW Police Force in particular the Rural Crime Unit. My second submission is that all prosecutions under the Act be done by Police Prosecutors in the Local Court jurisdiction."

 

Please! Act now and stop the abuse of power by the rspca

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

i include Mr Leon Mills 2010 submission to which I refer.

 

3rd June 2010
The Honorable Members
General Purpose Standing Committee No.5
Inquiry into the R S P C A raid on the Waterways Wildlife Park
Dear Members,
My full name is Leon Andrew Mills and I have resided in Gunnedah since 1982, I moved to Gunnedah as a result of my applying for the Police Prosecutors position for the Gunnedah Local Court Circuit. I continued in that position until my retirement in 2006. In 2008 I stood in the Local Government elections and was successful in gaining office as a Gunnedah Shire Councillor. I am still in that position today.

The two submission I would like the Honorable Committee to consider are that the compliance section of the RSPCA 9RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded and that all the duties that they try to perform in relation to the investigation and brief preparation for alleged offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act), be given to sworn Constables of the NSW Police Force in particular the Rural Crime Unit. My second submission is that all prosecutions under the Act be done by Police Prosecutors in the Local Court jurisdiction.

RSPCA Inspectors obtain their powers s a result of being issued an Authority under .section 4D(2) of the Act. In relation to this Inquiry it is clear that Inspectors Prowse and French have no idea of their powers. I say that on this basis, the Act is clear in relation to what an inspector can do and is set out in Division 2 of the Act. On the Friday following the taking of the Koalas a report was broadcast on the 6.30am local A B C News that Officer Prowse said the reason for taking the Koalas was that they were “stressed”. There is no power under the Act to take an animal that is stressed. It alledging distress, as referred to in Section 24H subsection (5) of the Act, there is no evidence at all that any of these animals were suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. To support what I am submitting, the Honorable Committee would note that the Officers examined the Koalas at about 10.30-11am. They gave no treatment to these Koalas from that time until after 4.30pm, why? There was nothing wrong with them, and of course we are talking about Officers that would be expected to take immediate action if an animal was suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. These two Officers had to do something and they illegally removed these Koala for the sole purpose of the T V show R S P C A Animal Rescue. To further support this submission the head of the R S P C A Mr Steve Coleman said no proceedings would be taken against Nancy Small as a result of community outrage. I completely reject this statement. As a former Police Prosecutor of 28 years both in the city and country on rare occasions there is community outrage when some proceedings are taken. I have never before heard of proceedings for a criminal matter being abandoned or not brought because of community outrage. The reason there were no proceedings brought was that there was nothing wrong with these animals.


Offences under the act are Criminal. Officers French and Prowse were supposed to be “investigating” this matter. It is interesting to note the quality of this so called investigation. No interview with Nancy Small or any other carers of these Koalas. No exhibits such as, stool samples, feed provided in the Koala enclosure, photos for identifications of each Koala, no tagging for identification. When one looks at the R S P C A Seizure Notice re this matter S N 010 16 the Officers have not even identified the Koalas to the extent of their sex. This so called investigation is absolutely pathetic and shows the quality of how RSPCA inspectors carry out their duties.


The N S W police have a branch now called the Rural Crime Unit these branches operated both in the city and country. They are staffed by sworn Police who have been fully trained in investigation techniques. Many of these Officers are fully trained Detectives. It would be my respectful submission that these officers should take over the compliance section of the R S P C A. Of course it would require extra staff and resources. It would be my suggestion that appropriate funding could be transferred from the funding the State Government gives to the R S P C A to the Police Budget.
Another benefit of a transfer to Police is that all Police investigations are subject to review by independent authorities such as the Ombudsman or I C A C. This is not the case with R S P C A inspectors, they answer to no one other than themselves. On the 18th of February last I attended the local branch meeting of the R S P C A as the head of the organization Mr Steve Coleman was attending. During the course of the meeting he answered a number of questions re the Waterways incident. Mrs. Dodd asked him a question being, “who can I complain to”, Mr Coleman’s response was “the Chief Inspector of the RS S P C A”. From a community point of view in this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we have an organization such as this that when a complaint comes in they investigate themselves.


The subject Koalas were living in a happy well cared for environment when they were illegally removed by Inspectors French and Prowse. One of the females had a baby Koala in her pouch that Mrs Small was aware of. I have been told that the R S P C A Inspectors became aware of this fact over the 48 hours following their removal. One of the other Koalas was an elderly female that Mrs Small has described as the “Old Lady”. Mrs Small has never denied that this Koala was elderly and whilst ever in good health could live out her days in the Koala Enclosure. Both these Koalas that were supposed to being cared for by Inspectors French and Prowse are now dead so I ask this question what investigation has the RSPCA done in relation to the deaths of these Koala or am I correct in assuming that when an animal dies because of the ignorance or lack of care by that inspector no investigation takes place. This is another example as to why the Police should take over these responsibilities so that when this type of incident occurs it can be properly investigated or reviewed by an appropriate authority.


I referred earlier in this document to the fact that prior to my retirement I was the police Prosecutor for the Gunnedah Court Circuit. During the 1980’s and 1990’s and in some cases still to this day besides representing Police informants in Court Police prosecutors represent many other entities, for example, Probation and Parole, National Parks and Wildlife, D O C S, Roads and Traffic Authority and the RSPCA. Over the years until about 2000, every so often I would receive a brief from an RSPCA Inspector who would be the informant usually in more than one information. If the matter was a “not guilty” plea I would present the case on behalf of the informant. If the offence or offences were proved some costs would be sought by the Informant that would usually be for witness expenses and any fodder that may have been required to give to the animals in question. No Legal professional costs were ever sought. In addition a fact I feel is relevant is that Police Prosecutors DPP Prosecutors and Crown Prosecutors have a duty to place all the evidence before the Court. Each carries a custodial penalty of 2 years imprisonment. True there is a difference in the monetary penalty but goal is the most severe penalty for a Criminal Offence. A common assault is one where the victim suffers no serious injury. For some reason the Parliament does not view aggravated cruelty as a serious offence at law.


The RSPCA since about 2000, to my knowledge, have been engaging private solicitors to conduct their prosecutions and one might ask why did they move to this system.
It is my submission that this practice should cease and that Police Prosecutors should conduct the prosecutions for the RSPCA. I say that on this basis. By engaging private Solicitors or barristers there is no obligation on them to place before the Court evidence that may disadvantage their case. Legal and Professional Costs come into play. If their prosecution is successful they would ask for these costs. It seems unbelievable that recently in one of their prosecutions at Narrabri an amount in excess of a quarter of a million dollars was sought for costs in a matter heard in the Local Court, and as I said before, an offence not serious at law.


In conclusion it is my humble opinion that inspectors French and Prowse have no knowledge in respect to their obligations under the Act and it is clear they see their careers more in the field of TV and to add insult to injury when asked a question by myself about the TV show RSPCA Animal Rescue and their role in this incident when he attended Gunnedah on the 18th February last, Mr Coleman’s explanation was and I quote, “the Officers had been on another job with them and when they said they were going to Gunnedah the crew said we might just tag along” end quote. I informed him that I did not accept that explanation at all. It’s a sad situation when the head of such an organization is trying to assist the coverup.

Yours faithfully
Leon Mills
Councilor
Gunnedah Shire Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, paul1 said:

Only looked at 1 in SA do all states require desexing by law 

WA laws will come in soon .

This is reality & when we get puppy people jumping up n down claiming what they should be entitled too we ask "Did you support the puppy farm " bills.
When the answer is yes Then our answer is what your entitled to too is what you supported .
Many public in SA didn't care one bit about what they whole bill covered just the "fancy" parts .
When breeders expressed there concerns over early spaying or losing there lines the public all accused them off been money grubs,now they sell on limited & the requirements are spay there still called money grubs .

You buy a dog from another state you still have to meet the SA laws so all the ranting in the world off what you want,are entitled too or should be allowed are irrelevant unless you join DogSA or a body the law reconizes & meet the conditions or find a vet who will sign that the dog is too young to be spayed which you clearly have said is not going to happen then, what you brought 20 years ago is not current laws .

""The new laws also discourage accidental, casual, and ‘Backyard Breeders’ by forcing anyone wanting to keep an undesexed dog or cat born after July 1st 2018 to register as a breeder. The owner needs to registered as a breeder every year that their animal goes undesexed. If they do not register as a breeder every year, they will be obliged to desex any dogs or cats they  have that were born after 1st July 2018 .""

I believe the breeders fee if you are a member off the selected orgs is $75 yearly ,council fees then for undesexed is $65upwards  plus your membership fee to the org also payable yearly .
You will be listed as a breeder irrespective as you own an entire & have to meet the standards off that .





 

Link to post
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
×
×
  • Create New...