PDA

View Full Version : Question: Bigger issue for sportsman



brian breuer
11-23-2008, 07:45 AM
Which do you see as the bigger issue for sportsman?

Issues such as from Kevin's thread about "U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D- CA) toppled Representative John Dingell (D- MI) as Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee." which raises concerns about 2nd amendment / increased gun control.


Or do you see it from standpoint of loss / damage to our wild places? Such as this article: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/george-bush-trying-to-squeeze-in-last-minute-environmental-legislation.html

I apologize, I first saw it in Newsweek but couldn't find the article back when I had time to post here.

Bob Gutermuth
11-23-2008, 07:53 AM
The threat to my right to keep and bear arms is much more important. I love to hunt, but I have firearms for other reasons as well, mainly personal security. Sad part is that most of the tree huggers are also anti gun.

dixidawg
11-23-2008, 08:20 AM
There are very few things more important to me than the 2nd amendment.

JS
11-23-2008, 11:01 AM
I live in a small metropolitan area; around 100,000 in 3 adjoining cities. Our crime rate is about average for a town our size.

I have never personally felt the need to carry for personal protection. That's not to pretend that threats don't exist and I do not think more or less of someone in another area who feels otherwise. I feel it is our right.

That said, I have no problem being required to jump through a few hoops to buy or own a gun. I acknowledge that no gun regulation will keep a gun out of the hands of all criminals nor prevent all violence. I do, however believe that some "crimes of passion" occur that may not have occurred if it were a little more difficult to get your hands on a gun. The red tape required is a little like standing in line to be frisked in an airport ... it won't eliminate all danger but if it helps a little, it's what I need to do.

I don't believe our right to hunt is in jeopardy. Having been active in politics (serving on platform committees of the Democrat party at the district and state levels) during the later 60's and early 70's ..... the most liberal of times for the party in my memory ..... I know that, even during those times there has NEVER been a critical mass interested in banning hunting. Those few extremists who were, were never taken seriously.

I think the loss of habitat and available hunting grounds poses a far greater threat to hunting than any possible loss of guns simply because the incentives, financial and otherwise, for business interests to invade the wilderness are far greater than the incentives to take away our guns. And, as we all know, money talks.

JMO

JS

achiro
11-23-2008, 12:06 PM
Which do you see as the bigger issue for sportsman?

Issues such as from Kevin's thread about "U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D- CA) toppled Representative John Dingell (D- MI) as Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee." which raises concerns about 2nd amendment / increased gun control.


Or do you see it from standpoint of loss / damage to our wild places? Such as this article: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/george-bush-trying-to-squeeze-in-last-minute-environmental-legislation.html

I apologize, I first saw it in Newsweek but couldn't find the article back when I had time to post here.
I'm confused, what part of that article talks about us losing our "wild places"?

achiro
11-23-2008, 12:22 PM
I don't believe our right to hunt is in jeopardy. Having been active in politics (serving on platform committees of the Democrat party at the district and state levels) during the later 60's and early 70's ..... the most liberal of times for the party in my memory ..... I know that, even during those times there has NEVER been a critical mass interested in banning hunting. Those few extremists who were, were never taken seriously.
Groups like the HSUS are MUCH more mainstream now than they have ever been before. If you seriously think that the 70's liberalism is even remotely comparable to todays then you are really ignoring what is going on behind the scenes.


I think the loss of habitat and available hunting grounds poses a far greater threat to hunting than any possible loss of guns simply because the incentives, financial and otherwise, for business interests to invade the wilderness are far greater than the incentives to take away our guns. And, as we all know, money talks.
JS
I do agree with this to some extent but at least realize/acknowledge that the anti groups are trying to eliminate hunting opportunities by closing public lands.
The thing that many folks think is that a single bill will suddenly try to take away guns or hunting all together. Thats not at all how it works they increase prices on ammo and/or guns to the point that they aren't affordable for most people. They close this hunting area then that hunting area. People can't find places to go or afford guns to hunt with and the in 20 years the hunting population is at such low numbers that they don't have the power to prevent the legislation and the rest of the world just doens't really care enough to learn about it and bam, it's all gone.

Hoosier
11-23-2008, 12:56 PM
No one aspect of the shooting sports has enough support to stand on it's own. If handgun competitors are taken out of the game, we are playing with a smaller base. Same goes for those who like to shoot military style weapons, or trappers. The more players they can take out on our side the more disproportional their advantage is. Thats how we will be beaten. First will be the assault style, then 50 caliber, then handguns, then different styles of hunting weapons. Finally we wont have enough support to keep our shotguns and hunting rifles.

dixidawg
11-23-2008, 01:22 PM
Exactly. We will be incrementally disarmed. Divide and conquer still works to this day.

Hunters don't care about "assault weapons". Rifle shooters don't care about handguns. etc etc, etc,

JS
11-23-2008, 04:44 PM
Groups like the HSUS are MUCH more mainstream now than they have ever been before. If you seriously think that the 70's liberalism is even remotely comparable to todays then you are really ignoring what is going on behind the scenes.

So tell me what you were doing in the 70's that leads you to this conclusion? And what "behind the scenes" intel are you privy to today that the rest of us are not?

I understand the HSUS and others have an agenda and are well funded, but they are FAR from mainstream.



I do agree with this to some extent but at least realize/acknowledge that the anti groups are trying to eliminate hunting opportunities by closing public lands. Yes, closing public lands is to the liking of the "anti" groups for obvious reasons. But it does not follow that these "anti" groups alone are or can be successful in closing public lands. Or that all closings of public lands is due to their efforts. There are many more reasons public land might be closed. Just like game management may impose lower limits on hunters. Doesn't mean they are against us hunting. Might be good game management.

And don't forget land development, mining, drilling, land development, farming methods that leave no natural habitat, land develpoment, and on and on. ALL OF THESE ARE IMPORTANT but nevertheless have an impact on hunting.



The thing that many folks think is that a single bill will suddenly try to take away guns or hunting all together. Thats not at all how it works they increase prices on ammo and/or guns to the point that they aren't affordable for most people. They close this hunting area then that hunting area. People can't find places to go or afford guns to hunt with and the in 20 years the hunting population is at such low numbers that they don't have the power to prevent the legislation and the rest of the world just doens't really care enough to learn about it and bam, it's all gone.I understand the slippery slope thinking and it should not be not dismissed out of hand.

I also understand that HSUS, PETA, et al should not be taken lightly.

But the question posed was which is the larger issue for us? It doesn't take much to debunk the real motives of these groups and when push comes to shove, in the minds of most rational citizens (even the liberals) they will lose the debate.

JMO

JS

brian breuer
11-23-2008, 04:52 PM
I'm confused, what part of that article talks about us losing our "wild places"?

What part of damage didn't you understand in my original statement?

Never mind Russ. You also stated a while back that oil production has no noticeable impact on wildlife. I can't have a discussion with that mentality.

Brian

achiro
11-23-2008, 08:10 PM
Never mind Russ. You also stated a while back that oil production has no noticeable impact on wildlife. I can't have a discussion with that mentality.

Brian
I suppose it would be difficult arguing a point when it's wrong.

Julie R.
11-24-2008, 11:16 AM
So tell me what you were doing in the 70's that leads you to this conclusion? And what "behind the scenes" intel are you privy to today that the rest of us are not?

I understand the HSUS and others have an agenda and are well funded, but they are FAR from mainstream.

Yes, closing public lands is to the liking of the "anti" groups for obvious reasons. But it does not follow that these "anti" groups alone are or can be successful in closing public lands. But the question posed was which is the larger issue for us? It doesn't take much to debunk the real motives of these groups and when push comes to shove, in the minds of most rational citizens (even the liberals) they will lose the debate.

JMO

JS

JS, just so you know, HSUS is actually now very mainstream and it happens to have a very effective grassroots campaign that on the surface, appears to be aimed at helping homeless animals that we awful humans breed willy nilly and drop off at shelters. Of course we on this site know they have an ultimate agenda of ending all hunting, meat eating, leather using, animal research, etc. but the average person thinks they're a nice organization helping unwanted shelter animals. Even more insidious, HSUS thinks an animal life is worth more than a human life. But they are smart enough to present themselves in an oh-so-reasonable way as they recruit our increasingly urban population. Heck, they have even gotten many schools to introduce "humane" curriculum to impressionable children.

Given that most people think the HSUS is good, they care about animals, and they have our best interests at heart, it's ridiculously easy for them to recruit support on a local, state and national level for their divide and conquer initiatives. The same people that think HSUS helps all those poor abandoned kitties and puppies that festoon their mailings have no problem agreeing that yes, it's a great idea to ban hunting in public areas, using animals for science research, or whatever other nose-under-the-tent restrictions HSUS supports. In most cases HSUS staffers have actually written the restrictive local, state or federal legislation (PAWS anyone?) and simply found a friendly legislator to introduce it.

Remember also in the 1970s it was fairly common for kids to have at least a grandparent or someone they knew that hunted and/or came from a farm background. So they at least had a chance to hear about hunting and slaughter of beef, pork and chicken in a factual, positive manner. It is the rare child today that does not think meat comes from a tidy wrapped package in the supermarket. Bambi, and the HSUS mindset, is the way kids today are raised to think of animals.

So yes, we ALL should be afraid of the additional power HSUS will have with this new, ultra liberal administration and congressional majority.

backpasture
11-24-2008, 12:18 PM
It is hard for me to say that one issue is more important than the other. It seems that idealogues are either for one or the other, as 2nd Amendment rights are a pet issue for the right, and the environment is a pet issue for the left.

I seem to find very few people like myself who are both 'gun nuts' and 'enviro-whackos'. Personally, I would love to see sportsmen show the same passion for the environment as they do for the 2nd Amendment.

Not holding my breath, regards.

Marvin S
11-24-2008, 12:41 PM
It is hard for me to say that one issue is more important than the other. It seems that idealogues are either for one or the other, as 2nd Amendment rights are a pet issue for the right, and the environment is a pet issue for the left.

I seem to find very few people like myself who are both 'gun nuts' and 'enviro-whackos'. Personally, I would love to see sportsmen show the same passion for the environment as they do for the 2nd Amendment.

Not holding my breath, regards.

I have no idea what the paid subscription &/or additional readers of Field & Stream, Outdoor Life & Sports Afield are, but I do not believe these popular magazines to be one issue publications.

While it is convenient to pigeon hole groups of individuals I believe most individuals to be somewhat centric regarding these issues, recognizing there are those whose intentions are somewhat less honorable than what they profess. So a strident approach is a negotiating tactic to head off the wacko's.

I am sure our little city would desire I be more 1 issue oriented, along with my right to pack permit I am driving them nuts with my insistence that we make use of our natural assets in implementing the city's Storm Water Plan. The beauty of Elk, Deer, Geese, Ducks & other associated wildlife is something the youngsters of tomorrow should be able to view.

JS
11-24-2008, 03:33 PM
Julie,

While I do realize that HSUS, PETA, and other AR groups are well organized, funded, politically active and recognized as viable, I do not agree that makes them “main stream”.

You and I and nearly everyone here knows of HSUS’s unstated motives and missions. It’s a waste of time to preach to this choir. We know they are extremist organizations with deceptive names and are skillful at presenting their views. Who among us is not in favor of “ethical treatment of animals”? Who of us doesn’t treat our own animals “humanely” and think that is the right thing to do?

My disagreement is that their agenda would ever be found palatable to many. When I say, “It doesn't take much to debunk the real motives of these groups” I mean it. Have you ever had a rational conversation with one of their “supporters”? Next time you have the opportunity, try it. Explain to them, for example, that they are opposed to “people owning dogs”. They will look at you like you are crazy. But then ask them “if their extreme restrictions for mandatory spaying and neutering were implemented, where will you be able to buy the puppy you may want 10 years from now?”
Explain how they pour through endless hours of video and documents to “uncover” an instance of abuse and then make a grandstand news item of it.

I have had conversations like this with at least a dozen folks just in passing and have never failed to at least get them to acknowledge “I didn’t realize that” or “I never thought of it that way”. I think I have changed at least a few minds. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have changed any minds by yelling or ranting at them or by calling them uninformed, idiot, wacko tree huggers. I probably would have just confirmed that I was another one of those “blood & guts wackos”. You will never be able to reason with the hard core cases ... forget them and move on. Those are NOT the mainstream, they’re just the noisiest.

There is a very good “write your congressman” post quoting a release from ASDA over on the training page. It’s long but it should be required reading. It describes us as a silent majority who are fairly ineffective because we spend our time ranting to each other about the threats while the “antis” are quietly going about spreading their message. They say that we (pet owners) are something like a 4-1 or 5-1 majority over HSUS sympathizers. I contend that our majority even much, MUCH greater. If you get face to face with those sympathizers, you find that they are casual, everyday citizens who don’t give much thought one way or another to pet ownership but if asked about “treating animals humanely”, of course, they will respond “yes”. Their support is very soft and when presented the “rest of the story”, they are usually pretty rational and reasonable.

Legislation gets introduced everyday. That takes nothing; tell a staff guy to write up blah, blah, blah, get a couple cosponsors and call a news conference. When the debate takes place, their agenda won’t fly with the average Joe.

JS

Julie R.
11-24-2008, 04:50 PM
Julie,

While I do realize that HSUS, PETA, and other AR groups are well organized, funded, politically active and recognized as viable, I do not agree that makes them “main stream”.

JS, I would argue that they are, in fact, much more mainstream than the USSA or any single hunting or gun rights group, perhaps even the NRA. Children are now preached HSUS crap in elementary schools. As I said in that earlier post, it all sounds reasonable simply because they don't know any differently; they're too far removed from even knowing anyone who hunts or farms.



My disagreement is that their agenda would ever be found palatable to many. When I say, “It doesn't take much to debunk the real motives of these groups” I mean it.
I have had conversations like this with at least a dozen folks just in passing and have never failed to at least get them to acknowledge “I didn’t realize that” or “I never thought of it that way”. I think I have changed at least a few minds. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have changed any minds by yelling or ranting at them or by calling them uninformed, idiot, wacko tree huggers.

While you and I may have had conversations with 'at least a dozen' count on the fact that for every 'convert' you enlightened, two or three hundred more got their self-sticky HSUS address labels with the lil kitties and pups in the mail and used them. Or they got a PETA, HSUS or HAHS calendar (the latter is hooved animal humane society, one of my pet peeves because of the anti-horse slaughter crap, but I digress....) Most people honestly think that the shelters are overflowing with puppies that us evil breeders dropped off and that spay/neuter will solve all that. So they send in a few bucks to HSUS and when they next hear HSUS-sponsored, they think: "Oh, they are a good group. OK, I'll support that new law."



Legislation gets introduced everyday. That takes nothing; tell a staff guy to write up blah, blah, blah, get a couple cosponsors and call a news conference. When the debate takes place, their agenda won’t fly with the average Joe.

JS

Yes, getting legislation introduced takes nothing. But when was the last time you heard of any of 'us' introducing legislation? Yet HSUS does it every day on a local, state and national level. They have a large, well funded staff devoted to doing just that. And THAT is what I mean by them being mainstream. Some of their stuff passes, you can expect with the increase in numbers of their friends in this new administration, a lot more of their initiatives will become law. Throw enough crap on the wall and some of it sticks.

I did read the long post you put up on the other board and agree fully. But then, I'm not part of the silent majority you need to convince, either ;-)

Hew
11-24-2008, 05:15 PM
Children are now preached HSUS crap in elementary schools. As I said in that earlier post, it all sounds reasonable simply because they don't know any differently; they're too far removed from even knowing anyone who hunts or farms.
My wife was a public school teacher for 10 years at two different elementary schools. Both schools would receive HSUS bilge...including entire lesson plans complete with handouts, posters, stickers (an elementary-aged kid will shank his best friend for a book of stickers), etc. Many/most of the teachers would use the stuff without giving it any thought at all, as none of the materials had the overt bunny humper red-meat (pun intended) kind of stuff like we're used to seeing from them. It's all very subtle...but it is anti-hunting propaganda none-the-less.

JS
11-24-2008, 06:30 PM
My wife was a public school teacher for 10 years at two different elementary schools. Both schools would receive HSUS bilge...including entire lesson plans complete with handouts, posters, stickers (an elementary-aged kid will shank his best friend for a book of stickers), etc. Many/most of the teachers would use the stuff without giving it any thought at all, as none of the materials had the overt bunny humper red-meat (pun intended) kind of stuff like we're used to seeing from them. It's all very subtle...but it is anti-hunting propaganda none-the-less.

Hew and Julie,

I'm certainly not going to dispute what you say has happened in your areas, but my wife taught 5th & 6th grade science & social studies in public schools here for 34 years, retiring two years ago. She says that she never had any solicitation of any kind from any of these groups, never had any of their agenda or philosophy included in the curriculum, nor had it suggested that she should include it. Nor have any of her associates to her knowledge.

I suppose "be kind to animals" is a message that would be conveyed to students in some certain circumstances but what the heck, I remember that slogan from MY childhood! Certainly not something I would say "they are being taught". Must be a regional thing.

As far as address labels, etc., the only promotional item I have ever seen was a HSUS coffee cup that belonged to a "true believer". Something he purchased. Couldn't tell you how many Remington hats I have seen.

My only point about the legislation is that whenever something is introduced it makes news and the alarmists start wringing their hands. Seems to me it should come as no surprise they want to forward their agenda. Not saying we shouldn't watch and act accordingly. Just saying I don't believe that we have elected majority who is interested in taking away hunting rights. And the fear that the AR groups are "calling in their political markers" is a little exaggerated. There are a LOT of groups who have a LOT more influence than them.

JS

Henry V
11-25-2008, 01:07 AM
I have no idea what the paid subscription &/or additional readers of Field & Stream, Outdoor Life & Sports Afield are, but I do not believe these popular magazines to be one issue publications.

While it is convenient to pigeon hole groups of individuals I believe most individuals to be somewhat centric regarding these issues, recognizing there are those whose intentions are somewhat less honorable than what they profess. So a strident approach is a negotiating tactic to head off the wacko's.

I am sure our little city would desire I be more 1 issue oriented, along with my right to pack permit I am driving them nuts with my insistence that we make use of our natural assets in implementing the city's Storm Water Plan. The beauty of Elk, Deer, Geese, Ducks & other associated wildlife is something the youngsters of tomorrow should be able to view.
Marvin,
Yes, it is convenient to pigeon hole the "hook and bullet" crowd and the "enviro" crowd but in my experience with both of these groups there is an unfortunate disconnect which does not allow folks to usually recognize that they have 60-90% in common on the issues that would conserve their long-term interests. In my experience, it is mostly is due to misconceptions. The hook and bullet types assume the enviros are left wing radicals with PETA tendencies and the enviros assume the hook and bullet types just cling to their guns, etc. Overall, I do not think the hook and bullet publications do a good job at crossing this divide. The Izaak Walton League seems to be the most centric organization but it is not all that popular compared to other organizations.

I applaud your efforts on "natural assets" for stormwater management. I suggest you search "conservation design" to find model ordinances for communities to keep open space, plan for stormwater, and allow for economic development for the long term. There is also some good literature on "natural amenities" out there that may be helpful. There are also great suggestions out there on using or mimicking natural landscape features in stormwater design. The hard engineering approach is losing favor but older engineers may not be aware of this and LGU folks often don't have any interest in change. PM me to continue this discussion or post here to continue this diversion.

Hew
11-25-2008, 04:54 AM
I'm certainly not going to dispute what you say has happened in your areas, but my wife taught 5th & 6th grade science & social studies in public schools here for 34 years, retiring two years ago. She says that she never had any solicitation of any kind from any of these groups, never had any of their agenda or philosophy included in the curriculum, nor had it suggested that she should include it. Nor have any of her associates to her knowledge.
Maybe the HSUS figures that kids in Iowa are so much closer to the business end of a sausage link that they didn't want to waste their money. :confused:

Here's a website with HSUS-supplied lesson plans for pre-school through 6th grade: http://www.kindnews.org/teacher_zone/lesson_plans.asp Note that the only place where you'll find anything identifying the site as HSUS (including the URL) is at the very bottom, in teensy weeny type. Google "hsus lesson plans" and you'll get an eye-full of other scary stuff.

But I do get your bigger point, JS.

brian breuer
11-25-2008, 07:56 AM
Thanks for the good discussion on this. I got sent on the road this week which adds 4 hours to my day so my time for contributions has been minimal.

I completely agree that it shouldn't be an either or issue. I only raised the (poorly worded) quesiton as to try and figure out which type of issue would be the most likely to decrease the level of our outdoors pursuits as we have them today.

In regards to Henry's comments, I think some "sportsman's" orgs are working towards crossing over. I was really pleased to see Morgan Freeman do his plug for DU. I also think the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation works hard on its mainstream image. Cooperation is key and I agree the moderates in both groups have very similiar goals.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Brian

JS
11-25-2008, 09:58 AM
Marvin,
Yes, it is convenient to pigeon hole the "hook and bullet" crowd and the "enviro" crowd but in my experience with both of these groups there is an unfortunate disconnect which does not allow folks to usually recognize that they have 60-90% in common on the issues that would conserve their long-term interests. In my experience, it is mostly is due to misconceptions. The hook and bullet types assume the enviros are left wing radicals with PETA tendencies and the enviros assume the hook and bullet types just cling to their guns, etc.... snip ...


Excellent point Henry, and very well stated.

I have forever been bewildered by the divide between these two interests. Never been much of a fisherman but I have enjoyed most of my life in the outdoors hunting (mostly bird hunting), but also backpacking, hiking & climbing, canoeing & rafting, and for many years spent nearly all my vacation time on my bicycle. (Father Time has significantly scaled all that back! :sad:)

I guess I can understand the "enviros"' anti- "hook & gun" attitude more than vice versa. It's a selfish attitude, but at least I can understand how one can enjoy the outdoors without necessarily carrying a gun or tackle. I cannot perceive continued hunting and fishing opportunities in a diminishing environment. We need to understand that our grandkids will not have the opportunity to enjoy any of these things if we do not take care of the environment as well as we preserve our gun rights.

I guess it's like a lot of life. We can agree on almost everything really, but we look hard for those things where we disagree and work ourselves into a frenzy trying to "enlighten" the other side to our way of thinking.

How did we ever get to the moon? :confused:

JS

Henry V
11-25-2008, 04:30 PM
How did we ever get to the moon? :confused:

JS

Did we? ;)

Steve Amrein
11-25-2008, 04:47 PM
The problem is that even groups like Boone and Crockett and Fair chase will throw other sportsmen under the bus when they don't like how game was killed. They were siding with HSUS in condemning tower shoots even though HSUS would ban ALL hunting if the chance was available. HSUS is a predator picking off not so popular forms of hunting with the end goal to be easier after most sportsmen have given up. The same goes for other outdoor sports such as mountain biking, Jet Skis and pleasure boating and off road vehicles.

Hoosier
12-09-2008, 02:26 PM
How to buy UGG sheepskin boots?Everyone who wear the UGG sheepskin boots will get many benefits. UGG boots are made to be worn barefoot as they will form to your feet and provide natural arch support. When buying a pair of sheepskin boots or ugg boots (premier brand in luxury and comfort footwear), there are many things to look for:First of all, you must make sure your sheepskin boots are actually made out of 100% authentic sheep skin. Some manufacturers use cheap substitutes such as gluing synthetic wool on to cow hide. These imitation sheepskin boots come at a cheaper price tag, but unfortunately the less expensive alternatives may cause skin irritations, encourage bacteria growth, wear down, tear quickly and noticeably less comfortable. http://www.shoppingugg.com When buying sheepskin boots, make sure they are manufactured from quality Australian Merino wool. Australian Merino sheepskin boots are considered the best material for making sheepskin boots and it also ensures that you will be able to use them for many years. Authentic wool also allows your feet to breathe and help reduce feet sweating. Merino sheep skin is by and large thicker and much more durable than other kinds of sheep skin, which helps your boots keep their shape as well as resist wear and tear. By purchasing sheepskin boots made from merino wool and sheep skin, you will be guaranteed that not only will they be the most comfortable pair of sheepskin boots you'll ever own, but they will also last for a long time to come. I have included some links if you would like to learn more about sheepskin boots or youwant to know where can buy some UGG Boots - Australia markets the premier brand in luxury and comfort. Their many products fit into your every day life offering you products that are fashionable, comfortable, and attainable.Ugg Boots have been made and worn in Australia/China for over 50 years and "Ugg" is not associated with any brand or style of sheepskin boot. So if your looking for real australian made ugg boots look no further than Shopping Ugg See our full range of Cardy UGG Boots (http://www.shoppingugg.com/cardi-ugg-boots), Classic Short UGG Boots (http://www.shoppingugg.com/classic-short-ugg-boots), Classic Tall UGG Boots (http://www.shoppingugg.com/classic-tall-ugg-boots), Metallic UGG Boots (http://www.shoppingugg.com/metallic-ugg-boots), Sundance UGG Boots and now even new Mini UGG Boots (http://www.shoppingugg.com/mini-ugg-boots)then you can find all the love from australia right here.

what the hell kinda crap is that

Steve Amrein
12-09-2008, 04:34 PM
what the hell kinda crap is that



Spammmmmmmmmmm

DoubleHaul
12-09-2008, 04:45 PM
Uggs are soooo 2007.