Colorado's findings on limited buck harvest

fishon

fishon

Very Active Member
Messages
1,052
Since all of you love Colorado I thought you would like this study and findings. It proves the only point I am trying to make. Reducing buck harvest has a NEGATIVE impact on fawn production.

So yes, You will have more bigger bucks but it comes and the price of the health of the deer herd. So how long until it crashes because less fawns are going into the system?

Last time I checked big bucks have NEVER had a fawn.....

Enjoy these FACTS from Colorado.

Effect of limited antlered harvest on
mule deer sex and age ratios
Chad J. Bishop, Gary C. White, David J. Freddy, and Bruce E. Watkins
Abstract In response to apparent declining mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) numbers in
Colorado during the 1990s, buck harvest limitations were identified as a possible mechanism
to increase fawn:doe ratios and hence population productivity. Beginning in 1991,
the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reduced buck harvest in 4 deer management
units to provide quality hunting opportunities. We examined effects of limited harvest on
December ratios of bucks:100 does and fawns:100 does using data from limited and
unlimited harvest units. Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in
limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51
fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE
= 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in
response to limited harvest. Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were
regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment
is not justified in Colorado. Limited buck harvest should be considered an issue of
quality hunting opportunity rather than deer productivity.


Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
 
Thanks for posting that up Tony. I believe that. You wouldn't happen to have a reference to any studies done by our biologists with regards to Utahs deer herd would you? I can't find anything that is published for public viewing.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-10 AT 09:27PM (MST)[p]Seriously? That's the big study all the anti micro management crowd is quoting like scripture?

It's how old?

When did Colorado go to it's current system? Any idea how many doe tags Colorado offers? Even on it's high profile units? And why?

If you can get some of Colorado's current big game managers on record stating that their management doesn't work better than Utah's you'll have something.

If you can get a handful of guys that have hunted both Utah and Colorado the last 10 years to tell me Utah does it better you'll have something.

But that study doesn't do much for me. Especially because I've experienced first hand the difference.

How about this Colorado deer forcast...
http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdon...2-AEC4-64A7C142D0AA/0/2010BigGameForecast.pdf
 
PAUL

It does not do much for you because it does not say what you want. If it supported you then you would believe it.

Bottom line is cutting out hunters makes more bucks and less fawns. HOW LONG CAN THAT BE HEALTHY? Can Utah in as poor of shape as it is really survive less fawns?

I dont think so.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-10 AT 09:35PM (MST)[p]They said: "Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were regulating population productivity"

So, that was their conclusion. Not that limiting buck harvest lowered fawn production. They proved the opposite (that reducing buck harvest did not increase fawn production) not your contention.

Their study/data might support your contention, but they didn't gear the study they way you are implying.

Unless I am misunderstanding you or them?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
dont know how to post CO. DWR stats but its under the management plans for deer. They have a graph that shows buck/doe ratios and fawn/doe ratios on the same graph. I'll take D-22 since they have a high buck/doe ratio at 45/100 objective. There was no change in fawn numbers after buck hunting was limited in 1999 even though buck numbers shot up.In fact even when buck numbers were at their lowest, fawn numbers were not any higher they were actually lower. Pretty much every unit that had that graph showed fawn numbers following buck numbers. When the buck #s were high the fawn #s were high and vice versa. Graphs were from 1980-2005. Not one year. I didnt see anything in the graphs i looked at that would lead me to beleive in the long term higher buck/doe ratios will hurt deer populations so long as your within carrying capacity. Certainly not 18-25 bucks per 100 does.
 
Tony,

If Utah went back to unlimited general season deer tags would it make a difference? Good or bad?

If Utah's general rifle deer hunt was 30 days instead of 3, 5, or 9 would it make a difference? Good or bad?

What was Utahs population in 1980? What is it currently? What is it projected to be in 2020?

I have my opinion. I've based it off of 20 years or so of hunting Utah, and hunting multiple Western states for the last 10 years. The majority of the out of state hunts have been on average public land units. I haven't personally had a general season Utah tag for a number of years, but I spend a lot of time with friends and family on utah's general hunts. I've been on general hunts in all 5 regions, I spend a fair amount of time all across our great state. And I'm fairly in tune with Utah's hunting industry.

Utah is struggling. Our current deer management is fair at best. I don't pretend to have the answers. I do know that given the choice I'd take an out of state tag
over a general Utah tag. I think other states are doing a better job-especially Colorado.

There will likely always be some great deer shot all across the west and all across Utah. Even on the cache, monroe, nebo, etc. Even if tags were unlimited a few bucks would sneak through. Maybe even enough to breed your 100 does.

But overall things are in sad shape and it's time for a change.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-10 AT 10:17PM (MST)[p]Tony

I see that in all your post you need to be right. You only post part of your data/point not bothsides

If you use Colorado data to prove your point, then why is Colorado cutting tags to get their numbers up. According to you they should be given more tags to increase numbers.

Dude step outside of your box and listen to what you saying it doesnt make any sense.

How do you save money by cutting your expenses not by spending more?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-10 AT 10:19PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-10 AT 10:17?PM (MST)

Where is the study that shows what happens other things are done?

In no order of priority:

1. Reduce predators, not all predators, just those out of balance with the prey base (deer).

2. Close some calculated access, not the entire unit but access that allows areas of escapement on ranges that are flat on top, criss-crossed with a thick network of vehicle roads and trails. Close them during hunting season open at other times.

3. Develop freeway crossing systems that allow deer to use their historic and winter survival migration routes. Fencing deer away from freeways has been a major disruption to mule deer survival in some areas of Utah.

4. Develop winter supplemental feeding solutions for long heavy spring snow winters.

5. Developing methods of moving deer into new areas, if trapping and dumping doesn't work, we'll study and develop other methods that will work.

6. Reduce year round pressure where ever possible. Every unit is different. Study where pressure is coming from and reduce it.

7. Make sure the habitat restoration being done is specifically for deer. Ripping out old sage and cedar and reseeding it with 95% crested wheat grass is more harmful to deer than the old sage was.

8. Rather than giving out mitigation antlerless tag to land owners, stop, no more. Other solutions must be develop with landowners on units where deer are below objectives such as cash payment and/or lifetime deer easements that pass with the deed if the property is sold. They are issuing 300 depredation tags for doe and fawns on Monroe Mt., what in the hell is going on with that? TELL ME HOW THAT IS BIOLOGICALLY SOUND!!

How many times do we need to say this:

In spite of what some folks claim, for most of the people that have supported option #2, IT IS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY BUCKS ANYMORE, THOSE DAYS ARE PAST, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DOES AND FAWNS WE HAVE LEFT. WE WANT MORE DEER IN OUR UNITS, WE ARE TELLING YOU, THE DEER NUMBERS ARE NOT THERE ANYMORE, THEY HAVE BEEN SLOWLY DISAPPEARING SINCE THE 1980'S OR LONGER. IF WE CAN'T GET MORE DOES AND KEEP MORE FAWNS EVERY YEAR, IN A FEW MORE YEARS, THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH DEER TO HUNT AT ALL.

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, WE CARE ABOUT HUNTING AND OPPORTUNITY BUT WITHOUT HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE DEER HERDS HOW CAN WE EXPECT FUTURE GENERATIONS OF HUNTERS TO HAVE MULEY TO HUNT.

I DARE SAY EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WENT TO THE MICROPHONE AT THE RAC MEETINGS AND ASKED TO HAVE THEIR HUNTING PRIVILEGES REDUCED SO WE COULD HELP THESE DEER HERDS COULD AND MOST LIKELY DOES KILL A DEER EVERY YEAR. THESE PEOPLE ARE THE DEER KILLERS NOT THE GUYS THAT HAVE TO HUNT A LIMITED ENTRY UNIT TO GET A BIG DEER. ONCE AGAIN IT IS NOT ABOUT KILLING BUCKS!!!!!

CUT THE CRAP GENTLEMEN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIMITED ENTRY HUNTING FOR GROWING MORE INCHES, IT'S ABOUT GROW YOUR OPPORTUNITY BY REVIVING YOUR DEER NUMBERS.

THIS IS NOT 1965, THESE DEER HAVE EVERY THING STACKED AGAINST THEM AND WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO HELP THEM.

WHY NOT USE YOUR ENERGY AND YOUR CREATIVITY TO HELP YOUR DEER HERD?

The DWR asked that we give them time. No thanks, they've know this was going on for years, they've had enough time. Here's what time it is, it's time to take some of their independence and indifference and their never ending excuses away from them. I want leadership, I want pro active advocators, I want Agency employees who are asking us, "what can I do to help"? I'm sick of reasons we can't. I don't want to wait to see is if some new study on elk will help, they've done elk studies, their impact on deer is non-conclusive, too may variable to pin anything on elk for sure. I want somebody that will roll up there sleeves from the Division and call a meeting in every single unit in Utah, I want their biologist there with positive attitudes, brainstorming with landowner and sportsmen, leading the discussion, making suggestion on what CAN be done or how we CAN change something so some thing else can be done. I've had a gut full of the folks that tell me,"this is as good as it can be", I say bull #####, if that's what you think get the hell out of the way and let someone else that want's to take a run at it try. I want doers we've had enough quiters.

Sorry, I'm just a little pissy tonight!

DC
 
Chad Bishop, one of the biologist/signers on that study is an excellent example of a caring but objective biologist. I have talked with him on many occasions and if there is a study available in CO you can call him because he will know about it, if it exists. And he will send you a full copy. He's awesome.

Having said that, I believe the study may be true and 7% decline in fawn recruitment is substantial, but whether it's due to buck increase alone does not make sense. If it is stating directly that an increase in mature bucks has no positive impact on fawn recruitment, then why all the hoopla about how mature bucks breeding instead of immature bucks breeding makes healthier fawns? Whew, that was a mouthfull!!!

Where is the proof/studies about that. I've always heard a deer herd with plenty of mature bucks for breeding create healthier fawns because the does will favor a mature buck over a youngster. Does anyone have proof or know of a study on that???

I've hunted CO deer for 20 years and it has always been better than UT simply because all the 4 point bucks you'd see. Even before 1999 when they went to totally limited tags, it was way better than here/UT. I've always believed it was because they were micro managing their deer and keeping the buck to doe ratios high. How can that not be good for the herd???

Steve
 
I'm serious about the Utah studies!! I have looked everywhere I know (I'm not the best computer person) and I can't find any. I don't know how much of this is true but I heard that even the studies done by our DWR biologists won't ever be seen. Apparently the DWR doesn't want the public to know what they are finding. If this isn't true then where are all the studies? You would think that prominent studies would even be posted on the MDF website. Not true. Can't find them there either.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
There was an article published not long ago by a Utah biologist that isn't "on the clock" anymore for the DWR.

In a nutshell he confirmed what I believe. That higher buck to doe ratios lead to healthier herds. Mature bucks do the majority of the breeding. Fawns are born earlier and healthier. They have higher survival rates, etc... I'm more prone to believe this from a biologist that's living doesn't depend on selling deer tags.

Just curious if anyone knows what average buck to doe ratios are like in areas that aren't hunted by "human" predators-national parks, private ranches that don't allow hunting, etc???

I'll buy into the elk argument in certain areas. Especially areas with a lot of predators as I think deer continue to get creemed when predators have another food source. I'll buy into habitat loss, fire supression, roadkill, atvs, human disturbance, under grazing, over grazing, etc....

But I realize that human hunters can and are a huge limiting factor. We kill deer. A deer is no "deader" if it's killed by a gmc, Subaru, barnes, nosler, muzzy, rage, sabot, conical, or a flipping sling shot. Dead is dead and I don't understand why that's so hard for some guys to grasp.

Game managers manage hunters. Our whole conservation system has been setup for hunters to manage game-by killing them... To think that hunter numbers, days in the field, and success rates don't affect big game populations is rediculous. One only needs to look as far as our famed fishlake elk herds, and plateau antelope herds to see how much we can flub up an area in a short amount of time by HUMAN predation.

The wasatch front is a prime example of a quality deer unit that has literally no winter range, plenty of predators, etc.... But is balanced out to offer a qualtiy hunting experience for mature bucks because HUMAN predation is managed via archery only. Success rates are low due to weapon and terrain. One could say the unit is MICRO managed-oh my...

I could go on and on, but frankly I realize that posting on here is little more than AGENDA setting and good old entertainment.
 
Found a few on google search that cover road kill, and habitat but nothing that goes towards the buck to doe ratios. I'm with Prism on this one though. I would trust a professional that doesnt' have to worry about losing his job if he produces something contrary to the DWR's agenda. Like Prism said, there are so many factors involved including the # of hunters in the field, that to think we can expect healthier deer herds in the near future by only taking care of a couple of issues is absolutely nuts!! Micromanaging IS a step in the right direction. The reason the DWR doesn't want to do that is because it will require more work out of them. They just might have to get out of the cab of their trucks and do an actual count and study habitat instead of relying on "models" that they use to plug in their imaginary numbers.

By the way, in the past 5 or 6 years, I have only seen 1 (ONE) DWR employee on the Wasatch while hunting. ONE! That's only 30 minutes to the center of the unit from a division office!! I do believe they would have to up the patrol a little if they went to smaller units.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
This is for fishon!

I just want to add something here for you to think about!

Keep in mind,I'm not a Bioligist & I share mostly the same views/experiences/opinions as Prism & AWLB!

At one time in Utah it wasn't a real big deal if 2 Points were doing alot/some of the Breeding,For GAWDS sake they were packing good Genetics even though they mighta only been a FRICKEN PISSCUTTER,a little age is all they were lacking!

Now days,you got alot of PISSCUTTER/DINK Bucks doing the Breeding that are total JUNK & would never reach 140"s if they lived to be 12 years old,their dad was a Spike & their dad was a SPIKE & their dad was a SPIKE & their dad was a SPIKE & their dad was a SPIKE & their dad was a SPIKE and now that Spike is Breeding his Mother,He'll never get a chance to Breed his Sister or Nieces cuzz he won't make it past age 2 before some TARD shoots his Ass,You'll probably be quick to tell me Tony He needs to be shot,Ya you're right in a sense but what you gonna do kill all these inbred PISSCUTTERS to fix the problem?

Is it just me or my eyes playing Tricks on me?
I hunt Colorado once in a while!
Them Colorado Deer on average are way bigger body size than Our Utah Deer,Don't even argue with me Tony,A 5 year old Buck in Colorado will almost make double of a 5 year old Buck in Utah if you can find one?

Looks like alot of the Henry Bucks have some size to them Tony,WTF?

I'd appreciate some answers Tony,just once!





God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
 
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I am familiar with the ONE unit in this ONE YEAR study. You are defending this study without regard to the previous winter, the spring/summer drought conditions, predators, and the grazing practices in this desert country? There are very few deer in this unit, and they are concentrated. All it takes to get your numbers is a dry spring, ranchers move cattle into a pasture with more water, happens to be a favorable place to fawn, does are stressed, pushed around, and fawns gobbled up by the million coyotes. Your study could be 100% correct, but I tend to want to see more data than a one year study in a dry ass prairie unit.
 
You guys are all complicating this with common sense! Knock it off before someone catches on!!!!!

If you look long enough and dig deep enough you can usually find a study to support whatever point you are arguing. If this is the most recent and best example Tony can come up with I think it shows exactly where his logic is at?


There are not enough deer in Utah...FOR REAL.
 
I think Paul/prism asks a very good question Tony. In a large chunk of good deer real estate that is not being hunted, what would you think the buck to doe ratios are??? The only sensible answer would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/4 to 1/3 bucks to does. My opinion only. Also, I've heard you say it only takes 7 bucks to breed 100 does. Does that mean those 100 does only require 7 bucks or do they require some mature bucks to do some of the breeding? To have a decent number of mature breeding bucks, let's say 3.5 year olds+, then you will have many yearlings and 2.5 year olds as well. Maybe that's why WY and CO try to keep the POST HUNT buck numbers up. I think harvest stats might be a good indication of buck quality in a unit.

One thing we can all agree on is Utah needs more deer, especially does. But besides cutting doe tags to 0 what else can we do? I personally don't give a rats a$$ about carrying capacity because I know that almost all areas in UT can carry more deer. What can we do??? Let's join together in a common approach so everyone at your meeting doesn't get laughed at with all the different ideas and no clear cut solution. Solutions people, let's hear solutions.
 
I have been out doing some post hunt counts in the southern utah area in several different places. The best day I had out of 5 has been a buck to doe ration of 6 bucks per hundred doe, the other areas were all less than that. The DWR tells us that it takes 10 bucks to a 100 doe to do proper breeding. Do you think we have been fed bull crap numbers for years now and we really do not have enough bucks to cover all of our doe herd, thus less fawns?
 
Fishon, Since you brought in the Colorado/Utah comparison seriously look at Colorados management plan for each of GMU's compared to what Utah threw together. Their is way more detail and actual #s supporting their research and not "biological theorys". They have at least 25 yr's worth of breakdowns of population #s, buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios, and weather patterns during those years of fluctuation, elk numbers in the wintering ground during hard winters and were deer were pushed too and the effects on the browse in those grounds. Seriously, The Colorado has more factual info for 1 GMU than our DWR has for the entire state. Plus they actually dont boob and ##### when the sportsmen and hunters think things need to change. They just get it done.

After reading threw Colorado's DWR management practices and listening and reading Utah's DWR's management theories, Its not habitat, its not predators, its not highways, its our beloved fish and game!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-23-10 AT 11:40AM (MST)[p]Well what is the total Buck : Doe ratio for these areas of study?

I can gaurantee it is higher then the 20-25:100 ratio Utah is AIMING for.

1) We have less bucks in the first place, the ratio is screwed up.

2) Does are selective and won't breed with a small buck until their 2nd cycle. That means we need more mature bucks to woo the ladies.

The study is interesting, but maybe it does not apply in Utah. If CO has a 40:100 ratio, we are a FAR cry from getting there anyway.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Lets rewind to 1999 when CO finally said enough is enough and begin to micromanage the states deer herd. At the same time, SFW,DWR,and MDF really started pushing the habitat issue by selling more and more conservation tags to fund these projects. Now fast forward to present day 2010. Colorado continues to crank out good bucks with overall hunter satisfaction being good, whilst Utah continues to fly the same dam flag......habitat, habitat, habitat. We may not be capable of growing and managing a deer herd, but by heck we have proved we can grow habitat.We have had the wool pulled over our eyes my friends for way to long.My biggest beef with conservation groups who are pushing habitat funding and projects is we have been doing it for well over 10 years with the promise that our deer herds will get better, yet Utah's deer herds haven't improved; they have gotton worse! So either we haven't been doing as much habitat improvement as we claim we have, or habitat is not the biggest issue.One thing is for certain. Biologists and hunters have a different opinion on what a healthy deer herd is and that is why these biological studies and findings have zero merit.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-23-10 AT 10:09AM (MST)[p]Bucktaxi ask-Where is the proof/studies about that. I've always heard a deer herd with plenty of mature bucks for breeding create healthier fawns because the does will favor a mature buck over a youngster. Does anyone have proof or know of a study on that???

Read Valerius Geist book-- Mule Deer- He says that mature bucks are absolutely essential in healthy stronger mule deer herds. The does will choose to breed with the buck that has the biggest "headgear"--- This has something to do with the best genetics being passed on, which in turn helps produce bigger and healthier fawns.
 
Not long ago two neighboring states got hit by huge winter storms. Within days of the heavy snowfall one state started an emergency feeding program. It took the other state weeks and in some areas months to start emergency feeding. In many areas it was too little too late.

Both states lost a lot of animals. Concerned for its animals, one state made huge sacrifices and cut tag numbers by more than 50% in well micro managed areas. The other state did nothing in compare. It's management plan just pushing hunters to other areas within a "region."

is it really that hard to see what's goin on?

Ok I'm done with this. May the wildlife board make the best decision for our mule deer.
 
I think that is EXACTLY Utah's problem. We don't have enough bucks to breed the does at all. Plus, a doe is selective and will often not breed with a small un mature buck until her 2nd cycle. That puts the fawns on the ground later, making them younger and less likely to survive their first winter.

The best thing Utah can do is get some mature bucks to breed their does.

CO has a higher Buck to Doe ratio then what Utah is even AIMING for. Our "prime" number is what 20-25 bucks to 100 does.

Maybe we need to go out and artificially enseminate some does on their first cycle. Do that for a few years just to boost the numbers of deer period.
 
I would like to know when the study was done? For a few reasons.
From 1990-2010 there have been some huge winter kills. Bucks and fawns both died. You can cut buck tags. And bring buck to doe ratios back up in a hurry by doing this. One thing that can not be aruged is there are more deer in colorado now than before they started miro-managing.

Can I get a link to this study?
 
I live in colorado and i have been reading alot of post about the deer numbers in utah. Boy this does sound alot like our mule deer prior to draw only.. we had the same issues during the OTC tags days.. I could go out and see 60-70 does and only 1-2 small bucks.When the hunters complaned. the the dow said the same stuff you guys are dealing with. The deer are there but the hunters are lazy, stupid, or drunk. but after awhile they could not hide it anymore and they adressed it. The DOW said they got it! we have to many does! to many old dry does that are not breeding, so they up the doe tags and darn near wiped out the deer, I went from 60+ to nothing!.. the hunters really went off!! and finally they went to the draw,, trust me they went kickin and screamin.. the hunters had to keep the pressure on! The deer herds are no where near what they were in the 70's or the 80's. but they are getting better.. good luck and keep your foot on there neck!
 
Even if you cut tags then the success rate will still remain around 33% If you micro-manage areas then the success rate will even be higher because with less pressure then most of the time it's easier to kill a buck.
 
The only possible way a buck of ANY size would hurt the fawn crop is IF the heard was at MAXIMUM carrying capacity...correct me if I am wrong, but I can't think of any units that are at maximum capacity in UTAH....In my opinion I don't know what the answer is but we need to increase the base herd before we do anything, and none of the options so far seem to increase the herd.
 
I have attended the racs and kept close eye to multiple websites trying to gather information. I have looked all over the Utah DWR website for study?s that supported the information that they presented. I was not able to find anything.
Today I had finally had enough. I went into my local DWR office and I wanted some answers. I was told that if I want to see the studies I have to request them from the Salt Lake City office. That is fine I sent in my request.
I was also able to talk with the Biologist for S. Utah. I asked him about his buck to doe ratio numbers in S. Utah. I specifically focused on the Southwest Desert which has the highest buck to doe ratio in the state with 29 bucks per 100 doe. I asked him how accurate this number is and how many deer were counted to come up with this number. I was told directly from the biologist that they counted 137 deer to come up with the 29 buck per 100.
Serious 137 deer? If you take the Utah DWR estimated population count for the Southwest Desert they have 1600 deer. That means they pulled the buck to doe ratio from 8% of the total deer population from that area.
That is our problem. The bogus numbers that are crammed down our throats are the problem. You guys can argue for option 1 all you want but until you break it down and really address the issue nothing is going to change. I am positive that the Southwest desert is not the only area that we have with inaccurate counts. You can post all of the one year study?s you want.
However the proof is in the pudding. Look at the results form some of the surrounding states.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_2376.jpeg
IMG_6957.jpeg
33D38EF5-5AE3-4791-B3EC-F06612A6F0E2.jpeg
IMG_1386 (2).JPG
one.JPG
8EE3A4C1-809B-487F-B1F8-7CA646FC84A2.jpeg
078F0CD7-A55A-4057-B600-05F49766680E.jpeg
4F665966-B81B-4EC2-ADA0-9DD5EE17E99D.jpeg
IMG_7659_20221129_140103.jpg
Heavy Buck
Screenshot_20220109-190339.png
20140913_094949.jpg
Back
Top Bottom