Jump to content
BC Boards

Border Collie-German Shepherds-mix?


Recommended Posts

Culling within the breed, is still very much praticed. It is kept quiet these days, because of all the bleeding hearts, but it is indeed very much still utilized within practical, ethical breeders who would breed a dog of purpose.

 

And it bugs the heck out of this "bleeding heart". A lot of people like to believe they're breeding for "purpose". How many of them actually are?

 

If the German Sheperd is a necessary working breed, with a set of skills so unique and indispensable that it justifies killing for, then there should at least be a working standard to determine breed-worthiness (and if there is, it shouldn't include colour).

 

I may not always agree with everything shepherds or cattle farmers do to preserve the border collie breed, but at least I can see their point. They need dogs with exactly that particular set of skills. "Need them", as in "really", and "today". Not way back "when they were still useful". There are probably a few (very few, I suspect) other breeds out there where the same thing applies.

 

Anything else, as far as I can see, is just adult people playing games (and earning money in a lot of cases).

Killing dogs to preserve a breed that, at this point, can't really do anything special that others can't, is beyond me. It seems, at best, as justifiable as killing for the completeness of a public art gallery. At worst, as justifiable as killing for the completeness of one's stamp collection. Nostalgia? Personal preferences? I think people involved in "preserving" or "creating" dog breeds at the cost of individual dogs should take a long step backwards and have a long, hard look at what they're actually doing, and what for.

It's human nature to get stuck in little extra worlds when you've been involved for a while, and to have one's little missions and power trips etc. Of course we do. But I don't think life or death questions should be decided from within these little bubbles, if we can help it.

Sorry for the soap-boxing. I'm not trying to have a go at anyone personally, it's something that bothers me on a large scale.

What is it that I'm missing? Dogs may bring out the best in some people, but "dog culture" really freaks me out these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay. Here's another example of a theoretical dog whose existence harmed the breed horrifically:

 

"Wow! Look at that dog! Look at that angulation and extention! He's so strong that he can stand and pace with his hocks right down on the ground!"

 

For the original dog, it was simply a physical characteristic. We wouldn't cull a dog that was cowhocked or whatever if he could still do the job.

 

What's protected the Border Collie up to now from the breeders who breed for color or other fancy physical characteristics, has been the lack of an outlet for such dogs. There's no difference between a merle dog and a solid, all else being equal, to people who just want them for working.

 

Wring your hands all you want, but the GSD has been a popular pet and conformation dog since the 1920s. That's water under the bridge. So unlike with our dogs, they are fighting more and more fragmentation and isolation of bits of their gene pool. They being the ones who are trying to preserve what's left of the original useful dog.

 

It's not fair to compare these breeders to us, complacent in the heritage that our own breed's creators (who culled like crazy, by the way) gave us. Give it about fifty years and we'll revisit the idea of what happens as a breeder when you see a blue or dilute red pop up spontaneously in your litter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a breeder, nor will I ever become one. It seems reasonable to me to simply s/n a 'bad' dog and give it away with no papers. However, we have dogs dying in incredible numbers every day because there are not enough homes to take them in. I'm not sure culling PB dogs would have any impact on the total number killed.

 

I received some well thought out lectures on a recent thread concerning responsible breeding. The part that struck home to me was the math. A bitch could reasonably produce 20 pups or more in her life. Even if you s/n half of those with less potential, you can keep the population stable if only 10% of bitches are bred. Therefor, breeding anything other than the top 10% (using very conservative numbers) is detrimental to the breed. On the male side, you could easily use just the top 2%. So unless you own a dog that is in the top 10%, it is hard to justify breeding him/her.

 

People who own good dogs and breed them hoping to get another good dog are irresponsible to the breed. Somehow, I doubt the Panda Shepherds shown are in the top 10% of the breed. Unless you want to create a new breed, based on color and perhaps a conformation change, there is no reason to allow them to breed.

 

Once you make that decision, I don't see how culling or s/n changes things. The total number of dogs killed each year is based largely on available homes. PB GSDs that didn't make the cut would probably be easier to adopt out, but maybe not. For a lot of us, a pound mutt can be the perfect dog. My first dog looked like a GSD/Lassie cross, and was the finest family dog I've met in my 50 years. And if you looked at conformation for health instead of show, he probably beat most of the GSDs of any price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me there's a natural division in this forum (and probably in the real world) between people primarily concerned with breed and working ability and those concerned with "dog."

 

I only ended up with a BC because I picked a sad-looking, withdrawn dog from the shelter. Figured out later that he's probably a BC, based on looking at posts in here. Nice forum - I've learned a lot about dog training, and about some BC-specific issues.

 

I love my boy, but I loved all the previous non-BC (non-PB) dogs I owned, too.

 

A book I read argued quite strongly that we should be breeding solely for temperament - since nearly all dogs in modern life are meant to be pets. Maybe also selecting for sizes, to suit apartment-dwellers as well as those who own acreage. I know I've mentioned this before, but when I was a kid, almost no one had a "breed;" we all just had dogs. And poor David R, in my class, whose family had to get a purebred Irish Setter - we all knew his dog was both stupid and crazy. Wore his paws off running obsessively 8 hours a day.

 

In my opinion, it's a very bad thing that our society has to put dogs to sleep because people aren't spaying and neutering. Seems as though the badness is equivalent whether the dog is PTS as a puppy or as an adult. Preventing unwanted breeding seems a very good thing, to me - because it prevents us from having to kill dogs. But preventing unwanted breeding by killing dogs seems inside-out and backwards, to me.

 

I honestly don't understand the need for "breeds" beyond those which actually have a job. Why not let the breeds whose health and original purpose we've ruined revert back to generic dogdom? If there is a GSD/mutt cross whose body actually functions correctly - won't that be a better pet, companion, helper than a "purebred" GSD whose legs and body angles are all wrong?

 

What is there about the GSD breed, as it stands now, that merits killing pups (who could be neutered) to keep the breed "pure?" I understand the point about their existence creating desire for these panda shepherds - but how is that different from the existence of normal GSDs creating desire for that breed in general?

 

Seems like we should be creating a situation where the desire is for healthy dogs who fit well into our lives, rather than for specific breeds. I know my point of view is quite different from that of lots of posters in here (I have no intention of ever working sheep, Lord help me!), but I really don't understand devotion to breed over dog.

 

Mary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cull them at birth simply for having a genetic mutation? Riiighhhhtttt... that is by far one of the most disgusting things anyone has ever said on these boards! I don't think you look perfect off with your head! I find it very ignorant that someone would kill a puppy simply because it doesn't look perfect.. try spay and neuter. Sheepdoggal; you call yourself an ethical breeder, yet you would kill an animal because it looks "wrong?" I call that unethical, uncaring, and outright disgusting! Breeding for looks... GAH. G A H! I've helped re-home 4 GSD in the last year because people were breeding for looks.. the dogs had horrible attitudes, 2 others ended up euthed. These were AKC registered dogs, from breeders the AKC called "reputable." Just another reason why breeders who breed for looks need to be.. err.. yelled at (I'll leave it at that.. my real thoughts on the matter would make this thread rated 18+) You want to kill pups because they don't look perfect.. don't expect respect for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can keep the population stable if only 10% of bitches are bred. Therefor, breeding anything other than the top 10% (using very conservative numbers) is detrimental to the breed. On the male side, you could easily use just the top 2%. So unless you own a dog that is in the top 10%, it is hard to justify breeding him/her. ... People who own good dogs and breed them hoping to get another good dog are irresponsible to the breed.

 

BSMS99,

I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, but I don't think anyone would ever have wanted you to interpret the discussion as something like only 10 percent of bitches and maybe 2 percent of dogs should ever be bred. Can you imagine how much that would limit the working gene pool? You're thinking here doesn't take into account the dogs who are not top performers but who are top producers--that is, while they may not be the top working dogs, they are capable of producing top working dogs when combined with the right mate. And of course the only way to find that out would be to breed the producer dog despite its lack of trial winnings (or whatever other criteria you might want to impose).

 

Denise Wall has on several occasions posted a discussion about breeding based on a target-type principle, with red circle dogs being the top working dogs, orange circle dogs being the good workers, if not the elite, and the yellow circle dogs being everything else. Her explanation of why we need the orange- and yellow-circle dogs is quite thought-provoking. If you read her thoughts on the subject, I think you'll see why your comment about people who own good dogs and breed them being irresponsible is likely untrue. I'll see if I can find one of those discussions and post a link here.

 

ETA: Here's Denise's dart board analogy to which I was referring: How working breeds are lost. Although the discussion in that thread is how working ability can be diluted, I think the first couple of paragraphs of DEnise's post illustrate the importance of maintaining the genetics of the dogs who may not be the top 10 percent (the red circle dogs).

 

Mary,

I believe that division exists because where there are still purpose-bred dogs and people who require those dogs for that purpose, those people will be concerned about a breed as a whole. Perhaps their ability to, say, manage their livestock operation depends on a purpose-bred animal being able to do what it's meant to do (and this would apply not only to the working dogs but to the livestock said farmer has).

 

For people who want just pets, I think breed fancies have gone a long way toward making people believe that breed--actually pure breed is paramount. For the average family who just wants a pet, certainly a mutt would likely fill the bill perfectly, but that same family who wants a purebred setter, for example, got the idea from somewhere that purebred = better. Oh, and of course there's money to be made if you can convince consumers that one sort of dog is better or more desirable than another....

 

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cull them at birth simply for having a genetic mutation? Riiighhhhtttt... that is by far one of the most disgusting things anyone has ever said on these boards!

 

Um, what if that genetic mutation were something other than color that would affect the dog's quality of life? Do you think that breeders should be required to save and rear pups with severe cleft palates or other genetic deformities that affect quality of life or that might even make life impossible?

 

This discussion is beginning to remind me of the time when I went through my first lambing with my neighbor (the sheep were at her place). We found a dead lamb out behind the run-in shed, and my neighbor was horrified by the fact that it was dead. But you see, the lamb had no lower jaw, along with some other severe deformities. In my mind, had the poor thing not been already dead the only kindness we would have been able to do for it was kill it. She was of the mind that she probably would have tried to save it. I think she would have figured out pretty quickly that doing so would be a near-impossible task, but while something on the surface might seem very wrong with taking a newborn life, there are indeed circumstances where that's the best choice.

 

While I am not agreeing with culling puppies for being mismarked, I don't think a breeder who chooses to humanely PTS a pup or any other newborn animal because of a genetic mutation is somehow evil incarnate either.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh but she said cull them at birth, not give them a chance to see if they are healthy first.. which tends to make it sound like all she cares about is colourization.. which I have gotten the impression of from some of her other posts too. I researched this genetic mutation before posting, and there is nothing that suggests it is anything other than a coat colour issue. I would hope that someone who would be so bold as to post a statement such as cull them at birth, after calling them monstrosities, would be intelligent enough to research the issue first. The attitude in her first post made the ladies I was introducing to the site compare her to a Nazi.. so yeah.. my post was mild.

 

EDIT: This reminds me of a news story here a few years ago, where a woman kill a litter of pups because one was an albino. I don't think that was right either. If it was severly malformed, then yes, I would have no issue with euthing it, but imperfect colouring is not a malformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have had a mutation PTS, because I wouldnt trust anyone to not try and exploit the mutation, had it been a pup that I had bred.

 

If this is of concern to the breeder, one option that I personally find more ethical than euthanizing for color would be for the breeder to keep the pup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh but she said cull them at birth, not give them a chance to see if they are healthy first.. which tends to make it sound like all she cares about is colourization.. which I have gotten the impression of from some of her other posts too.

 

I think you're way off base, actually, and grasping at this point. While I don't necessarily agree with Darci's stance on culling pups, I certainly would not fabricate opinions on her behalf, such as suggesting she only cares about "colourization" since that's not the impression I have ever gotten from her at all.

 

You could go back and re-read the discussion, which has been very civil, and try to get your brain to stop boiling at the concept of "culling" and you might find it interesting. Nazi references are uneccessary.

 

ETA - and now you're just flaming! Yikes!

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just as entitled to my opinion as everyone else here is; and I have gotten the impression from this thread, as well as other posts made by sheepdoggal, that she breeds for colour. I really don't care if anyone thinks its a wrong opinion; its MY opinion. I don't get on here and bash people for having opinions that clash with my own, I simply state my own opinion when I feel passionate about something. And killing puppies is something I feel passionate about.. sorry.. but I think its wrong to murder a creature because you don't like how it looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just as entitled to my opinion as everyone else here is;

 

Of course you are. But this particular opinion is based on misinterpreted facts and the way you go about presenting your opinion does matter. You can be passionate about your beliefs without being rude. Just some food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadow's Mom....I think you need to look at sheepdoggal's post #18.....where she clearly states she hasn't breed a GSD in 8 years...and that breeding for colour is wrong. Whether or not you agree with her opinion about culling is certainly your perogative, but I think you need to be sure your "impressions" are substantiated. JMHO

 

ETA: I have found this thread quite interesting and thought provoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have gotten the impression from this thread, as well as other posts made by sheepdoggal, that she breeds for colour.

Interesting. As someone else pointed out, she she hasn't bred GSDs in years, and I know for a fact that she has never bred a border collie for color, so I'm not exactly sure from what facts your impressions are arising.

 

I don't get on here and bash people for having opinions that clash with my own, I simply state my own opinion when I feel passionate about something.

 

Um, haven't you been doing just that (bashing someone else that is)?

 

Oh, and if your dean and several professors are comparing Darci to Nazis, they would do well to consider that many folks find the comparison of dogs to Holocaust victims offensive.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BSMS99,

I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, but I don't think anyone would ever have wanted you to interpret the discussion as something like only 10 percent of bitches and maybe 2 percent of dogs should ever be bred. Can you imagine how much that would limit the working gene pool? You're thinking here doesn't take into account the dogs who are not top performers but who are top producers--that is, while they may not be the top working dogs, they are capable of producing top working dogs when combined with the right mate...

One of my flaws is a tendency to type as I think. It occurred to me as I typed that a strict limit would 1) be impossible - after all, a great sheep dog might be poor on cattle, or vice versa, 2) limit the gene pool, and 3) eliminate those trying to breed dogs that could become 'Top 10' dogs. Still, the basic math is a good rebuke to those, like myself, inclined to think, "I've got a bitch I like, and that dog performs well, so why not?" In my defense, any pups produced by the cross I was looking at (in 1996) would have had homes waiting for them, but still...

 

I'll read your link later. The subject fascinates me, although I have no practical need. I enjoy reading the expertise of others on this board!

 

BTW - one of the homes would have been a rancher friend of mine who uses Border Collies from local, unpapered crosses. He bought a $2000 older dog once, but he said the reality was that most of the herders he hired weren't capable of using a dog for much besides rounding sheep up. The trained dog represented 20% of his income that year, and he only had one herder capable of working the dog properly. He needed dogs with lots of instinct who could perform very basic functions, but not bite too far into his typical 10-15K/year profit. I'm not sure what the best answer is for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, this discussion was not about sickly or deformed, but perfectly healthy pups that somehow had been born with the "wrong" color. I do understand the desire to keep a breed to a certain standard, and the good intentions behind that thinking, but I disagree with the method of culling. Why can't those pups be spayed and not registered and sold as family pets? Is is too costly? Too bothersome? I guess I just don't understand why the dog is being punished. It didn't choose to be born different, it just happened.

 

My problem might be that I am not involved at all in breeding or have any wish to get into that. I appreciate the different breeds of dogs from an aesthetic point of view, but I really have no specific breed preference. Mary said something like that really nicely, and I thought, that's exactly how I feel. I love dogs in general. I don't have that passion for the "one" breed. Of course I also don't need a dog for work (which makes other aspects and abilities more important). But what you said about purpose-bred dogs, wouldn't that mean that it is in fact really unimportant how the dog looks if it can do the job? Wouldn't that support not killing the mismarked pup? (Actually, the original argument isn't about that, it was about ruining the look of a breed, brought on by those panda shepherds - that's how I understood it)

 

I think people who have no problem breeding anything with four legs for money, like say Great Danes to Chihuahuas or whatever horrible match might spring to their minds, are lost to the argument of preserving a breed in the first place. And people who really believe they need to have one of those, well, you most likely won't reach those either. I am also at a loss of how you would possibly stop them. And who knows, those breeders might use culling, too, just for their own purpose ...

 

The various discussions about breed(s) on this board have often enlightened, educated, entertained and sometimes bewildered me, because I know so little about all that, and it's been a very interesting and rewarding learning experience, but this thread has left me sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here I made the mistake of thinking, "Gee, there hasn't been any drama on here for a while... it's been nice!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had a mixed German shepard, 2 pure bred German shepards, and my last dog was a fawn colored greatdane. I love both breeds.

When I was at the beach several months back, I saw the most interesting lokking dog! It was a mixed dane/shepard.

The body was fawn colored dane, with a darker German Shepard head. It looked like someone transplanted the head on the body!

 

Lance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BSMS99,

I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, but I don't think anyone would ever have wanted you to interpret the discussion as something like only 10 percent of bitches and maybe 2 percent of dogs should ever be bred. Can you imagine how much that would limit the working gene pool? You're thinking here doesn't take into account the dogs who are not top performers but who are top producers--that is, while they may not be the top working dogs, they are capable of producing top working dogs when combined with the right mate...

 

Just to clarify: I made the statement in another thread that only about the top 10% of a population would need to be bred to provide replacement numbers for the population. It was an illustration to pet home and recreational home people that only a relatively small percentage of any breed population should be bred. Obviously in border collies, a large number of the dogs that *should* be bred would be within the population that is actively trained and worked on stock. Within the actively working population, that percentage would obviously much be higher. Within the pet population, that percentage would necessarily but much, much lower based both on native ability and what is actually known about those animals abilities. The numbers were never intended to be taken literally - just as an illustration that Joe Blow down the street shouldn't be breeding his bitch just because she is a nice dog.

 

Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is real interesting thread, just a couple of comments, personally I don't consider "Culling" as equal to killing, from a the standpoint of a person breeding to develop and advance a particular type of dog based on their personal likes or dislikes, culling could be just not including that dog or it's parents in their breeding program, each pup that is sold to the general public on a spay/neuter contract is considered a cull in my book. Also, a dog that is cull material based on my program may be breeding material in someone elses, kinda the one mans garbage is another man's treasure. When folks breed two registered animals together not looking at ability but only to produce more registered dogs resulting in nothing but registered dogs I considered the breeding to be a cull to cull breeding, some of the back yard breeders are breeders of culls, others are not. I also don't blame breeders for destroying their culls, if more would there would not be as much issue of folks breeding substandard dogs creating more substandard dogs.

 

As for the sudden appearance of a mismarked dog when you are breeding a specific breed that has been line bred to the point of producing predictable traits, as a breeder I would worry that the mismark would lead or indicate other genectic issues due to inbreeding, is the mismark a throw back or is it an evolution change, either way the mating is no longer producing predictability and would be considered grounds for culling from a breeding program. The purpose of a breed standard is to keep breeders producing along the same lines, a dog produced outside of those lines could indicate a outcross to a different breed or inbreeding issues and in an effort to protect the breed as a whole would be grounds for culling, in this case just not allowing the issuance of registration papers could be considered culling, the dog is just removed from the registerable gene pool.

 

I hope this is not too hard to understand, but I know folks will argue that if the dog is genetically proven to be purebred that papers should be issued regardless of if it meets standard, but that alone is enough to threaten a breed that has been developed for to a particular standard. In the case of border collies, each dog registered that does not meet the standard of working ability or that does not produce pups with working ability is a threat to the overall standard, breed those dogs to others that do not work and soon the majority of the population could end not meeting the original standard, arguably you could end up with a gene pool of purebred dogs that no longer display the traits based on the original standard.

 

Purebred by blood or purebred by type/style, if each of us consider the variences of the two different ways of considering selection which of the two would give us predictability and still maintain diversity? I fear that purebred by blood will eventually lead to the end of the line, so to speak. Pure bred by blood only, will eventually lead to everything related to everything and as time goes on there will be no diversity since no new blood would be allowed into the gene pool since it would not be "Pure-Bred".

 

Sorry to get off into a different direction, but I wonder if the time has come where as our registration papers should have a special designation for a proven working dog or a dog that has been proven to produce working dogs, basically breeding papers, only pups resulting from a pair of approved breeding dogs would be eligible for full registration, pups from one approved parent could get limited registration with the ability to get full registration after they prove themselves as working dogs, basically through the ROM program. I would be willing to bet that you would see a major reduction in the breeding of none working border collies, or at least they would be excluded from the stud books and be of no threat to the breed or the working standard. The folks that just want papered dogs can still buy their papered dogs, there just won't be any breeding advantage to a dog with just papers, unless they get their dogs certified as breeding stock, I suppose you could still maintain a paper trail of non working lines, but the line to have would be the proven documented working lines. Works on the same lines as the Imported Warm Blood horses, registered to registered does not get you registered, their parents need to be approved as breeding stock and since the breeders can no longer be trusted to maintain the breed standard a certification program is sponsored by the breed association.

 

Just some thoughts looking at this thread from a breeding standpoint vs. pet standpoint.

 

 

Deb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in my opinion it isn't about that specific pup, from what I've gathered from Darci and Rebecca. It's what they will soon produce if they are to "see the light of day". Genetic mutations are the reason so many breeds are literally falling apart. If the public can see the mutation, they are going to want it, and breed for it. The genetic mutation which was just a random one in one litter has now destroyed a breed.

 

For everyone who says that a simple genetic mutations don't produce health problems are very mistaken. Take a look at those pictures of the Panda Shepherd, do they even LOOK like German Shepherds? Look at the heads on those dogs, if this were purely a mis-colour and nothing more, why do their physical attributes also look so strange? I'm not a geneticist, and I might be mistaken there, but that's how it makes sense to me. I wouldn't be surprised if they're laden with health problems. Maybe not even at this point, but because that original mutation lived, people saw it, and people are continuing to breed these mutations to each other, they WILL ruin the breed. So while I still don't necessarily agree with culling, I do see both sides. I can see how important it is to stop the production of these dogs at the very beginning of the mutation, at the first appearance.

 

Also, Darci did say that if there was a way to keep it completely quiet with a friend you know and trust, you could S/N at a very young age, and give the pup away as a pet and have no connection to that dog. The friend would also have to say, "Oh, he's just some mutt" If someone asked, because you know someone will. And the second they do, and find out they're a GSD, the process will start.

 

People may not agree with culling, but do you agree with a breed being ruined because of one pup? Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with culling, but that one pup could literally save the breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I wonder if the time has come where as our registration papers should have a special designation for a proven working dog or a dog that has been proven to produce working dogs, basically breeding papers, only pups resulting from a pair of approved breeding dogs would be eligible for full registration, pups from one approved parent could get limited registration with the ability to get full registration after they prove themselves as working dogs, basically through the ROM program. I would be willing to bet that you would see a major reduction in the breeding of none working border collies

 

What a nice thought. Of course, the ABCA can't keep its dogs out of puppymills or sport breeder kennels, so it's never going to come to pass. There are a lot of people breeding who don't CARE about working ability, and also don't care about registration.

 

In Canada, since CBCA registered dogs have to be identified to the breeder / kennel with a tattoo or microchip prior to sale, it's a lot harder to lose track of those pups, and you hardly ever find them in rescues or shelters (although you sometimes do - and it's a lot easier to figure out who is putting pups on the ground and is not interested in taking them back too). So the dogs we get in either come with ABCA papers or no papers at all. Since I can count on ONE HAND the number of CBCA registered dogs that have come to us in 10 years time, I'll argue there are a lot more "breeders" who don't care about registered dogs than do care.

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...