New Mexico Fees

wmidbrook · Feb 4, 2009

I don't think draw odds will change much if the credit card payment option is eliminated--just my personal opinion but we'll see by what percent, if any, the overall number of applicants drops.

I'd rather see states charge a higher application fee rather than hold onto tag monies for a few months....3 months worth of interest on $750 at a 5% interest (I'd be shocked if they even got that...probably more like 2-3% interest) for 3 or 4 months would be $10-15 per applicant. They could make more with application fees.

tule elk · Feb 4, 2009

CA elk tag odds

California definitely does not have the best odds, but if you have max points and do not mind a cow then many of the hunts have decent odds with a few that guaranteed you a cow tag last year.

Klamath antleress 8 tags (to max points) - 6 max point applicants
La Panza P1 antleress 5 tags (to max points) - 3 max point applicants
La Panza P2 antleress 5 tags (to max points) - 1 max point applicants
FHL P1 antleress 6 tags (to max points) - 5 max point applicants
FHL Archery antleress 4 tags (to max points) - 2 max point applicants
Tinemaha P1 antleress 5 tags (to max points) - 3 max point applicants
Cache Creek antleress 1 tag (to max points) - 10 max point applicants
Bishop P4 antleress 3 tags (to max points) - 22 max point applicants
FHL P2 antleress 6 tags (to max points) - 22 max point applicants
Tinemaha P2 antleress 7 tags (to max points) - 14 max point applicants
Tinemaha P3 antleress 7 tags (to max points) - 17 max point applicants
Tinemaha P4 antleress 7 tags (to max points) - 12 max point applicants

But basically not a ton of elk with over 26,000 applicants

hank4elk · Feb 7, 2009

I guess I have to figure those out better,or guess better.At least I got a point for not drawing a cow tag.I haven't bothered with a bull tag the last few years,tho a friend has drawn the La Panza bull TWICE and filled both on public land.Some of us are blessed that way. I drew my second choice ,first time in NM last year.

subfan · Feb 9, 2009

bpnclark said:
QUOTE (SDHNTR @ Jan 29 2009, 07:28 AM)

My point is not that points suck, but more that CA sucks. I have said this about 3 billion times on this site and I’ll say it once more. I have max points on every animal and I have never drawn a tag. I have never met anyone that has drawn an Elk, Antelope or Sheep tag. I know that there are +400 people going for the same 1 tag and I understand there aren’t enough animals for everyone to hunt; but it just sucks when you have been putting in for a Tule Cow tag for +15 years and can’t draw a tag.

I’m really now concentrating starting my points in the other states and not wasting them on easier draws. But its nice to have states like NM where you have at least a chance on getting a nice tag on your first time applying (like I did last year

).

What would you like to see happen to remedy this situation?

sancho · Feb 9, 2009

as i understand it, only 10% of the tags are alloted to non residents in new mexico. am i correct?

crazy, that way. the state would make way more $$ if non res foot the bill. i wish they just jumbled the names in one big pot and let the chip fall where they may.

my brother is planning a new zealand trip to hunt. the money goes very far there. he is doenst save $ so he can go. i will just have to look at his pics.

any of you guys ever hear of that flourishing elk herd in japan? nobody hunts them anymore. japan is looking for hunters. now that would be the ultimate hunt trip of a lifetime. sushi, sake, and a japanese archery tag. cool.

hank4elk · Feb 9, 2009

12% non-res. guided,10%non-res. Unguided. Way more than most states.22%

bpnclark · Feb 9, 2009

subfan said:
What would you like to see happen to remedy this situation?

I would like to see a CA Tule elk tag in my mailbox.

rayin :

But I think there is no real solution to the problem. We have way too many people trying to hunt the same animals. But here are my suggestions that can help –
<O

1. Make CA Sheep, Elk and Antelope tags once in a lifetime tags. If you draw and you get the animal; you’re done. If you want another animal, go out of state.
<O

2. Put mountain lions back on the big game list. That will help the populations of our game animals.

hank4elk · Feb 9, 2009

BP, you got it right. This state is crawling with lions and the deer are taking a nosedive. And your suggestion on the once in a life time might not be too far off mark,at least for Tule bulls, sheep and antelope. INMO

fishnhunt · Feb 9, 2009

sancho said:
as i understand it, only 10% of the tags are alloted to non residents in new mexico. am i correct?

crazy, that way. the state would make way more $$ if non res foot the bill. i wish they just jumbled the names in one big pot and let the chip fall where they may.

Not everything should be about the bottom line...The states are responsible to their residents first and nonresidents as tags allow. Look at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = " border=" /><st1:State>california </st1:State>elk tags....I am competing for only one elk tag and I'll draw sometime around my 90th birthday.
<O

</O

I have thought for along time that point systems are unfair in the way their designed. Take for example the percentages of tags that go to point holders (90%)...Why not drop that percentage a little bit to say 60 or 75% (like Oregon) so that both newbies and point holders have a chance of drawing tags. <O

</O

Taking it a step further hunts with less than 5 tags should have no points applicants. Take for example bighorns in california's<ST1

</ST1

Marble/Clipper Mountains hunt. With 4 tags available 3 go to preference point only and only ONE is available to random draw. Last year there were 888 max point applicants for those tags. Those tags will never cycle through in my lifetime and since I missed the first year I will never draw a tag. So instead of competing for four tags I only have a 1 in 2250 chance (I'm better off buying lottery tickets so I can purchase a tag) whereas if they were all random I would have a 1 in 562 chance of drawing a tag....Is that fair???? I don't think so. <O

></O

>
Another change I think should be made benefiting people living in hard to draw areas (often hard to draw hunts with low human density). Thinking in terms of OR<ST1

</ST1

(but just as applicable to ca<ST1

</ST1

) most people live on the west side with OTC rifle tags. Whereas the few of us living on the <ST1

east side</ST1

have to compete for extremely limited tags. We either have to decide not to hunt, archery, or drive 6+ hours to hunt. Most of our problems having to do with our tags being more desirable. The change I would like, would be to provide a percentage of the tags (say 30-45%) to people residing in the county where that zone covers (say 20%+ of that zone must be within the county of residency). Just my two cents....<O

></O

>

subfan · Feb 10, 2009

Totally agreed on the Mt. Lion issue. I sent Arnie an e-mail years ago asking for the state to consider allowing this hunt. In addition, the state could allow you to import your trophy from another state for an import fee of say $100. They generate revenue from the import tax and the fees associated with allowing CA Mountain Lion hunting. I never heard back from the Terminator. Why do we continue to elect these idiots?

magurley · Feb 10, 2009

[FONT=&quot]I just got a questionnaire in the mail yesterday from NMGF regarding 6A and 6C. It seems some landowners want to combine the two units because they are not getting a good harvest rate in 6C. I forgot the document at home, but I will scan it and post it so you can see what they are proposing for the 10-11 season. I looked on the NMGF website and could not find the questionnaire posted. I don't know what this would mean for any of you guys (out of state). But for me, I think it would be disastrous! Comments?<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mike<o></o>[/FONT]

<o>
</o>

weekender21 · Feb 10, 2009

I would have to agree. I already filled out the questionnaire and sent it back to NM. They pretty well persuaded me when they said all the public land hunters that usually hunt 6C would all hunt what is currently 6A. Hunters were spread out fairly well where I hunted in 6A last year but there were plenty of us up there! I would hate to have the number of hunters double in that area.

magurley · Feb 10, 2009

Weekender21,
I am glad to hear that NMGF sent this to out of state hunters as well. 6A is a well maintained area, not too many hunters, and good elk numbers. I live in 6A and would not welcome the amount of people hunting in my back yard that NMGF proposes. I believe that you out of state hunters would get short changed in the long run. I bet the number of tags would go down, and the chances of you getting a tag would be next to impossible! Unless of course you paid for it! I say Bullcorn! I hunt one area, I have never seen another hunter in it, and have harvested 5 bulls in 4 years with my friends. No pressure, no idiots, and great memories. It seems that elk numbers are low in 6C and landowners want to sell those landowner tags for more money to you so they can make more money.

hank4elk · Feb 10, 2009

Mike ,that is kind of the jist I got when I was there last year and talked to some NMGF personel that shall remain un-named(You and I talked about this) I would hate to see your good hunting unit changed ,thats why I scouted it when I went to hunt 44/45. I only saw one crowded area,if you can call 6 camps crowded. And I didn't see many elk in6c,except near Caldera in unhuntable area.I'm sending a comment to office too. NM does have some unknown great areas,those are ones I've been drawn to. Well,I do still want that Gila bull.... I'll be seeing you in about 8 months. Oh yeah, the offer of SLO county blacktails and pigs still stands.... your welcome anytime at my place.

magurley · Feb 11, 2009

I appreciate the offer Hank! I think that these land owners can be compensated by getting a split on the tags. Instead of 12 6c tags, the would get 6 tags - 6A, and 6 tags- 6C. It would be a better solution instead of joining the two areas. Just my opinion.

hank4elk · Feb 11, 2009

That sounds reasonable,and will be included in my comments to them. At least in NM they make it easy to be involved in proccess,even non-residents get to have some input.I know it rubbs some natives wrong for non -residents to have a say in what goes on in their state ,but most hunt units in west are on USA/Public lands. We ALL are owners and responsible for them.IMHO

magurley · Feb 12, 2009

Here is the news release.<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format

ther; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Britannic Bold"; panose-1:2 11 9 3 6 7 3 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color

urple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:935480153; mso-list-template-ids:-1204143184;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5C150198%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="Edit-Time-Data" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5C150198%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_editdata.mso"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5C150198%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5C150198%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Britannic Bold"; panose-1:2 11 9 3 6 7 3 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Britannic Bold","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color

urple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:"Britannic Bold","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:935480153; mso-list-template-ids:-1204143184;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style><o></o>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 503px; height: 833px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="height: 1.25in;"> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 6.65in; height: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="638">
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 6.65in;" valign="top" width="638"> New Mexico Department of Game and Fish<o></o>
Media contact: Dan Williams, (505) 476-8004<o></o>
Public contact: (505) 476-8000<o></o>
dan.williams@state.nm.us<o></o>
<o></o>
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 6.65in;" valign="top" width="638"> [FONT=&quot]FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, FEB. 10, 2009:<o></o>[/FONT]
<o></o>
[FONT=&quot]SURVEY TARGETS SUGGESTED ELK HUNTING CHANGES IN JEMEZ MOUNTAINS<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SANTA FE -- The Department of Game and Fish is conducting a survey of hunters, landowners and other interests as the agency considers proposals from a group of concerned landowners to change elk hunting rules and management objectives in Game Management Units 6A and 6C.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The group proposes:<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Combining units 6A and 6C into one unit.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Managing the elk population so that quality bull hunting is maintained or improved and the total population is allowed to grow.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Adjusting the Elk - Private Lands Use System (E-PLUS) formula to include agricultural crop use by elk as a factor in determining the allocation of private land elk hunting authorizations.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Adjusting the E-PLUS process to allocate more private land hunting authorizations as a form of compensation for property damage caused by elk.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The survey has been sent to all landowners in units 6A and 6C who are enrolled in the E-PLUS system, and all hunters who received a 2008-2009 public-land elk license for those units. Surveys were also sent to all registered outfitters authorized to operate in units 6A and 6C, United States Forest Service Ranger Districts within GMU 6, the Santa Fe National Forest Supervisor’s office, the Valles Caldera National Preserve, all Indian Pueblos within GMU 6, and will be hand-delivered to business owners in and around the area. Surveys must be returned to the Department no later than March 13, 2009, to be considered.<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For more information on this issue, please contact the Department's Wildlife Management Division, (505) 476-8037, or Department of Game and Fish, Wildlife Management Division, P.O. Box 25112, Santa Fe, NM 87504. <o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Survey results will be compiled and presented to the State Game Commission at the Commission's meeting in April.<o></o>[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]<o>
</o>[/FONT]</td></tr></tbody></table>

hank4elk · Feb 13, 2009

Thanks Magurley..

hntnnut · Feb 15, 2009

fishnhunt said:
Not everything should be about the bottom line...The states are responsible to their residents first and nonresidents as tags allow. Look at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = " border=" /><st1:State>california </st1:State>elk tags....I am competing for only one elk tag and I'll draw sometime around my 90th birthday.
<O</O
I have thought for along time that point systems are unfair in the way their designed. Take for example the percentages of tags that go to point holders (90%)...Why not drop that percentage a little bit to say 60 or 75% (like Oregon) so that both newbies and point holders have a chance of drawing tags. <O</O
Taking it a step further hunts with less than 5 tags should have no points applicants. Take for example bighorns in california's<ST1</ST1 Marble/Clipper Mountains hunt. With 4 tags available 3 go to preference point only and only ONE is available to random draw. Last year there were 888 max point applicants for those tags. Those tags will never cycle through in my lifetime and since I missed the first year I will never draw a tag. So instead of competing for four tags I only have a 1 in 2250 chance (I'm better off buying lottery tickets so I can purchase a tag) whereas if they were all random I would have a 1 in 562 chance of drawing a tag....Is that fair???? I don't think so. <O></O>
Another change I think should be made benefiting people living in hard to draw areas (often hard to draw hunts with low human density). Thinking in terms of OR<ST1</ST1 (but just as applicable to ca<ST1</ST1) most people live on the west side with OTC rifle tags. Whereas the few of us living on the <ST1east side</ST1 have to compete for extremely limited tags. We either have to decide not to hunt, archery, or drive 6+ hours to hunt. Most of our problems having to do with our tags being more desirable. The change I would like, would be to provide a percentage of the tags (say 30-45%) to people residing in the county where that zone covers (say 20%+ of that zone must be within the county of residency). Just my two cents....<O></O>

I kinda like that idea since I live within the borders of the gooddale buck hunt.:bounce-aqua:

rayin :

Richard

hank4elk · Feb 15, 2009

THAT would be good for you hntnnut, I feel for you sir.I haven't drawn it in 20 years and I live on the other side of the hill....but it does make drawing a NM elk tag very easy in compairison.:not-worthy:

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page

QRCode