SaltyCajun.com http://www.stickemrods.com/

Notices

Go Back   SaltyCajun.com > Fishing Talk > Inshore Saltwater Fishing Discussion

Inshore Saltwater Fishing Discussion Discuss inshore fishing, tackle, and tactics here!

LMC Marine
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:19 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,402
Default Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

CCA is likely hosting this meeting tonight in response to complaints and pressure from anglers in SWLA regarding the state of the fishery and CCA's past unresponsiveness to issues like oyster over harvesting, poor weir management, erosion, and CCA's focus on bad policies (trout limits, tripletail limits, license fee increases) rather than habitat protection.

CCA's goal is to get anglers to give them money by joining CCA and/or entering the STAR tournament. If they succeed in this goal simply by setting up this meeting, they will continue to push for bad, unscientific policies knowing that hosting a meeting to discuss the issues will keep the cash coming in, and there is no need to change their policy emphasis toward real habitat conservation and away from bad policies. It is important that attendees maintain a firm position regarding how CCA needs to change without taking out their angst on guest speakers who really have little to do with CCA.

Everyone should try to treat all the speakers with the highest level of respect and politeness while being firm on the following points if given an opportunity to express their views or ask questions:

1. Management decisions, including limits, need to be made with sound science not unfounded fears or socio-economic reasons. The data and scientific reasoning supporting management decisions should be made available to the public. The LWC needs to stop considering testimony from CCA as sound scientific input, because CCA grossly misled the LWC on recent issues like the tripletail limit and lowering the spotted seatrout limit in Big Lake.

2. The destruction of essential oyster reef habitat with mechanical dredges needs to stop. Oysters provide valuable ecosystem services and increase the productivity of all systems in which the reefs are allowed to thrive unmolested. If dredging is stopped and reefs are allowed to recover, Big Lake will most likely support a sustainable oyster fishery if oysters are harvested with tongs, but mechanical dredging destroys the vertical relief and reduces the interstitial spaces that make the reefs such valuable habitat. Mechanical dredging also stirs up sediment and increases turbidity.

3. The weirs need to be managed according to the management plan and based on salinity and water levels in the adjacent lake and marsh behind the weirs. The weirs should be opened whenever conditions allow to maximize exchange between the marsh and lake. In the long term, strategies should be considered to reduce the salinity in the lake so that the weirs can be opened more often returning the ecosystem closer to its natural state. If a saltwater barrier in the channel is unworkable, reducing the coupling between the ship channel and lower lake with a physical barrier would probably work.

4. The closing of the pogey plant and strong age zero class of gulf menhaden and other forage fish has given the forage base a temporary boost in 2014 and helped the fishery recover from negative effects of weir mismanagement and oyster reef destruction. In the long term, maintaining high levels of productivity in the fishery will require ensuring a balanced forage base by protecting valuable oyster reef habitat and optimizing coupling between the lake and marsh.

The tone should be positive, but firm. If everyone leaves the meeting with a feeling of "mission accomplished" like we just held hands and sang "kum ba yah" then we have failed because parties think that the dog and pony show was sufficient and that follow through on the above action items is not really necessary. Both CCA reps and the guests speakers should leave the meeting with the impression that local anglers are well-informed and angry with the mismanagement of the fishery over the past ten years, but that ongoing responsiveness and tangible long term policy changes can improve both the state of the fishery and relations with anglers. Who knows, if they make good choices for a few years, by 2020, we might even be willing to cancel the S.T.A.R. boycott.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:21 AM
OnePunchRex OnePunchRex is offline
Redfish
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Da Beach
Posts: 247
Cash: -1,758
Default

Good post math geek, unfortunately, I feel some will just find this a place to get on their soapbox and bow their chest.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:22 AM
BuckingFastard's Avatar
BuckingFastard BuckingFastard is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Carlyss
Posts: 1,180
Cash: 2,297
Default

i hope someone brings up my page
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:40 AM
T-TOP's Avatar
T-TOP T-TOP is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: carlyss
Posts: 1,758
Cash: 2,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
CCA is likely hosting this meeting tonight in response to complaints and pressure from anglers in SWLA regarding the state of the fishery and CCA's past unresponsiveness to issues like oyster over harvesting, poor weir management, erosion, and CCA's focus on bad policies (trout limits, tripletail limits, license fee increases) rather than habitat protection.

CCA's goal is to get anglers to give them money by joining CCA and/or entering the STAR tournament. If they succeed in this goal simply by setting up this meeting, they will continue to push for bad, unscientific policies knowing that hosting a meeting to discuss the issues will keep the cash coming in, and there is no need to change their policy emphasis toward real habitat conservation and away from bad policies. It is important that attendees maintain a firm position regarding how CCA needs to change without taking out their angst on guest speakers who really have little to do with CCA.

Everyone should try to treat all the speakers with the highest level of respect and politeness while being firm on the following points if given an opportunity to express their views or ask questions:

1. Management decisions, including limits, need to be made with sound science not unfounded fears or socio-economic reasons. The data and scientific reasoning supporting management decisions should be made available to the public. The LWC needs to stop considering testimony from CCA as sound scientific input, because CCA grossly misled the LWC on recent issues like the tripletail limit and lowering the spotted seatrout limit in Big Lake.

2. The destruction of essential oyster reef habitat with mechanical dredges needs to stop. Oysters provide valuable ecosystem services and increase the productivity of all systems in which the reefs are allowed to thrive unmolested. If dredging is stopped and reefs are allowed to recover, Big Lake will most likely support a sustainable oyster fishery if oysters are harvested with tongs, but mechanical dredging destroys the vertical relief and reduces the interstitial spaces that make the reefs such valuable habitat. Mechanical dredging also stirs up sediment and increases turbidity.

3. The weirs need to be managed according to the management plan and based on salinity and water levels in the adjacent lake and marsh behind the weirs. The weirs should be opened whenever conditions allow to maximize exchange between the marsh and lake. In the long term, strategies should be considered to reduce the salinity in the lake so that the weirs can be opened more often returning the ecosystem closer to its natural state. If a saltwater barrier in the channel is unworkable, reducing the coupling between the ship channel and lower lake with a physical barrier would probably work.

4. The closing of the pogey plant and strong age zero class of gulf menhaden and other forage fish has given the forage base a temporary boost in 2014 and helped the fishery recover from negative effects of weir mismanagement and oyster reef destruction. In the long term, maintaining high levels of productivity in the fishery will require ensuring a balanced forage base by protecting valuable oyster reef habitat and optimizing coupling between the lake and marsh.

The tone should be positive, but firm. If everyone leaves the meeting with a feeling of "mission accomplished" like we just held hands and sang "kum ba yah" then we have failed because parties think that the dog and pony show was sufficient and that follow through on the above action items is not really necessary. Both CCA reps and the guests speakers should leave the meeting with the impression that local anglers are well-informed and angry with the mismanagement of the fishery over the past ten years, but that ongoing responsiveness and tangible long term policy changes can improve both the state of the fishery and relations with anglers. Who knows, if they make good choices for a few years, by 2020, we might even be willing to cancel the S.T.A.R. boycott.
Shouldn't the increased dredging and what they pln to do with the spoils be in the top 2? Not long ago the army corp planned on running a discharge pipe 500yards out in to the lake and letting fly right there. Another option was filling in Joes cove. Is the corp really going to rock off the south end of the lake?

2. oysters
3. weirs,
4. or 5. limits and pogey plants

open up with complaints about limit control the whole purpose of the meeting runs off in the ditch and you look like you are more concerned about what you take home than the health of the lake.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-09-2014, 08:50 AM
"W"'s Avatar
"W" "W" is offline
Catch fish in DA face!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Big Lake LA
Posts: 32,974
Cash: 7,729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-TOP View Post
Shouldn't the increased dredging and what they pln to do with the spoils be in the top 2? Not long ago the army corp planned on running a discharge pipe 500yards out in to the lake and letting fly right there. Another option was filling in Joes cove. Is the corp really going to rock off the south end of the lake?

2. oysters
3. weirs,
4. or 5. limits and pogey plants

open up with complaints about limit control the whole purpose of the meeting runs off in the ditch and you look like you are more concerned about what you take home than the health of the lake.

South end of the lake is getting rocked

Send me your email I foward you the report I got last week on rocking , they committe is coming down in Aug and I'm trying to arrange a meeting with just fisherman, crabbers and shrimpers only

No Politics allowed
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:00 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-TOP View Post
Shouldn't the increased dredging and what they pln to do with the spoils be in the top 2? Not long ago the army corp planned on running a discharge pipe 500yards out in to the lake and letting fly right there. Another option was filling in Joes cove. Is the corp really going to rock off the south end of the lake?

2. oysters
3. weirs,
4. or 5. limits and pogey plants

open up with complaints about limit control the whole purpose of the meeting runs off in the ditch and you look like you are more concerned about what you take home than the health of the lake.
It was not my intent to prioritize issues. Each angler has their own priorities in what they see as the most important issues facing the lake. All the issues discussed belong in the top 5.

Basing limits in sound science is an important conservation issue and only those ignorant of how food webs work would portray a call for scientific management as a selfish concern for how many fish an angler gets to take home. There are far fewer natural predators of specks, reds, gafftops, and drum than there used to be. In the absence of sufficient fishing harvest, each of these species has the potential to become overpopulated which would overly stress food supplies and lead to an unbalanced ecosystem.

If you disagree and think channel dredging and spoils are the most important issue, you should try and make a well-informed case that perhaps the ship channel should be rocked to prevent ongoing erosion and the spoil used to build up a land barrier between the channel and lake. To me, all the issues are important, and I have not seen enough data to definitively rank order them. However, CCA and LDWF both need regular feedback regarding establishing new limits without a sound scientific basis. Otherwise, we can expect this bad behavior to continue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:09 AM
T-TOP's Avatar
T-TOP T-TOP is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: carlyss
Posts: 1,758
Cash: 2,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
It was not my intent to prioritize issues. Each angler has their own priorities in what they see as the most important issues facing the lake. All the issues discussed belong in the top 5.

Basing limits in sound science is an important conservation issue and only those ignorant of how food webs work would portray a call for scientific management as a selfish concern for how many fish an angler gets to take home. There are far fewer natural predators of specks, reds, gafftops, and drum than there used to be. In the absence of sufficient fishing harvest, each of these species has the potential to become overpopulated which would overly stress food supplies and lead to an unbalanced ecosystem.

If you disagree and think channel dredging and spoils are the most important issue, you should try and make a well-informed case that perhaps the ship channel should be rocked to prevent ongoing erosion and the spoil used to build up a land barrier between the channel and lake. To me, all the issues are important, and I have not seen enough data to definitively rank order them. However, CCA and LDWF both need regular feedback regarding establishing new limits without a sound scientific basis. Otherwise, we can expect this bad behavior to continue.
from what i understand the new data being processed will be the most accurate data gather to date. The data issue shouldnt be the problem in the years to come. correct?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:10 AM
T-TOP's Avatar
T-TOP T-TOP is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: carlyss
Posts: 1,758
Cash: 2,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
It was not my intent to prioritize issues. Each angler has their own priorities in what they see as the most important issues facing the lake. All the issues discussed belong in the top 5.

Basing limits in sound science is an important conservation issue and only those ignorant of how food webs work would portray a call for scientific management as a selfish concern for how many fish an angler gets to take home. There are far fewer natural predators of specks, reds, gafftops, and drum than there used to be. In the absence of sufficient fishing harvest, each of these species has the potential to become overpopulated which would overly stress food supplies and lead to an unbalanced ecosystem.

If you disagree and think channel dredging and spoils are the most important issue, you should try and make a well-informed case that perhaps the ship channel should be rocked to prevent ongoing erosion and the spoil used to build up a land barrier between the channel and lake. To me, all the issues are important, and I have not seen enough data to definitively rank order them. However, CCA and LDWF both need regular feedback regarding establishing new limits without a sound scientific basis. Otherwise, we can expect this bad behavior to continue.
This is one of the topics top be discussed.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:26 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-TOP View Post
from what i understand the new data being processed will be the most accurate data gather to date. The data issue shouldnt be the problem in the years to come. correct?
I'm not so sure.

The LDWF has some risk of becoming like the US EPA using hidden data that they claim supports restrictive regulations without making the data and scientific rationale public. LDWF has released no data since 2010, and the LWC has an established pattern of passing regulations without supporting scientific data. When LWC was challenged to do a more thorough review of existing triple tail data before passing limits, they refused and instead passed the restrictions in a secret meeting in which the meeting minutes were not subsequently published in the usual way.

My personal observations of the LDWF creel survey at Calcasieu Point has not boosted my confidence that the LA Creel results will yield "the most accurate data to date." I observed the LDWF surveyer approach anglers and only ask where the fish observed on the cleaning station were caught, before returning to sit in his truck.

The anglers were not asked:

How many anglers contributed to the catch?

How long did the group fish?

What species were the group targeting?

How many fish were caught and released?

Do the fish on the cleaning station represented the entire take for the trip?

In fact, one group of anglers had a whole unopened box of fish they had caught that had not been emptied onto the fish cleaning station yet.

I've participated in creel surveys in other states, and I have also reviewed the fisheries literature regarding sampling techniques needed to acquire accurate fisheries data from fishery dependent surveys. The above questions are all essential parts of acquiring accurate data to help managing a fishery.

It seems more that LA Creel is more of a public relations effort to justify the increase in license fees than a legitimate attempt to improve the scientific quality of management. Given my personal observations, I tend to have more confidence in LDWF's fishery independent sampling (nets and trawls), the data our team has collected over the past four years, records of tournament results regarding the availability of trophy trout, the steady stream of observations and reports here at SC, and my personal observations and interactions on the lake and at the boat ramp.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:29 AM
T-TOP's Avatar
T-TOP T-TOP is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: carlyss
Posts: 1,758
Cash: 2,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
I'm not so sure.

The LDWF has some risk of becoming like the US EPA using hidden data that they claim supports restrictive regulations without making the data and scientific rationale public. LDWF has released no data since 2010, and the LWC has an established pattern of passing regulations without supporting scientific data. When LWC was challenged to do a more thorough review of existing triple tail data before passing limits, they refused and instead passed the restrictions in a secret meeting in which the meeting minutes were not subsequently published in the usual way.

My personal observations of the LDWF creel survey at Calcasieu Point has not boosted my confidence that the LA Creel results will yield "the most accurate data to date." I observed the LDWF surveyer approach anglers and only ask where the fish observed on the cleaning station were caught, before returning to sit in his truck.

The anglers were not asked:

How many anglers contributed to the catch?

How long did the group fish?

What species were the group targeting?

How many fish were caught and released?

Do the fish on the cleaning station represented the entire take for the trip?

In fact, one group of anglers had a whole unopened box of fish they had caught that had not been emptied onto the fish cleaning station yet.

I've participated in creel surveys in other states, and I have also reviewed the fisheries literature regarding sampling techniques needed to acquire accurate fisheries data from fishery dependent surveys. The above questions are all essential parts of acquiring accurate data to help managing a fishery.

It seems more that LA Creel is more of a public relations effort to justify the increase in license fees than a legitimate attempt to improve the scientific quality of management.
So what your saying is, we are just screwed???
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:37 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-TOP View Post
So what your saying is, we are just screwed???
I am saying that we're not home free and we need to maintain polite but firm pressure on CCA, LDWF, and LWC regarding improving the quality of the science and resource management based on good science. LDWF has had good fishery independent sampling techniques in place for a number of years (trawls and net samplings). There is also a lot of data from various federal agencies and studies and from university research.

A good fishery-dependent survey would add to the base of data available, but over the past decade CCA and LWC has not demonstrated a commitment to data driven fisheries management, nor have they demonstrated a commitment to habitat conservation. LA Creel has some potential, but pressure is needed for the data collection and use efforts to live up to that potential.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:39 AM
T-TOP's Avatar
T-TOP T-TOP is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: carlyss
Posts: 1,758
Cash: 2,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
I am saying that we're not home free and we need to maintain polite but firm pressure on CCA, LDWF, and LWC regarding improving the quality of the science and resource management based on good science. LDWF has had good fishery independent sampling techniques in place for a number of years (trawls and net samplings). There is also a lot of data from various federal agencies and studies and from university research.

A good fishery-dependent survey would add to the base of data available, but over the past decade CCA and LWC has not demonstrated a commitment to data driven fisheries management, nor have they demonstrated a commitment to habitat conservation. LA Creel has some potential, but pressure is needed for the data collection and use efforts to live up to that potential.
agree
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-09-2014, 09:58 AM
meaux fishing's Avatar
meaux fishing meaux fishing is offline
fish name
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Meaux
Posts: 12,531
Cash: 22,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
I'm not so sure.

The LDWF has some risk of becoming like the US EPA using hidden data that they claim supports restrictive regulations without making the data and scientific rationale public. LDWF has released no data since 2010, and the LWC has an established pattern of passing regulations without supporting scientific data. When LWC was challenged to do a more thorough review of existing triple tail data before passing limits, they refused and instead passed the restrictions in a secret meeting in which the meeting minutes were not subsequently published in the usual way.

My personal observations of the LDWF creel survey at Calcasieu Point has not boosted my confidence that the LA Creel results will yield "the most accurate data to date." I observed the LDWF surveyer approach anglers and only ask where the fish observed on the cleaning station were caught, before returning to sit in his truck.

The anglers were not asked:

How many anglers contributed to the catch?

How long did the group fish?

What species were the group targeting?

How many fish were caught and released?

Do the fish on the cleaning station represented the entire take for the trip?

In fact, one group of anglers had a whole unopened box of fish they had caught that had not been emptied onto the fish cleaning station yet.

I've participated in creel surveys in other states, and I have also reviewed the fisheries literature regarding sampling techniques needed to acquire accurate fisheries data from fishery dependent surveys. The above questions are all essential parts of acquiring accurate data to help managing a fishery.

It seems more that LA Creel is more of a public relations effort to justify the increase in license fees than a legitimate attempt to improve the scientific quality of management. Given my personal observations, I tend to have more confidence in LDWF's fishery independent sampling (nets and trawls), the data our team has collected over the past four years, records of tournament results regarding the availability of trophy trout, the steady stream of observations and reports here at SC, and my personal observations and interactions on the lake and at the boat ramp.
sounds to me like a lazy surveyor.. I was asked most of those questions in some form or another by a girl in fourchon
__________________
Brookshire Farm 100% Grass Fed Beef
http://www.brookshirefarm.com/


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spunt Drag View Post
Thanks, I'm just livin by the code: Paint face, Shoot Beretta's, Bounce the Hen.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-09-2014, 11:10 AM
noodle creek's Avatar
noodle creek noodle creek is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lake charles
Posts: 1,590
Cash: 2,787
Default

There will probably be a lot of dancing around questions, indirect answers, and maybe even a little bit of lying. However, I hope that it doesn't go like that.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-09-2014, 11:35 AM
Clampy's Avatar
Clampy Clampy is offline
Ling
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Flats
Posts: 3,509
Cash: 5,500
Default

Couldn't someone do a
" freedom of information act " request and get the hidden data they have ?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-09-2014, 11:41 AM
LadyFishKiller's Avatar
LadyFishKiller LadyFishKiller is offline
Flounder
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sulphur, LA
Posts: 93
Cash: 516
Default

From what I was told by a person in the know with CCA, the meeting is being held to let people vent, and that little actually materializes from these things. BUT if a ton of us come out and voice our concerns he says we'll be hard to ignore.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-09-2014, 11:56 AM
redroaster redroaster is offline
Redfish
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bossier City,la
Posts: 147
Cash: 333
Default triple tail

is the new size and creel limit in force on triple tail yet?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-09-2014, 11:57 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampy View Post
Couldn't someone do a
" freedom of information act " request and get the hidden data they have ?
We've made a number of FOIA requests of various government agencies and been consultants on lots of court cases where the attorneys used various combinations of FOIA requests and discovery motions and investigatory techniques to try and acquire information.

For the most part, FOIA requests are of limited utility if basic written requests for information are being rebuffed with lawyerly letters. We've been successful getting fisheries data simply by making polite written requests about half the time. Unfortunately, all of our success has been with agencies other than LDWF, because they firmly believe they need to keep a lid on all their saltwater fisheries data right now.

I expect FOIA requests right now would be expensive and unproductive and put LDWF in even more of an uncooperative posture. Such requests are basically voluntary, since parties need to go to court and get compliance orders once they are refused. I expect public pressure for LDWF and CCA to move toward more open, data driven fisheries management to be much more productive than arm twisting and legal action.

If LDWF and LWC remain uncooperative and feel entitled to continue to keep their data hidden while imposing more restrictive regulations, then the proper approach will be to move toward lawsuits in which the discovery and deposition process should prove useful in uncovering the available data and assessing its quality and relevance with respect to management actions. At the discretion of the attorneys, some FOIA requests might also be part of this process.

But FOIA requests are often seen as steps toward an adversarial legal process, and I don't recommend anyone hint at steps in that direction right now, as adversarial relations with LDWF and LWC are ill advised.

CCA and other mechanisms TX anglers are using to exert disproportional pressure on LA fishing regulations are the bad actors whose influence needs to be significantly diminished. LDWF are on our side, and now that Drost is gone, I am optimistic that LWC can begin improved decision making also.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-09-2014, 12:01 PM
OnePunchRex OnePunchRex is offline
Redfish
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Da Beach
Posts: 247
Cash: -1,758
Default

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1404925288.132787.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-09-2014, 02:41 PM
duckman1911's Avatar
duckman1911 duckman1911 is offline
Sailfish
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Otis
Posts: 4,194
Cash: 5,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnePunchRex View Post
Attachment 70963


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thats freakin funny Rex.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - [ARG:3 UNDEFINED], Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007 - 2008, PixelFX Studios
SaltyCajun.com logo provided by Bryce Risher

All content, images, designs, and logos are Copyright © 2009-2012,
Salty Cajun, LLC
No unathorized use is permitted
Geo Visitors Map