|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New Bullion Basin lift, upgrade to High Campbell.. (Read 7881 times)
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
What strikes me as interesting is what everyone is concerned about is their access, be it purely BC or lift assisted or strictly lifted.
The Puget Sound skiing population has skyrocketed. Accessible skiable acreage really hasn't changed with the exception of Steven's backside. It's natural that this put us at odds: competition for resources.
But I think JoeDa gets the sagacity points for noting that all this web whinging doesn't really do much. You have to participate in your gubbermint.
I would really like to see more access of all types: more snowparks in MRNP, Stampede and Naches areas. And lifts @ Crustal accessing terrain currently not accessed by lifts.
WA has more wilderness area and fewer recreation resources per capita than any other mountain state. I'm not advocating the lift largesses of Yurp, but I really think there's room for the development of more resources.
If we want to waste out time bitching at each other about the minutia of the situation we just become Fox News fodder.
For those concerned, is anyone interested in writing to Crustal suggesting that a Campbell triple might make the skier density too high?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/14/11, 09:21 AM by Vera_Similitude »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
I will point out Vera's letter to the FS was also very helpful in the movement we had to reclaim the rights to ski into MRNP from Crystal. I'm sure he's not fetching for compliments, but his willingness to take on bureaucracy and bring back our rights to access FS and Park lands was significant to the cause. Many skiers take advantage of this daily, but don't realize that this (was) could have been gone. And special thanks to Crystal for acknowledging our rights and not closing access from Crystals boundary. I know they went through bureaucratic hell too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
One of the really sucky things about chatbored is how much they lead to divisive deteriorata.
Here's an opportunity for people to find common ground to challenge Uberaga or FS or WASHDOT policy.
Budget cuts have made this a bad time, but a passive wad gets no grease.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
One of the really sucky things about chatbored is how much they lead to divisive deteriorata.
Here's an opportunity for people to find common ground to challenge Uberaga or FS or WASHDOT policy.
Budget cuts have made this a bad time, but a passive wad gets no grease.
I hear and understand your point regarding the importance of making ones voice heard where it counts - to the people who are making the decisions. I for one have not been active regarding this issue, but will become so. Particularly when strategies such as bait and switch are discussed by Mr. Joedabaker.
It should be no surprise that people's emotions are triggered when the subject of putting chairlifts in a very popular touring location is discussed on a site dedicated to BC skiing. You would likely find a more receptive ear on TGR. This is particularly true when a group of Crystal Buddies seem to unite their voice and call out the BC community as apathetic and whiny with statements like the one below from the self proclaimed TAY Chief Etiquette Officer.
As I've said before BC skiers are an apathetic group of handwringing whiners who like to gripe after the event and bemoan the "good old days "and get excited about posts regarding the history of skiing and can hardly contain their excitement when Lowell post a picture of some dude from the 1950's in a now closed ski area. Interesting but for me, personally, history has only ever been useful to learn what mistakes were made so they don't get repeated and I think the future far more important. Although I strongly disagree with the attempts of the ALPs project and WAC's wilderness non motorized access and similar advocacy and I will use my meager and ineffectual voice to fight them tooth and claw, I grudgingly admire that they are trying to do something.
The expansion of BC use staggering and this state needs new winter access points to spread the load and avoid conflict.... so stop looking back....do something about it or STFU.
I appreciate the call to action, but I do not appreciate the notion that you must earn your right to have an opinion and express that opinion in a public forum.
Cheers,
Orion
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
I will go on record as a bitchy and whiney lift skier who extolls the virtues of the old days before snowboards and fatskis.
Does that help?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
What strikes me as interesting is what everyone is concerned about is their access, be it purely BC or lift assisted or strictly lifted.
The Puget Sound skiing population has skyrocketed. Accessible skiable acreage really hasn't changed with the exception of Steven's backside. It's natural that this put us at odds: competition for resources.
This is a conventional analysis and no doubt contains a lot of truth. But it does not accurately reflect my experience or viewpoint. I certainly support, e.g., more snoparks in Washington. But what drives my interest in ski area expansion is much more emotional. I'm not afraid I won't have anywhere to ski (although I believe that ski areas would vastly prefer to not have to deal with non-paying skiers around their permit areas). In fact in Oregon and Washington I would say the crowding problem for backcountry winter sports is not bad at all. On busy days, yes, the crowds at the prime spots are a PITA, but I usually have no trouble finding places to park and ski -- even on Saturdays with nice weather and fresh snow. On prime days I'm not alone, but I am often surprised at how few people I meet. I have always found that there is plenty to go around.
What rankles me personally about ski areas is the country club feel and the sense of entitlement that some employees and paying users display. It is a culture clash that I have felt since I started skiing as a small child. I should not occupy 'their' parking, etc. While I expect the lift skiing community to display some gratitude to society for allowing them to erect permanent structures to facilitate their for profit business in the forest, I don't see this. Instead I see businesses that operate with the attitude that they should be able to do whatever they can to the public land on which they operate that will make them money be it expanding lifts or real estate development. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pinko enviro-nut who just doesn't get it. I don't have a problem with folks paying to ride somebody's ski lifts. But your contract is with the ski resort, not with me, and if I show up and recreate in a legal and reasonable manner, you will have to make room for me, just as I have made room for your lifts, lodge, etc. I feel that resorts could pretty easily change the situation with a little PR -- but they have little incentive to court me as I'm not too likely to be a big cash cow for them (although as I get older I find myself in line to buy a lift ticket and sitting at the lodge bar more and more frequently).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
What rankles me personally about ski areas is the country club feel and the sense of entitlement that some employees and paying users display. It is a culture clash that I have felt since I started skiing as a small child. I should not occupy 'their' parking, etc. While I expect the lift skiing community to display some gratitude to society for allowing them to erect permanent structures to facilitate their for profit business in the forest, I don't see this. Instead I see businesses that operate with the attitude that they should be able to do whatever they can to the public land on which they operate that will make them money be it expanding lifts or real estate development. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pinko enviro-nut who just doesn't get it. I don't have a problem with folks paying to ride somebody's ski lifts. But your contract is with the ski resort, not with me, and if I show up and recreate in a legal and reasonable manner, you will have to make room for me, just as I have made room for your lifts, lodge, etc. I feel that resorts could pretty easily change the situation with a little PR -- but they have little incentive to court me as I'm not too likely to be a big cash cow for them (although as I get older I find myself in line to buy a lift ticket and sitting at the lodge bar more and more frequently).
Micah,
I grew up in Oregon and I have found that the Mt Hood resorts are MUCH less tolerant of touring activity than the ski resorts here in WA. To CM's, Alpental's, and Mt. Baker's credit ( I am not very familiar with Steven's policies), they are very accommodating to the BC community. CM will allow some uphill traffic in their boundaries and their ski patrol is encourages check-ins and discussion with them prior to touring. It is a very different environment than say at mount hood meadows.
Orion
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
This is a conventional analysis and no doubt contains a lot of truth.
If you look conventional up in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of me.
In fact in Oregon and Washington I would say the crowding problem for backcountry winter sports is not bad at all.
Then you would have no objection to a lift going to the top of East Peak based on accessibility? OK.
What rankles me personally about ski areas is the country club feel and the sense of entitlement that some employees and paying users display.
Funny, because I feel the same way about "BC" skiers who are doing the same thing I've been doing for a long time. Exclusion comes in many flavors.
It is a culture clash that I have felt since I started skiing as a small child. I should not occupy 'their' parking, etc. While I expect the lift skiing community to display some gratitude to society for allowing them to erect permanent structures to facilitate their for profit business in the forest, I don't see this. Instead I see businesses that operate with the attitude that they should be able to do whatever they can to the public land on which they operate that will make them money be it expanding lifts or real estate development. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pinko enviro-nut who just doesn't get it. I don't have a problem with folks paying to ride somebody's ski lifts. But your contract is with the ski resort, not with me, and if I show up and recreate in a legal and reasonable manner, you will have to make room for me, just as I have made room for your lifts, lodge, etc. I feel that resorts could pretty easily change the situation with a little PR -- but they have little incentive to court me as I'm not too likely to be a big cash cow for them (although as I get older I find myself in line to buy a lift ticket and sitting at the lodge bar more and more frequently).
I guess my point flew right over your head. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
I guess my point flew right over your head.
Perhaps. I was simply elucidating some of the reasons I tend to oppose resort expansion despite the fact that I like to ski and even utilize lifts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
This is particularly true when a group of Crystal Buddies seem to unite their voice and call out the BC community as apathetic and whiny with statements like the one below from the self proclaimed TAY Chief Etiquette Officer.
Uhmm...
The Chief Etiquette Officer is on his own island when it comes to opinion about BC skiers attitudes.
I don't share the same opinion.
And we are not buddying up, to call out complainers. Heck we talk about other stuff like skiing.
My sole objective was to have the ones who are crying get out a scratch pad, or form a caucus of other like minded users and put down what objectives that need to be addressed and send it to the proper people who handle those issues.
That is what we did and it got some results, not the ones I wanted, but at least we did something.
It does not make me better than anyone, it just gives me data and experience to back up my talk.
I think you get the wrong image of me. A lot of times when I am seen in the ski area by people I know, they say, "I thought you would be out walking around some place today."
Let's just say that we lost our argument with FS and the Park closing access to those SUP lines that connect with Crystal's ski area boundaries. There would be a heck of a lot more skiers going up the Bullion Basin area to East peak than there are now. Because BC access would have been cut off from the area. If you think Bullion basin is busy now, imagine how difficult it would be if you add 100 more skiers on a weekend to the regular total. I'm sure there would be some dissent then too. 100 ski tracks times 3 trips, do the math. So even the caucus work that we did payed off for your BC private experience now.
What if the ski area said, OK we will give you parking for BC skiers. We will give you the upper C lot since it is closer to the hike to Bullion. I think that they should place 5 shovels at the entrance to the lot and say clear your own parking spots. Why should we pay fuel to have your lot cleared for you when you are not adding to the area? And when you get lost or injured who handles the problem?
It's pretty obvious that no BC skier would park in that lot. NOW, If they offered/sold a permit for $500 a season to clear the lot for them and tow violators. How many BC skiers would anyone guess would buy the permit? My guess is less than 5. If the BC skier is REALLY looking for the real outdoor experience, dig out your own parking spot for your rig. If that is not cool, then maybe you need to abide by the rules of those who are doing the digging before you show up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
Micah,
I grew up in Oregon and I have found that the Mt Hood resorts are MUCH less tolerant of touring activity than the ski resorts here in WA. To CM's, Alpental's, and Mt. Baker's credit ( I am not very familiar with Steven's policies), they are very accommodating to the BC community. CM will allow some uphill traffic in their boundaries and their ski patrol is encourages check-ins and discussion with them prior to touring. It is a very different environment than say at mount hood meadows.
Orion
Agreed Orion. But I would point out that the Meadows (and Tline and Snowbowl) parking lots are snoparks while the WA resorts' lots are (to my knowledge) not. I think that is a better system anyhow, although I feel for folks that buy a season pass and then also have to buy a parking permit.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
I'm reading this really interesting book "The Price of Altruism" that is an attack on the conventional interpretation of evolution as "survival of the fittest". In population biology, an unconventional researcher by the name of George Price was able to show that it's not the fittest individual that survives, but the most cooperative consortium.
And coopretative consortiums actively support freeloaders.
So yes, there is some substance to the argument that the BC skiers are freeloading on the paying lift skiers since the road up to 4400 @ Crystal wouldn't exists without the ski area and the dollars the elitist lift skiers spend (or those that have parking passes ;-) ).
But that's part of what makes us work, what makes us succeed and what makes us human.
I'm not about to apologize for the snotty attitudes of other humans (and I'm not referring to JoeDa here since in my opinion, he's a fine human who I'd love to ski with more; it's just that I don't want to slow him down). I do apologize for attempting some levity if it's misunderstood.
But the amount of lift served skiing in the Puget Sound is dinky compared to other urban areas like SLC/Denver or even SF.
So here's some $ and time and love to make more BC skiing accessible and trying to see the advantages of thinking together rather than asserting differences.
I'll even try harder to not be offended because my ass is always last on the skintrack. I admit, I'm omniskisual.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/14/11, 12:39 PM by Vera_Similitude »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
So for you lift riders, what's your opinion of a triple for replacement of 6? Personally, I'd rather have a double and leave the density in the liftline instead on the hill.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
And coopretative consortiums actively support freeloaders.
So yes, there is some substance to the argument that the BC skiers are freeloading on the paying lift skiers since the road up to 4400 @ Crystal wouldn't exists without the ski area and the dollars the elitist lift skiers spend (or those that have parking passes ;-) ).
What if the ski area said, OK we will give you parking for BC skiers. We will give you the upper C lot since it is closer to the hike to Bullion. I think that they should place 5 shovels at the entrance to the lot and say clear your own parking spots. Why should we pay fuel to have your lot cleared for you when you are not adding to the area? And when you get lost or injured who handles the problem?
It's pretty obvious that no BC skier would park in that lot. NOW, If they offered/sold a permit for $500 a season to clear the lot for them and tow violators. How many BC skiers would anyone guess would buy the permit? My guess is less than 5. If the BC skier is REALLY looking for the real outdoor experience, dig out your own parking spot for your rig. If that is not cool, then maybe you need to abide by the rules of those who are doing the digging before you show up.
Both of the above are only valid if Randy's assertion below is not true.
I'm pretty sure that terms of Crystal Mountain's special use permit don't allow it exclude the non-ticket buyers from accessing the land and use such facilities as the public restrooms.
In terms of access rights -- the land owner for the Crystal area is the USFS and it is they that determine the terms of the lease to the resort operator -- I suppose if CM wanted to they could have tried to get lease terms that would have allowed them have a gate/ticket booth at the turn off from Hwy-410 -- I would imagine that would been a lot more difficult -- probably would have required an outright sale of the land -- how much would that have cost ?
So the price that CM pays for having access to public land is allowing access to the public.
On a related note -- even ski areas that operate on private land may need to allow access to the non-paying public -- the most amusing example of this are the Summit ski areas located in Kittatas county (East, Central, West) -- Back in the '80s the county tried to levy an "admission tax" on the price of lift tickets -- the ski area fought back by insisting that the lift tickets were only for riding the lifts -- not for admission to the ski area.
So while it might be possible to operate ski areas along the lines that Scotsman suggests -- requiring paid access to any area of the facility -- that isn't the way it has been done in Washington for a wide array of reasons.
Does anyone know if Crystal's Permit details are available to view on-line? I've emailed the USDA BB project manager asking him, hopefully he will provide some insight.
edit to say: Joe, who is not following CM's rules? I get the feeling you think I and others are anti-ski resort. While I can only speak for myself, I can say that that is not the case. I am glad CM is there and am glad they seem to operate the resort with many users in mind. I just would rather they pursue resort expansion into other terrain that is not so heavily traveled by touring skiers AND I believe not paying skiers are not free-loaders; They are tax-payers accessing public land.
Orion
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/14/11, 01:03 PM by orion_sonya »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
So the road would be there and plowed and maintained if Crystal Mountain wasn't there? Or George Prices proof is wrong?
Is there anyone out there who can pull off their identity hangups anhd really read and understand?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
So the road would be there and plowed and maintained if Crystal Mountain wasn't there? Or George Prices proof is wrong?
Is there anyone out there who can pull off their identity hangups anhd really read and understand?
I'll go back to my parent's cabin on a FS lease. They plow the road in the winter, but they cannot restrict who uses that road.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
I'll go back to my parent's cabin on a FS lease. They plow the road in the winter, but they cannot restrict who uses that road.
I can't be sure, but I really, really doubt that the road to Crustal would be plowed if it weren't for the paying lift riders.
To that extent, bc skiers are freeloaders. But as I said, we all freeload on one another so forget the Fox spin on the term "freeloaders". We need each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
I can't be sure, but I really, really doubt that the road to Crustal would be plowed if it weren't for the paying lift riders.
To that extent, bc skiers are freeloaders. But as I said, we all freeload on one another so forget the Fox spin on the term "freeloaders". We need each other.
Oh, I am nearly positive the road would not be plowed without CM, but as Randy stated earlier, that is part of the price of doing business on FS land - providing some free services to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
I'll go back to my parent's cabin on a FS lease. They plow the road in the winter, but they cannot restrict who uses that road.
I'm pretty sure that plowing is done by the private (pool) funds provided by the lease holders.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
I'm pretty sure that plowing is done by the private (pool) funds provided by the lease holders.
That is exactly my point - My parents plow the road to their cabin, yet they cannot determine who drives on that road.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
prestonf
Member
Offline
Posts: 102
|
So yes, there is some substance to the argument that the BC skiers are freeloading on the paying lift skiers since the road up to 4400 @ Crystal wouldn't exists without the ski area and the dollars the elitist lift skiers spend (or those that have parking passes ;-) ).
I'm sure you're just goofing off and trying to push buttons and I shouldn't bother to post in this thread, but it's lunch time and I've had too much coffee.
I think you're argument that "BC skiers" are freeloaders and never ride lifts or support ski areas with their dollars is pretty silly. I'm sure that we all hang out with different crowds and sort of self-segregate, but all the "BC skiers" that I know spent many years exclusively riding lifts prior to becoming "BC skiers," most still ride the lifts frequently, and many continue to buy season passes. You keep saying that we should think together rather than assert our differences, so if you really want that you (as well as Micah, Orion and others who only ski the BC) should recognize that there are a lot of folks out there who like the resorts for what they are (fun!) and like the backcountry for what it is (fun!). Typically, these people have spent and will continue to spend an awful lot of money on the ski industry through gear purchases and lift tickets. Sure, some people poach and think that they are entitled because they can, but I and I'm sure many others think that is theft.
I wouldn't be surprised if Crystal management realizes this to some extent, and at least hopes that by maintaining good dialogue and relations with people using their lots (that they are going to plow anyway) to access nearby backcountry is indeed good business.
So the road would be there and plowed and maintained if Crystal Mountain wasn't there? Or George Prices proof is wrong?
Is there anyone out there who can pull off their identity hangups anhd really read and understand?
Would Crystal Mountain ski area be there if the miners weren't there before them??? Who cares. If CM decides to charge for parking in their lots, then that is there choice (if it is legal for them to do so), but I think that while you may like it, other regulars would not and might instead buy lift tickets at White Pass or Stevens Pass where free parking is offered, resulting in a net decrease in profits.
Also, comparing population biology and George Price to something as frivolous and pointless as skiing at Crystal Mountain is a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with lift expansion IMHO, but I haven't read the book.
Personally, I think that density off of the High Campbell lift is fine as it is and I would like to see that maintained as is. But, I would also prefer to have a lift that can stay open in reasonable amounts of wind. I personally think that the terrain and aspect off of the King is much better than that off of East Peak and I'd be happy to see a lift to the top. The Bullion Basin expansion seems to me to be expansion for the sake of expansion, but what do I know...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
Oh, I am nearly positive the road would not be plowed without CM, but as Randy stated earlier, that is part of the price of doing business on FS land - providing some free services to the public.
Free as in freeloader, which again for the umpteenth time is not intended as a jibe.
It's part of who we humans are.
And I'm in support of it, just like I'd be more than happy to have my tax money used to maintain some snopark below Cement basin or Stampede Pass or White River even if I never used it.
Crystal is one of very few places where any lift development is allowed in WA. Lift served acreage is far beyond Comfortable Carrying Capacity (or the Crystal Conservation Coalition) anywhere in the Puget Sound.
Also, comparing population biology and George Price to something as frivolous and pointless as skiing at Crystal Mountain is a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with lift expansion IMHO, but I haven't read the book.
Nothing like a well informed and considered response.
But I think I'm done. This is a hopeless divisive quibble.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/14/11, 01:30 PM by Vera_Similitude »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
edit to say: Joe, who is not following CM's rules? I get the feeling you think I and others are anti-ski resort. While I can only speak for myself, I can say that that is not the case. I am glad CM is there and am glad they seem to operate the resort with many users in mind. I just would rather they pursue resort expansion into other terrain that is not so heavily traveled by touring skiers AND I believe not paying skiers are not free-loaders; They are tax-payers accessing public land.
Orion
Thanks for the feedback Orion,
I don't think that you are anti-resort. Not in the least.
Randy is right to a degree.
I do agree that they are tax payers, but the holders of the SUP decide who can access their permit area land. They could ban all uphill traffic in the area if they choose, since they hold the liability of the contracted area. They choose to be tourer friendly to the degree of safety of their customers at this time. Even If you are kicked off the mountain and lose your Crystal pass, you are not allowed back on the SUP area at all even if you pay taxes for the land. Just like logging, yes it is on public lands with contracts sold to private parties to log. But you cannot freely access the land when they are in operations, just because you are a taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
prestonf
Member
Offline
Posts: 102
|
Nothing like a well informed and considered response.
But I think I'm done. This is a hopeless divisive quibble.
Well, I apologize if my response wasn't well-informed and considered, but you know nothing about me or my background. How could you??? I'll have to check out the book though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vera_Similitude
5Member
Offline
Posts: 32
|
Well, I apologize if my response wasn't well-informed and considered, but you know nothing about me or my background. How could you??? I'll have to check out the book though.
We've met several times.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.721 seconds with 21 queries.
|
