RTF purchases property!! - Page 5 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Land Use and Trails > Rubicon Trail
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2015, 12:13 PM   #101 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,331
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearse Umlauf View Post

Rubicon Trail Foundation has failed many people including many of its loyal members. First, it over-promised to its members that they would gain access to a piece of property that they had no legal access to in the first place. Secondly, it purchased a piece of property without doing their homework on the easement…now they’re promoting trespassing on private property! I mean come on RTF…practice what you preach!

Mark Smith was originally for giving an easement to RTF to access their property until he found out that they wanted to promote overnight camping on their property. He felt that overnight camping was going to have a financial impact on Rubicon Soda Springs. In a 6-0 vote, Mark and the other owners of RTP voted down an easement proposal…and choose to focus on a boundary line adjustment, which was deemed unacceptable by RTF.
Question for you Pearse:

I haven't been involved in this property squabble for quite some time. But I was around when it first began.

I am totally speaking for myself, everyone here knows I am not a fan of RTF.

Mark did say when he agreed to sell the property to RTF, that access wouldn't be a problem. RTF believed him. So it's Mark who wrote a check with his mouth that his A$$ couldn't cash.

I agree RTF should have had the easement agreement in hand prior to the close of escrow, that's their fault, they chose to believe Mark instead. Dumb - I know.

So in the end Mark committed to something he had no business committing too in the first place. RTF believed him, and therefore didn't cover their a$$ before signing on the dotted line.

If Mark did in fact change his mind after finding out about a public 501c3 allowing the public to access and camp on publicly funded private property, then he should have offered to buy it back. I have only met him a couple of times, but he has always struck me as a man who would be gracious enough to admit it wasn't going to work and not stick RTF and it's users with the bill.

Obviously the conversation about how the property was going to be used never happened, so BOTH sides failed to communicate regarding "camping".

So the question is - will you do the right thing and buy the property back at it's full value, because you and your group will not allow the public to use the property for camping.

That's really what it boils down to correct?

At this point, those in the RTP who are digging in their heels wasted 5 years of our time bickering about something that is easily remedied.

So as I see it - it's time for everyone to stop playing helicopter dick, and either buy back the property, or give us an easement.

And no, I don't think the boundary adjustment is a good idea, to many opportunities to stipulate stupid things like "one vehicle at a time" "must have red wheels".

WE just want a resolution. Either way.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 12:55 PM   #102 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,331
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Can you post the "map provided"?
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 06-05-2015, 01:39 PM   #103 (permalink)
RTF
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Member # 197037
Location: Rubicon Trail
Posts: 67
.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Thank you Metal Cloak for being the 2016 Cantina For The Con Sponsor.
RTF is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 01:41 PM   #104 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 128321
Posts: 436
Well... I have been involved in some very difficult property and business negotiations with some entrenched individuals; that RTP term sheet is a gift from the Rock God.

So, instead of gutting it up and grinding out a slam-dunk, RTF instead decides to "take" property, and advertise no less for assistance from the general public. It is going to take a lot of tacos to cover the litigation fees of both RTP and RTF and that is the reliance that RTP is putting on their proposal.

If given the opportunity to buy this property in the beginning, with the RTP term sheet attached, would RTF still have made the deal? Damn straight they would have.

RTF should donate the property to the County, along with the RTP term sheet, for the exclusive use as a public 4wd park. The County can handle the easement and the insurance, and RTF can get back to doing whatever it is that RTF does.

I am left to wonder, are all the RTF Board Members participating in this prescriptive easement scheme?
cjcraig7 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 01:47 PM   #105 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Member # 110750
Location: Cameron Park Ca.
Posts: 172
Isn't there RTP peeps involved with the RTF? I are confused.
TWISTER78FSB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 04:43 PM   #106 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 128321
Posts: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post


Obviously the conversation about how the property was going to be used never happened, so BOTH sides failed to communicate regarding "camping".

So as I see it - it's time for everyone to stop playing helicopter dick, and either buy back the property, or give us an easement.

And no, I don't think the boundary adjustment is a good idea, to many opportunities to stipulate stupid things like "one vehicle at a time" "must have red wheels".

WE just want a resolution. Either way.
Hi Bebe,

I am going to respectfully disagree with you on a couple of issues,

1) I believe everyone one with any knowledge that this transaction was going to take place, or had taken place, knew that overnighting was involved,
2) RTP is making a very wise move not considering an easement, opting to assist RTF with ingress/egress ownership with respect to liability,
3) Avoiding an in depth discussion based upon what may be stipulated is shortsighted as the term sheet appears to set forth RTP goals clearly and what I would consider good faith and reasonable conditions.

I do not see why RTP or any other enitity should feel obligated to assist financially in unwinding this cluster.

The cost effective and legal solution for RTF is outlined in the RTP term sheet.
cjcraig7 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 07:42 PM   #107 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,331
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
Hi Bebe,

I am going to respectfully disagree with you on a couple of issues,

1) I believe everyone one with any knowledge that this transaction was going to take place, or had taken place, knew that overnighting was involved,
2) RTP is making a very wise move not considering an easement, opting to assist RTF with ingress/egress ownership with respect to liability,
3) Avoiding an in depth discussion based upon what may be stipulated is shortsighted as the term sheet appears to set forth RTP goals clearly and what I would consider good faith and reasonable conditions.

I do not see why RTP or any other enitity should feel obligated to assist financially in unwinding this cluster.

The cost effective and legal solution for RTF is outlined in the RTP term sheet.
No Worries - that's what forums are for!!

1) That is an assumption on your part. Your instincts may be spot on - however, If the "camping" issue was important - there needed to be an open and honest discussion. It's obvious it didn't happen, so the blame falls on both sides.

2) Liability on this type of property is a misnomer - it doesn't exist because California Law indemnifies private property owners from liability when they allow the public to recreate on their property (barring the gross negligence of not warning users of of obvious danger).

3) The posted not an offer document has many details missing that could be obvious pitfalls - ie "Single Vehicle Track" - is that a single track by definition (motorcycle)? Or does it mean only one vehicle can travel it? Either way it's dumb. It needs to include a measurement much like an easement would -25', 36', 50'.

In addition -

#1)the 2:1 acreage swap is BS, 1.5 :1 is the norm, this addition can be construed as either punitive or greedy.

#3) RTF needs to deed and easement to RTP? why can't it be mutual? Again - punitive or greedy.

#4) - so a non profit is required to pay an expense for a for profit company? Really? Again - punitive or greedy?

#5) Reasonable - and I believe complete.

#6) Reasonable - and I believe complete.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 08:05 PM   #108 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Member # 7233
Location: Jefferson
Posts: 20,989
Send a message via AIM to Wilson
The whole mess is just screwy because an owner in RTP (who would have had full access as such to the property now owned by RTF) sold the property under the promise that access would not be an issue.

The RTP group says that this individual later had a change of heart regarding access, which essentially stuck RTF with a piece of property that no one could use. Who profited from this? Planned or not (most her say he was an honorable man) one man made out with some cash, one group bought a pile of shit and another group inherited a pile of shit from the sale of a pile of shit.

Since the decision was made to make the RTP proposal public, I would like to hear why exactly RTF rejected it and or what negotiations were attemted?
Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 08:38 PM   #109 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,331
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
i can't say for sure Wilson, but I will assume this was not the first attempt being this is dated from 3 months ago and this pissing match has been in various stages of a fuster cluck for 5 years now.

RTP and RTF need to put their big boy pants on and finish this up for the "users" they represent.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 08:41 PM   #110 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Member # 7233
Location: Jefferson
Posts: 20,989
Send a message via AIM to Wilson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
i can't say for sure Wilson, but I will assume this was not the first attempt being this is dated from 3 months ago and this pissing match has been in various stages of a fuster cluck for 5 years now.

RTP and RTF need to put their big boy pants on and finish this up for the "users" they represent.
I agree and would hope so, both parties kept their mouths shut about it as shown in the other thread. I agree with you; land swap/ easement or buy the property from RTF.
Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 10:34 PM   #111 (permalink)
RTF
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Member # 197037
Location: Rubicon Trail
Posts: 67
RTF Response to RTP Letter on March 22 2015

Attached is RTFs response to the letter from RTP dated 3/22/15. RTF has no ill will toward RTP, we wish for the public to be able to access their property. RTP president worked diligently to bring this together. Unfortunately, the following is RTP's response to the attached letter from RTF.


From: Jeremy Faber [mailto:jeremyxxxxx@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Sean Russell
Subject: Re: BLA- follow up.

Rtf's proposal was voted down if you have any questions call, thanks Jeremy
Attached Images
     
__________________
Thank you Metal Cloak for being the 2016 Cantina For The Con Sponsor.
RTF is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-05-2015, 10:42 PM   #112 (permalink)
Registered User
 
BEAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Member # 1746
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 3,403
Too small to read and wont enlarge.
__________________
Still Politically Uncorrect
BEAR is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2015, 04:37 AM   #113 (permalink)
Trailbusters4x4 club
 
FuzzyZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Member # 117547
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 1,573
I am a trail user and supporter of public access BUT i am also a private property rights supporter. RTF had/has no right to make an easement through any land. What if it made an easement through National forest land to get there? It would still be a big no no and legal battle. What makes it think that stealing an illegal easement through private land is better than making an illegal trail on public land? The letter from RTP looks fare and negotiating in retrospect of a purchase the buyer should be the one sacrificing more than the all ready established land owner. The buyer should be the one paying the fees not other land owner that is perfectly fine with their own private land the way it is.

How dose RTF plan to keep people off of the private land owners land? Thats something that should be there responsibility in this case also. Which doesn't seem to be mentioned all ready and what the root fight is about anyway.
__________________
83 toy pickup, 02 TJ, 02 GMC 2500HD, 86 4runner
Trailbusters4x4 club Solano County
ECV 1004
FuzzyZ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2015, 02:39 PM   #114 (permalink)
The dude abides
 
DEER TICK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Member # 114517
Location: Grass Valley
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAR View Post
Too small to read and wont enlarge.
This
__________________
Opinions are like assholes.Everybody has one,and most stink!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DEER TICK is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2015, 03:33 PM   #115 (permalink)
RTF
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Member # 197037
Location: Rubicon Trail
Posts: 67
Just uploaded larger ones. Hope you can see them.
__________________
Thank you Metal Cloak for being the 2016 Cantina For The Con Sponsor.
RTF is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-06-2015, 04:11 PM   #116 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,331
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Yes - much better.

2:1 is still BS.

It disgusts me when others expand their advantage because they feel like they somehow deserve a reward. Why do you feel the need to receive 2x as much land out of this deal?

Single vehicle track needs to be dropped. If your exchanging acreage, then the use should be the same. The no Camping needs to be dropped too.

I saw chatter on FB regarding Liability. Do your homework and quit dramatizing the fear of a lawsuit. I challenge you to find one in the State of California where a recreational landowner such as ourselves, was A) sued successfully for an individual being hurt on their private recreational forest land, or B) sued period, for an individual being hurt on their private recreational forest land.

It doesn't happen. There are laws to protect landowners.

You are making it up. Creating a perceived risk, where none exists, to manipulate the outcome in your favor. Time for everyone to spend a few moments reading so we can put an end to this BS.


California Recreational Use Statute - Protection from Liability
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2015, 11:31 PM   #117 (permalink)
Rock God
 
VERTIGO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Member # 1280
Location: NEWCASTLE, CA.
Posts: 1,246
I wish I had a private illegally constructed cabin on TPZ zoned property over looking my private lake in the name of "monitoring the watershed".... don't you people understand. This is all about reducing the users near rtp owned property. Meaning reducing as many people who like to recreate on the rubicon As possible. The land owners DONT WANT U THERE! And will go to any means necessary to protect their interest.
VERTIGO is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2015, 11:40 PM   #118 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Member # 70933
Location: Albany Oregon
Posts: 1,192
Honest question what does RTP do for the trail besides run a bunch of Jeeps for profit through the trail every year? Are they part of the fight to keep the trail open, or do they want to make the trail their private playground?
__________________
Weld on Beadlocks with Integrated Anti Coning Technology
Trail-Gear at Deep Discounts

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rockrunner86 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2015, 10:00 AM   #119 (permalink)
RTF
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Member # 197037
Location: Rubicon Trail
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockrunner86 View Post
Honest question what does RTP do for the trail besides run a bunch of Jeeps for profit through the trail every year? Are they part of the fight to keep the trail open, or do they want to make the trail their private playground?

RockRunner-
Respectfully, I believe you may have two entities mixed up & this is common.
RTP is a private land owner partnership (not a for profit group). They do not run groups through the trail. They drive their personal vehicles through the trail to access their property and enjoy OHV recreation.
RTF
__________________
Thank you Metal Cloak for being the 2016 Cantina For The Con Sponsor.
RTF is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2015, 10:12 AM   #120 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Member # 70933
Location: Albany Oregon
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTF View Post
RockRunner-
Respectfully, I believe you may have two entities mixed up & this is common.
RTP is a private land owner partnership (not a for profit group). They do not run groups through the trail. They drive their personal vehicles through the trail to access their property and enjoy OHV recreation.
RTF
You are correct. I thought that RTP was a part of Jeepers Jamboree.
__________________
Weld on Beadlocks with Integrated Anti Coning Technology
Trail-Gear at Deep Discounts

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rockrunner86 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2015, 11:03 AM   #121 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 9,331
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by VERTIGO View Post
I wish I had a private illegally constructed cabin on TPZ zoned property over looking my private lake in the name of "monitoring the watershed".... don't you people understand. This is all about reducing the users near rtp owned property. Meaning reducing as many people who like to recreate on the rubicon As possible. The land owners DONT WANT U THERE! And will go to any means necessary to protect their interest.
You are correct - and the same group that lobbied the county to reduce the "attractive nuisances" from the trail (Little Sluice, 1000 Dollar Hill, camping on Spider Lake etc, etc.).

However, I do believe, that there are a couple of owners in the RTP group who own or did own, and/or are partners in the Rubicon Springs (RSSI), which hosts JJUSA and Jeepers Jamboree events.

Pearse Umlauf (Who is VP of Jeep Jamboree USA) is one of them, yes? Does he still vote on the Smith's behalf in their share of RTP?
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2015, 04:25 PM   #122 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Davec107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Member # 101524
Posts: 71
Bebe, did you ever get a response from Pearce ? I didn't see one. Not surprising, he jumps in to post trying to bully with his threats of trespass violations. His helicopter views of the trail are to do nothing but count dollar signs for his JJUSA group and to collect the cash from Chrysler. 50 person rock stacking crews to get a company a trail rating. Making big bucks off public land. Not a true 4wheeler or outdoorsman that's for sure. $$$
Davec107 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2015, 04:34 PM   #123 (permalink)
Rock God
 
renolaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Member # 12908
Location: Poundtown, NV
Posts: 1,325
about 4 years ago we were well in front of a corporate run with all the new jeep vehicles and met some nice stackers (one guy only had one arm and that guy was strong) but then over radio heard of a rig flopped at walker hill so we turned around to see if we could help. In doing so the corporate/media run got past us. mistake. We lumbered behind them all the way to RS.

kind requests to please let us pass ignored. and they took a lot of food/piss breaks and really hogged the trail. but none shall pass...


edit: the flopped rig was not part of the corporate group. we were being good samaritans
__________________
'81 CJ8
'01 2500 HD 8.1/Ali

Life Member BRC
Cal 4 Wheel.
ECV #3691

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by renolaw; 06-08-2015 at 04:35 PM.
renolaw is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2015, 04:45 PM   #124 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Member # 53528
Location: norcal
Posts: 6,292
i almost regret donating money because of this
rockyota83 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-08-2015, 05:11 PM   #125 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Davec107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Member # 101524
Posts: 71
Renolaw, you like I and the vast majority are willing to put our plans on hold to help a fellow wheeler. Hell I would help corporate too if they we're in trouble. Too bad it's not mutual, some are in search of the great dollar.
I don't want to bash on one group or person, but I hate to see a person profit off all the hard work RTF and users put in to keep the trail open to have somebody run thru twice a year and reap $$ off the backs of the good. Nuff said.

Last edited by Davec107; 06-08-2015 at 05:51 PM.
Davec107 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.