Printable View
The picture is of a bull with a very odd rack, my concern is that the person taking the picture did not have a bull tag and it taking the picture through their scope with the crosshairs on the moose.
To me this is against the basics of hunting, don't use your scope to scan for things, unless you intend to shoot the animal don't point the gun at it.
Why not use your binoculars to take this photo?
Because he didn't have any? Because that would be really hard to do? I don't have a problem with the picture. It seems he identified it as a moose prior to lining up on it, rather scanning with his scope and spotting it. He didn't pull the trigger. It's no different than me putting a bead on a flushing bird and saying "bang" instead of pulling the trigger, which I have done.
Admitting you have done something... does not make it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
You identify your target (as well as any potential dangers in the fore & background) BEFORE pointing a firearm at it, and only if you intend to kill it.
You do not point a firearm at anyone/thing just to look at them through the scope or down the sights.
Responsible and safe firearm use 101.
Clarification: this post was not aimed at Smallgamer as folks like him will not care or use proper firearm control regardless of who nags them. It was made for any young/beginning hunters reading the forums who may begin to think that unsafe firearm use is "okay".
The guy may have been unloaded, there may have been no risk of the firearm going off, the bolt may have been removed. What I am concerned with is that the OOD Magazine has this as a title picture but this is 100% contradictory to what we are all taught about gun safety and hunting. If that gun was loaded and it went off you now have an illegally shot bull moose laying in the bush somewhere.
If you identify the animal as a moose and then you look for sex, once you discover that the moose is not a shooter you should be moving your gun away from the moose as to not risk a bad thing happening.
When I saw the picture and story, I thought exactly the same thin.
There should have at least been some sort of disclaimer. This does go against safe gun handling and should not have been posted.
For those who think this is pom, how would you feel if it was a picture of another hunter in the scope?
I think this is apples and oranges as for the example of glassing a person the Canadian Criminal Code would probably come into play. I often have to glass a deer using my scope in the bush to identify sex (but I guess my tag is good for either). I did not see the pic in OOD, is it possible the scope was not even on the gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatthews
Go to www.oodmag.com, on the front page there is a pop up with a photo of the week. The scope is on the gun with the crosshairs on the area of the vitals. This was a submitted photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter1
I also agree this is bit over the top for OOD, as they are supposed to set an example.
They state explicitly in their rules on the submittal page:
"Photos must depict safe hunting and fishing practices (i.e. tags on animals, unloaded firearms, hunter orange, lifejackets on youth in boats and on docks). - See more at: http://www.oodmag.com/memory-bank/memory-bank-submission-form/#sthash.oezU51ga.dpuf"
aside from this it is a neat picture. but the one I submitted was way cooler!! stay tuned and it will be the winner next week ;)
is this thread for real?
I can't imagine going through life wondering what can I be offended by or take issue with today
You read it and and commented, so what's worse a silly thread, or someone that takes the time to read a silly thread then makes a negative comment. I'm going with the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by browning3812
I fail to see what's trivial about proper firearm control.Quote:
Originally Posted by browning3812
I noticed it too Fox. For an outfit that has such a hangup on tags being visible in all photos, that photo is out of place.
Somewhere in my hunters safety - going on 35+ years ago - were some rules - not using your rifle scope for binoculars and not pointing your rifle at anything but intended targets....although I do frequently break those - it doesn't make it right.
Firearms are not toys and playing with one to take a neat photo through a scope may be completely harmless, but it is not a good example of proper firearms handling.
good point about the tags in pictures. they cannot have it both ways...Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
WOW......where do you get off? You don't know me and you make a direct comment about my ability and/or willingness to use proper firearm control? In fact, I am a muzzle control fanatic and have stopped associating with folks in the field due to their lack of same. I have been trained via our Hunter Safety program as well as two other firearm safety courses provided by my club. You are out of line making such a broad assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
When one draws a bead on a flushing grouse or pheasant and does NOT pull the trigger, is that somehow more unsafe than actually pulling the trigger? C'mon. Who made the rule, and where is it written, that it is only ok to point a firearm at an animal or bird only if one intends to kill it? I am sure many a hunter has drawn a bead on an animal without desiring to kill it, at no peril to the safety of the animal or to anyone or anything else.
The caption of the Friday Photo indicates that the person who submitted it identified the object as a moose before lining up on it. He did nothing unsafe or unethical. Because some people are uncomfortable with doing that same thing doesn't make it wrong. Have a nice day, I'm off to work. I'll check back tonight for the flaming I imagine will ensue.
I'm with smallgamer on this one..Whoever took this photo wanted us to see it, and I'm glad I got to see it...Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
I would imagine the photographer put the gun up before realizing is had a rack (its a pretty small funky rack at that, could be a stick on his head), take the pic for confirmation, gun is already up. It may not be completly right but I also do not think is is completly wrong either.
I could see it happening this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter1
Could have bee Photoshopped in. Would not be illegal then.
There's no assumption on my part. You made a comment defending an improper and unsafe firearm handling action. Claiming you're a safe hunter, while saying you see no problem with unsafe actions is a direct contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
Now, if i were to go back i would admit that sighting on a flushed bird is not illegal or necessarily unsafe. However, I would also contend that it is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing that the moose hunter/photographer did.
He identified a non-legal (for him) game animal and proceeded to target it for a photo op. Completely unsafe and irresponsible.
No law was broken anyways.
Ive no problem with the picture. I examine the bore of my rifles by pointing the muzzle directly at my eyeball. Im not doing anything unsafe, and im certainly not intending to shoot myself in the eyeball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
It is very easy to come online and pass judgement on a situation for which one has no idea what actually transpired. When the moose was glassed there was probably some confusion as to what that is on his head, it sure does not look like any rack I have ever seen before. Maybe the guy next to him with binos told him it was a cow, or he said "what the heck is on that moose's head?, Is that a cow or a bull?"
Or "Is that Stan Jonathan in the bush off to the right a bit" ??Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter1
I think it was photoshopped,IMO,although I'm not claiming to know a whole heck of a lot about photography. Wouldn't a shot like that take a long time to set up? What are the odds that a Moose would stand still long enough to even get a scope lined up,then set up a camera?
I see no problem with that pic...some people have nothing better to do than to whine and complain about the most petty things!
Agree !!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brampton Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brampton Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
I agree X2. Some people need to learn to not sweat the little shyte. Life is too short. LOL
Wow, unbelievable...I'm speechless.
No, I don't have an issue.
If anyone is really concerned why not just email OOD or ask Caltek or April (is that her name???) or any of the Mods like Sawbill, Trout.
"If anyone is really concerned why not just email ...."
Or you could get a life LOL
So the photographer...
1) Identified the target as a moose.
2) Identified the target as a bull moose he/she had no tag for.
3) Identified the target as a bull moose he/she had no tag for with a funky rack.
It is not as though scopes come with a shutter release button (although that would be cool).
Have any of you ever tried to line up a shot through optics other than a proper lense on a camera? It takes some patience...
We I'm sure have all put an animal in our scopes prior to full ID. I have and after some time decided not to shoot as I couldn't 100% determine sex.
This is different. The photographer clearly knew it was not a legal (for him) animal and continued to setup for the thru the scope photo.
Different still from SG's story as in the case of him saying "Bang" I bet it would have been a legal kill if he decided...apple meet orange.
Well so what? He had no intention of shooting the animal. He didnt break any laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy
I 100% disagree with the statement "Never point a gun at something you dont want to kill". As I mentioned above, I look down the barrel of my own guns all the time. I certainly dont want to kill myself. I have personally cleared the chamber and firearm of cartridges and magazine. I am 100% in control of the rifle. This situation is no different. He is in complete control of the rifle when he takes the picture.
The self righteous is strong within this thread. Sickening........
Not as strong as the disdain for absolute basic safe firearm handling. Pretty sickening, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
In what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
He probably "wanted" to kill it but didn't have the proper authorization (tag) so didn't. I want to kill an elk some day as well. If I saw one out hunting I would probably even look at it through my scope even though I don't have a tag for one. What one wants to do and what one does do are two different things.Quote:
Never point a gun at something you dont want to kill
I don't have a problem with the photo.
So how in control of the firearm is a person trying to setup a camera to shoot through the scope?
Try it out and tell me how much you are in control.
I have looked at a few cow moose through my rifle scope, wishing that they had antlers.
Personally it doesn't bother me.
And I have scoped dozens of deer wishing the same thing. :thumbup: oops, my bad! As a matter of fact, a short time ago I put the scope on a deer and it turned out to be a nice 8 pointer. I then killed it?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
smallgamer.... I will shoot with you any day of the week....
You obviously have the self righteous opinion born of ANY real world experience. Have you never shouldered a shotgun on a flushing pheasant only to realize it's a hen? Who exactly is your hatred for oddmott? OOD who tries to support the hunting sport, or some photog who submitted a photo you don't like. What a hypocritical view in a non black and white world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
Thanks Frank. I appreciate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
x2
( even, if i dont pull the trigger....or would that be wrong?)
No problem here. No tag, so he took a shot in a different way. Was the gun even loaded? who knows....
Get over it.
The issue I have is what it shows to those who are not in the know.
If you bring up your shotgun on a pheasant and realize it is a hen you drop your gun and point it in a safe direction.
Once you determine that the game is not legal game you should pull your gun down from the game so as to not have any risk of anything happening.
We are taught that every gun is always loaded until you personally PROVE that it is not.
Based on this picture the assumption that I need to make is that the rifle is loaded, the safety is off and the guys finger is on the trigger. The reason I have to assume this is that without any context this is the worst case situation.
The photo in question would have been find if the guy had a bull tag, but since he did not I see a risk here for an unintentional discharge with horrible consequences.
This photo shows that using your rifle scope as binoculars is ok, which is the opposite of what we were taught in our hunters safety course. This is a photo representing the same thing as glassing a field edge with a fully loaded rifle.
This has nothing to do with any self righteous anything, this person took a really cool picture, but based on safety it was out of line and should not be represented as the right thing to do in the situation. I am sure with context this hunter was 100% safe and there was no risk of hurting the animal, but I have to assume the worst case due to what I have been taught about safety.
Thanks pdh!Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenderson
So I'll ask again
This isn't a guy that was scoping waiting for verification of sex before pulling the trigger. He had already done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy
Not a case of pointing at a flushing bird and deciding not to shoot (saying "BANG!") for whatever reason (realizing it is a hen).
The photographer saw a bull moose, verified that it wasn't a legal shot then decided on gun play to take a pic. If he decided to just photograph the moose sans scope then no problem.
How in control can one be of their firearm when they are trying to line up the sights with the moose, then a camera with the scope? It isn't easy I can tell you, and you only have 2 hands to line everything up. So how is that safe gun handling?
I see the internet police are out in full force and firing on all cylinders again . LOL:D I always found two strokes were loud . ;)
TD
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Really ?? You know what happens when you " assu me".... The person taking the pic must have four hands to have been able to hold the rifle, finger on the trigger AND arrange the camera to take the pic.....as you "assume".......
Neat photo, entirely safe. A thread like this does give some insight into the credibility of some of the posters, for future reference.
ASSUME EVERY FIREARM IS LOADED!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
You have to assume that the gun can and will go off at all times. You are the only one who can prove that it is not, that is why when someone hands you a firearm you need to verify that it is loaded and trust nobody.
The one who assumes the gun is unloaded is the one who kills their loved ones, shoots a hole in their house or car. If the gun goes off unexpectedly it needs to be pointed in a safe direction so that nothing is hurt but the dirt.
This is basic firearms safety.
With all the complaining about pictures this year it will be very soon that nobody will share anything for fear of being ridiculed. This guys did nothing illegal, at least in the eyes of the real law but apparently there are some self appointed officers out there.
Assume it is loaded until it has been proven otherwise. As you are not there to actually be effected by the outcome of the situation, your assumption means squat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
If I take a photo of a rifle in my living room, do you assume its loaded and react in horror because I have a loaded gun in my house? No, you assume its unloaded because a competent individual is in control of it. This picture is no different.
When i am examing the bore of a rifle I have the rifle in one hand and a flashlight in the other. Only one hand on the rifle yet I am in complete control of it. Furthermore, in the picture in question, the gun is resting on a support, providing further control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy
Canadian firearms training material does not have the caveat "until it has been proven otherwise".Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
"Assume every firearm is loaded."
That is the "A" in ACTS - if you recall ACTS from your firearms training.
I don't mind the pictures so much as OOD's double standards on pictures re: showing tags.
I am a little surprised at the number of posters who don't recall their firearms training.
I sure don't follow all the rules of firearms training - given the bush I travel through, I'd never get anywhere if I had to keep putting my rifle down to cross obstacles, fences, etc. and then checking it when I picked it up.
However, I sure won't go online and argue that those same rules don't exist or don't apply.
Give your head a shake. If you are so self righteous and almighty proper-gung ho, by the book, safety nazi, YOU point the gun at YOUR OWN HEAD per the PROVE ACTS. Get over youself Fox and if I saw you do that OR saw a photo of you doing that, I would automatically assume what? Uh, you have the right to shoot yourself un bothered by me? Or I have to copy/immitate you 'cause I know not better and your so charismatic or the photo so powerful?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Holy pettiness and over reaction Fox......
I can't believe half of this conversation... wow.
I will admit, I personally pointed my gun at many, many red squirrels that I did not intend to shoot.
I'm sorry to all those I put at risk.
I no longer assume once I have proven otherwise. If I were assuming a firearm was loaded, I would not be examining the bore by pointing a rifle at my eyeball.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
I too must apologize because I have had impure thoughts about sticking them to the tree when they sit there chattering at me:)Quote:
Originally Posted by sullyy
One time I saw a bear in the Bush... I pointed my rifle at the bear.. I did not have a bear tag.... yes the gun was loaded... maybe I to am guilty of something. . Good thing the bear went the other way, cause I may of shoot it had it come closer.
Yes, the picture policy on this site is very immature and poorly thought out. Obviously no consideration has been allowed for First Nations people posting a pic of ( dare I say it?) an untagged animal. Animals that may have been harvested elsewhere with different laws.... The list goes on n on. Heck, my avatar shows me holding 8 speckled trout. Clearly over my legal limit, but 4 of them happen to be my wife's. Trying to be too politically correct will sometimes come back to bite you. As we are seeing with this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudsee
Great post WR.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
I'd be lying if i claimed to follow every single firearm safety rule 100% of the time also.
But i don't get onto a public forum where young or beginner hunters may be reading and start arguing that such basics of firearm safety don't exist.
This thread has made me wonder what the ratio of hunting accidents for older vs younger hunters is. Wonder where i can find those stats.
I think it's a cool picture, don't have any issues with it myself.
Agree 100 % with the loaded firearm assumption. Unfortunately, that's not the assumption you posted.....deflecting again ????!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
I guess a lot of guys aren't checking their bores for obstructions from the muzzle end. If you perpetually assume it is loaded and then do so, you would be purposely pointing an assumed loaded gun at your own face.
I guess nobody should attend gun shows either, or store there firearms muzzle up in a room with living space above it.....etc, etc, etc.
The meaning of assume is "without proof"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assume
After one has performed ACTS and PROVE "assume" no longer applies because you have proof the gun is no longer a danger. This is the reason "Examine the bore" is the final step.
Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.
While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.
http://www.oodmag.com/images/pixel.gif
http://www.oodmag.com/images/pixel.gif
After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. It had not even loaded itself.
Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world. So now I'm off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat.
Donald K. Martin, Windsor Locks
Sorry, had to add this:):)
http://www.oodmag.com/images/pixel.gif
Ah heck even if the lad had a tag for the said bull he would have got in the doo doo here because the crosshairs were on the bulls head instead of waiting for it to turn sideways for that PERFECT boiler room shot .:fish:;)
TD
To be clear, I was referring to grouse and mentioned pheasants in passing. Grouse are very rare around here, certainly not what I feel is a huntable population. So, when I do get the rare flush while out after small game, I like to practice my gun mount and swing in real time. I also take note of how much time I have or don't have to take the shot because I am under no pressure to make the shot. All the motions of a safe legal shot. But I don't touch the trigger, I say bang. Pity the poor grouse for being put in such peril. Shame on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
In a practical real world where I, (unlike the current governmental agencies and laws) treat gun owners as adults, I would think you are smart enough and responsible enough to control 3 simple things about gun operation....... Ready, Aim, Fire...AND in that order.
If one can't proficiently evaluate the need(or not) to do those three simple things, I can't imagine how one could feed and wipe themselves.
so..............who here shops at the safety super store? table bumpers, sippy cups, those things you put on door knobs.
Look at the full picture, oh wait you cant.
was it loaded? dont know? no you do not know.
where was his hands? one was on the camera, the other, only god knows.
Is there someone standing in the bacground? a home/ structure? nope
was the rifle mounted? you dont know.
could it have been a cellphone and he used the scope to zoom in closer? possibly, most likely
where the crosshairs were mean shissier... it was a picture taken. whoop dee do. cross hairs show the focal point....what now, we need to ask for approval before anyone can post a pic? whos volunteering to be the picture dictator? aka "pic dic"
How was this picture unsafe? could his camera or phone launch a projectile now? some crazy james bond e.
Give your heads a shake! safety first 100% agree but where was the danger?
Answer this... you need to glass, forgot them? what do you use? serious answer.....compared too the other forums, I have found on here alot of bashing flaming and passing judgement through ones own ignorance,
All these threads do is give the antis more ammo, the more divided hunters are the weaker their stance is...just like my union children.
"Just cause you don't understand what's going on don't mean it don't make no sense
And just cause you don't like it, don't mean it ain't no good"
and yes, I too was taught safety, i was also taught be 100% sure by anymeans available within n safety boundaries if you cannot, then pass.
BOOYAKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Where's the "LIKE" button for this post. :moose::thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenderson
Maybe this was used!!! Attachment 27520
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
:goodstuff: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenderson
This thread has been deemed:
:Attachment 27525
So true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
I am a brand new hunter (literally finished my course 2 weekends ago) so I have a very fresh memory about the training and ACTS.
You are to assume EVERY firearm is loaded until proven otherwise. HOWEVER, you are not to assume it is always loaded even after proving it and that firearm stays in your possession. Our instructors would only check the gun if they had it out of their site (including if they turned their back to it) or gave it to someone else. Otherwise like a gentleman before said, you are walking around with what should be by the definition "loaded" and assuming that all the time is absurd. Obviously you still shouldn't point it at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot but you don't always have to be eye balling the bore.
Just my two n00b cents...
Maybe he had a bull tag but felt sorry for the bull because it had a wonky rack and since all the other bulls made fun of it he decided not to wack it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Sorry couldn't resist.
? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Bigbear
Well...... if we are to assume every gun is loaded and treat every gun as if it is loaded....we'd never be able to transport our guns to our hunting sites by other than walking there because it is illegal to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Hmmmm. at some point we have to be convinced that it is unloaded to do that!!
Ah Okay...,a few of us are sitting here wondering something.....in the big game forum there is a member who posted pic's of a himself with his rifle in gun season without a stitch of hunter orange followed by two pics that confirm the buck hanging with no tag on it. Alos when I questioned the values and ethics of another member posting stories of a "hunt" on this hunting forum from a high fenced, pen raised deer I was crucified for not being nice.....and YET this picture gets called to task by some.
Help us out here lol
FOX is FOX and if anything the pup is ANAL . Very consistent starting dumbass threads just to troll . I still say he can't hit the broad side of a barn nor shot anything other than through his dad's eyes or his grandfather's, but then again it's only IMO . A MAGAZINE HUNTER
TD
Quote:
Originally Posted by 400bigbear
Now, how do you really feel?;0
I call them as I see them IMO . lolQuote:
Originally Posted by pdhenderson
TD
I can't believe this crap is still going! As hunters it appears we are our own worrst enemies. We b and complain about PETA and bylaws that restrict our rights as hunters then in the same breath call out another hunter. I can't get over the whiny squealing pansies on here that have nothing better to do than screw with someone else. "Oh he pointed his gun at an animal" well...no sh**! Part of the game boys! "Hey hey Mr mod! Theres no tag in that first picture!" Get over yourselves or go whine to mommy! Im sure she's still used to wiping that.....nose.
I can see questioning a photo with a deer hanging without a tag, valid point. But taking the moose pic bit of a stretch.
This is nuts. How good are your eyes. Scopes serve an incredible purpose when deciding whether to take a shot especially at distance.
Who who the hell can see that far that well. I have, many times at distance, opted not to shoot for one reason or another that was not visible to the naked eye.
i have absolutely no problem with the picture. I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
You can question it can you? What about First Nations people who don't require tags? What about other countries and perhaps provinces where the law is different that ours here in Ontario? I guess anyone that falls into the above category can't post on here? The OOD policy is ridiculous and very poorly thought out.Quote:
Originally Posted by stilchen67
Here's a novel approach. Let's ask the OOD editorial staff how the picture was set up. I think it was completely set up in a studio and photoshopped. I can't imagine anyone actually setting this up with a camera,rifle,tripod,lighting and expecting a Moose to stand still long enough to do it. In five years of posting and reading threads on this site,this has to be,without doubt,the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen. LOL
When I wrote that post it was with reference to the Ontario hunting fraternity, as this is predominately an Ontario forum as is the magazine. I would venture to guess that probably 98% of the active members here are Ontario residents who have to follow the legal guidelines of properly tagging their deer. So if it makes you happy I will apologize to the POSSIBLE 2% that I neglected to include in that statement. That was very politically insensitive on my part....... Happy now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Keyboards are easier to push than prams, eh? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenderson
It wouldnt take that much. The rifle is supported on a wood beam. You can manipulate a camera/smartphone with one hand easily enough. Ive seen plenty of moose just stand around with dumb looks on their face. This typically happens when I dont have a tag for said moose, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
It doesnt exhibit any obvious signs of being a photoshop either.
Perhaps if people on the forum who are from out of Province, and post photos of game they have harvested where laws differ....could say something like "here is a photo of a deer taken on planet Mars where they are required to be tagged on a leg not an antler hence no tags visible in the photo". Might eliminate a lot of confusion or confirm someone has made an unfortunate mistake?
new section in OOD forum: Panties up in a bunchQuote:
Originally Posted by oaknut
Ever sit in your stand, let off a ripper and spook a deer? Random i know but this thread is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry bud! You won't get many here that'll admit to that. Too many on here prance around like their sh** don't stink.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenderson
Mine doesn't....Quote:
Originally Posted by oaknut
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14...0f9392b21d.jpg
I'm not willing to test that theory!
thats the second time you have posted that, one comment i made too it, I got in trouble. Why do you have it? barf!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by topher
Any one have an issue with this photo? lets start over.
who goes too the beach with those shoes. seriously?
ever make your kid puke?Quote:
Originally Posted by oaknut
OKaaay! Everyone's had their say?
As requested I will now quietly close this thread and await the next crazy one.