Reminder: Login to access new features and members-only content!

Register to be a member of our community. Its easy!

Register a new account

Already a member?

Log In here!

Donate

Did you find our content interesting or helpful? Help support the IPFD enhance health, well-being and welfare for dogs everywhere.

Jump to content
  •   Language
  • Sign Up

International Partnership for Dogs - Enhancing Dog Health, Well-Being, and Welfare - Join Us.

All Activity

This feed auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Illegal pet trade in the EU, report released In Europe the large majority of dog from illegal sources are sold online. These dogs often do not comply with the health requirements established in the EU Regulation, are too young to have been vaccinated, and are accompanied by fraudulent passports which provide false information on their origin. The illegal Europe-wide trade in dogs threatens not just the welfare of the animals involved, but also animal health, public health and consumers. Therefore, it is urgent to improve the current situation to ensure this trade can happen in a sustainable, humane way. On 21 April 2020, the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the European Union and Eurogroup for Animals (https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/who-we-are) held an expert workshop on the illegal pet trade. Around 100 participants from European institutions, Member States, academia and the animal welfare sector debated the issue focusing on four areas: Pets and Traceability; Pets and Consumers; Pets and Online Platforms; and Organised Crime and Tax Evasion. FECAVA, IPFD’s collaborating member, also joined and will keep addressing the topic.
  3. Last week
  4. Earlier
  5. The situation in Ireland has developed to an extent where all breed clubs have been inundated with enquiries for puppies of all breeds (400 enquiries for mini schnauzers within 2 weeks of lockdown) .Enquiries are still happening but the pedigree breeding plans are way behind demand as most breeders were intent on showing until the "season" was cancelled. Travel restrictions put paid to planned matings as such travel was deemed non essential and publicised fines and one imprisonment ( for 3 weeks) for breaking the restrictions to collect pups also saw commercial establishments affected. Meanwhile the number of pups available through online general trading sites has diminished, though the few pups available have grossly inflated prices attached. What is disturbing is the increase in theft of pups , sometimes entire litters, and older dogs as evidenced by newspaper reports, social media posts etc. I wonder if the same is happening in other countries? On the glass half full side there has been some research on the increase in adoptions from Israel which makes happier reading https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/s9k4y/?fbclid=IwAR0jroBPyQm-cQGdSyeypsGyxMwsgCp69Fi83OJN5g5o6FjKXI189qWB8AI
  6. Ian Seath has again stimulated our 'little grey cells' and maybe even touched on some emotions, attitudes, and even deep-seated beliefs in his DOG-ED: SOCIAL ENTERPRISE post (23 June 2020): CULTURE EATS STRATEGY FOR BREAKFAST! Catchy title - firstly - where does that come from, and what does it mean? "Management Guru Peter Drucker famously stated that culture eats strategy for breakfast. So, What does "culture eats strategy" mean for you and your organization? In a very practical sense: No matter what business strategy or strategic plan you try to implement with your team, its success and efficacy are going to be held back by the people implementing the plan if the culture does not support it. " from: SME Strategy Management Consulting Ian's article draws on his extensive knowledge and background in business, strategy, and change management - as well as his fantastic dog expertise - to examine topical international information on COVID-19 and to draw comparisons with challenges in the dog world. He wants to encourage us to think about various aspects of health and welfare in dogs. Further moving his title discussion into the dog world: it means that if those needed to implement and drive change (in attitudes or practices) aren't passionate about the change or at least willing to embrace change or - even worse - if they deny the need for change at all (i.e. deny the existence of 'a problem') or are apathetic to the issues, then you stand no chance implementing a plan. Ultimately it is all about the people. Denial or apathy or resistance to change may occur if there is great passion for and attachment to an existing culture. In terms of the complex problems of the dog world, IPFD exists because it is clear that these issues have many stakeholders who bear responsibilities for the challenges and the solutions. And each of the stakeholder communities has their own culture - and that influences their views and actions and even willingness to collaborate. Ian goes on to describe bench-marking, i.e., ways to define, measure and characterize issues and actions on 3 levels. Let's further describe this relative to the dog world, and with a few possible examples: Metrics (statistics, measures) - tell you “what the performance is” or define and quantify aspects of the issue. E.g., prevalence and increased breed-specific risks of disease in various populations based on quantitative analysis vs. anecdote from personal experience (e.g. MY dogs are healthy!) Challenges: differences across regions, types of dogs, etc.; lack of consensus on how much is too much; perspectives of those who see dogs from different populations - e.g. veterinarians in practice vs. show judges. Lack of comprehensive, clear evidence fosters a reliance on culture-based interpretations...spin! Process (how the situation came to be, or what has influenced those levels): E.g. the influences of breeding practices (how diligently have breeders prioritized health and longevity). It must be noted that these processes have certainly been driven by culture. E.g., breeding for performance vs. for the conformation show ring vs. for companion dogs vs. for the trendy puppy trade E.g. health programs implemented by breed and kennel clubs (Ian gives some good examples) Challenges - the perception of the need for and time frame of change; and the amount of change; the acceptance of any authority over practices and processes from within or outside a community or culture. There is a tendency to look for simple solutions to complex problems - and then to be surprised that the outcome wasn't ideal. Culture tells you the story behind the processes...and that includes attitudes, tradition, beliefs, and habits...of the people involved. Those within a community (e.g. show world, veterinarians, the wider public) may share one culture...or there may be various cultures within a wider community. Culture can change. There are many cultures and communities in the dog world! From those who believe pedigreed dogs are the most important and breed standards are essentially inviolable; to those who feel there is room for evolution and flexibility, even within existing registries; to those who feel pedigreed dogs are not necessary. From those whose culture defines dogs as commodities or chattels; to those who accept dogs as sentient beings with some rights; to those who think they should be essentially be accorded human-level treatment. Challenges - all those attitudes impact what that community, culture, or group accepts as reasonable levels of welfare or disease or longevity. In fact, when cultural influences are strong, they may impact the willingness of those inside the culture to objectively view metrics, or to embrace processes and programs. And let's face it - a group or individual's attachment to their culture may be so strong, that they tend to view it not as one view, but the only acceptable view. 'Cultural norms' may be very different across communities. Rigidity is a major barrier to collaboration. Keys to moving forward Firstly, reflecting sincerely on how YOUR culture influences you, and then, if you want others to respect your culture Being aware of the differences across stakeholders - in their culture (attitudes, attachments, basic beliefs, approaches, etc.) wouldn't if be great if we could respect all views? but at least we must be aware of whether our disagreements are arising from different interpretation of the metrics and evidence OR from a different approach and process OR from the cultural sphere Taking the brave step outside cultural influences - embrace collaboration and collective actions while never assuming there is a one-size-fits-all solution. Leadership from various cultures and communities is needed. The ultimate question is - do we have common ground on which to advance? For IPFD, that would mean that even if we have slightly different definitions on the specifics, everyone comes to the table with a desire to enhance the health and welfare of dogs. Human aspects are critical as well - but there must be a balance.
  7. Dogs offer great emotional support and benefit to humans. In times of stress, urgency, and uncertainty - such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic - there is also an increased tendency for impulsive vs. well-considered decisions about many things, including the acquisition of dogs. The prospect of bringing a cute, fluffy puppy (or adult dog) home now may seem like a win-win situation for both the human and the dog alike. However, we have already begun to see many troubling consequences of the 'Pandemic Puppy' phenomenon.
  8. The continued review of breed-specific tests for assigning relevancy ratings, and ongoing discussions with genetic experts has led to a refinement of the breed relevancy ratings (please see: BRR) . To better accommodate the spectrum of genetic test validation, we’ve added a new orange BRR. The orange BRR indicates where all current available evidence has been reviewed, but the relevancy is inconclusive. It could be that a mutation is detectable in a specific breed, but that there is no evidence that this correlates with clinical development of the disease/phene. It could also be that there is evidence that testing for the mutation does not correlate with the clinical development of the disease. One example is the wire-fox terrier and degenerative myelopathy. Despite research indicating a 94% mutation frequency (Zeng et. al, 2014) - meaning that practically every dog the researchers tested for SOD 1 mutation for degenerative myelopathy had 2 copies of the mutation - the development of the clinical signs of DM for the breed hasn't yet been reported. In practical terms, this means that while you may still wish to test for the mutation in your breed, or it may be included on any testing panels, there isn’t currently a good reason to prioritize test results in any breeding or other health decisions. Unnecessarily excluding a dog from breeding based on irrelevant or inconclusive test results can be, on balance, very damaging to the genetic diversity of the breed. Thinking back to DM and the wire-fox terrier, this would mean that if breeding decisions were made on DM test results alone, you'd be excluding the vast majority of the dog population where the test does not for this breed seem to predict clinical disease. For any orange BRR, it would be worth looking at the test’s breed-specific information in more detail (search for test information HERE) to help put any potential test results into perspective. Wherever possible, the phenes database includes comments directly from the researchers and original test developers. As always, talk to your genetic test provider and/or veterinary scientist if you are concerned about genetic test results. And, if you missed it the first time around, you may want to check out the previous blog including updated breed relevancy ratings, and breed-specific publications, HERE. References: Zeng R., Coates J.R., Johnson G.C., Hansen L., Awano T., Kolicheski A., Ivansson E., Perloski M., Lindblad-Toh K., O'Brien D.P., Guo J., Katz M.L., Johnson G.S. (2014) Breed Distribution of SOD1 Alleles Previously Associated with Canine Degenerative Myelopathy. J Vet Intern Med 28: 515-521 Photo thanks to: Engin Akyurt, via Pexels
  9. Ian Seath hosted a webinar on Breed Health Improvement Strategies for the Danish Kennel Club on June 11th 2020. An important subject that is more current than ever, where some breeds are faced with a difficult time in relation to health and considerations for the future of the breed. Many thanks to Ian for sharing the video and accompanying slideshow with the DogWellNet community! Thanks goes to Katrine Jeppesen, from the Danish Kennel Club for permission to share this DKK webinar!
  10. 2020... Hélène Denis from the Club du Bulldog Anglais shared the French Kennel Club's BREATH Protocol (BRachycephalic Exercise Aptitude Test for Health) - SCC Service Santé et Gestion des ressources génétiques
  11. This article is a summary we (IPFD) have created describing the issues, the dialogue and challenges around regulatory actions in the Netherlands as of June 2020. The issue is having a polarizing effect across stakeholder groups, and it is our belief that the best results for all dogs are to be achieved by collaborative efforts. IPFD also promotes the considerations of impacts on dogs, breeds, and people when programs are put in place, given the complex nature of issues of health and welfare. This article is a compilation of resources for those who are exploring the situation. Table Of Contents Key points of the situation and background from 2019 Dutch Kennel Club - Breeding Criteria Documentation (English) Stakeholder Responses DogWellNet Coverage and Dog Health Workshops Resources Kennel Club Programs Questions & Moving Forward... (also a good summary of major issues) Some key points: The government of the Netherlands has created a set of criteria about the conformation of short-muzzled dogs and regulations that prohibit breeding of any dog when one is of these is exceeded, regardless of the other criteria. Although the regulations apply to all breeders, as for other issues, pedigree dog breeders who register puppies with the national kennel club (Raad van Beheer, Dutch Kennel Club, DKC) are the most visible and traceable and there is an emphasis on the DKC to enact and enforce these guidelines. And it does not restrict ownership of these dogs or purchase and importation of dogs. Controversies and challenges include: In the 12 designated breeds, pedigreed dog breeders account for a very small proportion of puppies of these breeds being sold in the Netherlands; most are from non-pedigreed breeders and imports. How will the legislation help the majority of dogs? The 12 breeds: i.e., • Affenpinscher • Boston Terrier • English Bulldog • French Bulldog • Griffon Belge • Griffon Bruxellois • Petit Brabançon • Japanese Spaniel • King Charles Spaniel • Pug • Pekingese • Shih Tzu - although sharing some similarities in facial conformation do not have similar risks for Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome, based on available statistics. As stated by the DKC in their response to the proposed legislation: The government's criteria restricting breeding describe exaggerated conformations, which DKC agrees are not desirable and the DKC has concurred with almost all criteria and is supportive in monitoring the breeding stock of pedigree dogs. (See table in Breeding strategy proposal Dutch KC, below). However, the DKC does not agree with the breeding-prohibiting criterion of the Craniofacial Ratio (CFR), stating that, “This criterion would make it impossible to breed certain breeds while the prognostic value and the reproducibility of the CFR are being questioned among scientists.” The scientific evidence for the use of the CFR in the way proposed by the government and their experts is not robust for the breeds studied or should at least be subjected to further review. The government criteria may overemphasize only one aspect of the problems in some of these breeds. Most of the 12 breeds were not part of the key cited study. The DKC is now under pressure from the government and welfare critics and members of the show world for meeting government demands. The situation is being hotly debated through much of the pedigreed dog world and beyond, with some expressing the concern that this regulatory approach is defined in a way to eventually eliminate these breeds and may lead to further restrictions for other breeds. Unfortunately, there are some voices dismissing compelling evidence that there are health problems in certain breeds. It may be that groups who support, in general, attention to the health and welfare of brachychephalics, and have spoken in support of the legislation, may not have carefully considered the evidence or wider impacts. Some are worried that other counties may follow the lead of the Netherlands, without careful consideration. Background: Health and welfare management of brachycephalic dogs is the issue; there are implications are for all dogs and owners. The health and welfare of brachycephalic dogs is a highly complex situation - and yet current reactions and efforts tend to be rather narrow. Positions on various sides seem to becoming entrenched. When narrow or unilateral solutions are enacted without adequate participation of all stakeholders, conflict rather than collaboration or collective actions is often the result. The intensity in published statements and discussions online these days, sometimes extending to hostility, will not lead to an improvement in relations and certainly not to an improvement for the health and welfare of dogs. Responsibility lies with all stakeholders. Simple solutions to complex problems are unlikely to be effective and generally produce unintended consequences. For background and commentary on the recent situation in the Netherlands, please see Dr. Brenda Bonnett's Blog from August 2019, where concerns are expressed that the proposed legislation in the Netherlands was not likely to achieve its goals and the balanced report of the Dutch Kennel Club was presented: Brachycephalic dogs in the Netherlands Since then, the government of the Netherlands has enacted its regulations, to address what they consider to be a pressing need to protect the health and welfare of brachycephalic dogs. Unfortunately, the proposed solutions do not seem to have taken into account the full scientific evidence about the problems nor possible solutions; they may not tackle the full range of concerns; and the focus/enforcement on pedigree breeders may not achieve population-wide benefits for the majority of dogs. While these regulations are under the mandate of one country's government, there is the potential for more harm than good to come from these efforts, with broad implications for owners, dogs, and breeders, both within and beyond the Netherlands. Raad van Beheer (The Dutch Kennel Club, DKC) has translated information on the background and particulars of government regulations regarding breeding brachycephalic dogs - effective in the Netherlands as of May 18, 2020. Links to extensive coverage of the issues are located on the Fokken met kortsnuitige honden page on Raad van Beheer's website. Links to the eight documents that are are available in English (accessed June 2020) are listed below. Below are compiled resources on the 'discussions' and issues as well as resources, including those calling for inclusive and collaborative discussions. This resource page will be updated as the situation evolves. ...
  12. HGTD, and IPFD, were thrilled to be able to send our very best wishes and acknowledgements to Prof Frank Nicholas, on the 25th Anniversary of the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals (OMIA) resource. (see Brenda's Blog) Collaboration with, and integration of OMIA's information is vital for a lot of what HGTD is able to do - and fundamental to animal genetics researchers the world over. OMIA is a catalogue/compendium of inherited disorders, other (single-locus) traits, and genes in 251 animal species. OMIA is a great example of collaboration in action - authored by Professor Frank Nicholas of the University of Sydney, Australia, but with expert input and help from many people over the years. For HGTD, it has provided a standardized, unique identifier number for the hundreds of phenes we list on the database, as well as additional information curated by Prof Nicholas and his contributors over the years. The OMIA number is something that can be recognized by genetic researchers across all countries, as a universal reference. It is a resource used by so many HGTD stakeholders, and accepted as something that just... feels like it has always existed. While it is hard to imagine creating HGTD and other resources without OMIA in place, it is easy to take fundamental resources like OMIA for granted that they will exist forever, always expanding, and up to date, without thinking about the challenges required to create them, and the perseverance to keep them going through the years. This concept was in my mind this week as I tackled adding in dozens of new breed-specific research publications and references, as well as updating OMIA references to phenes in the HGTD database. As an integral part of HGTD's principle of transparency in reporting, providing up to date breed-specific and breed-relevant publications from peer-reviewed journals, as well as additional input from geneticists and researchers is a critical, but also a challenging and time-consuming aspect of maintaining the HGTD databases. It requires regular review of OMIA, as new OMIA numbers are generated for new canine single-locus traits, collaboration with researchers who can provide important journal references, and the time and expertise to write and reference technically/clinically accurate phene descriptions, with language and wording that is accessible and clear to a wide audience. This is part of why it was so important from the beginning of the Phenes database development, that we worked to include gene and mutation information for each phene, at a breed-specific as well as testing level. And, why we offer 2 descriptions for as many phenes as possible: a more technical/clinical description for our veterinary and research users, as well as a more real-life experience summary for dog owners and breeders. It might be us who are putting this information in place, but it is only with the collaboration, and expert input from researchers and experts that we are able to have such a robust and responsive resource. Thinking back to our friends at OMIA, I wonder (hope), that IPFD and the HGTD databases will in time be seen as a standard resource and reference for our diverse community, and be celebrating such an auspicious anniversary as OMIA, in the future. With continued thanks, and appreciation to: (puppy photo thanks to Mateja Lemic via Pexels)
  13. Congratulations to the University of Sydney and OMIA - the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals database. 25 years old 25 May 2020. Check out the celebration webpage here. This amazing resource underpins research and education on genetics in many species and has been a key support for advancement in the world of dog genetics and genomics. The development and maintenance of this fantastic database is due to the input and support of many academics, researchers, and others, many of whom volunteer their expertise and time. But it would not have existed or been maintained without the commitment and passion of Frank Nicholas. We gratefully congratulate him on this milestone. OMIA is a collaborating partner of the IPFD, and we have been coordinating and linking with them to maintain the quality of the Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs database and resources. The OMIA numbering system is vital for international collaboration and critical to harmonizing genetic phenes across research and industry. IPFD is very proud of and grateful for this association and will help celebrate this event with a donation via the OMIA site. Why not join us in recognizing this important and necessary achievement?
  14. UNDER CONSTRUCTION IPFD and our Partners support the health, well-being and welfare of ALL DOGS - and human-dog interaction. This section will link you to content and resources to support you and your dog - no matter what breed or type it is. Topics include: - education - activities - health and breed-specific issues (even for cross breeds and mongrels!) - behaviour, socialization - legislation Education of Consumers and the Public In this section we share information, material and links to our Partner's and Collaborator's content relevant to the education of consumers and the public, in the broadest sense. Responsible dog ownership and Pre-acquisition resources are available. Education is key to addressing the health and welfare of all dogs!
  15. HGTD Update: 12 May 2020 Since the last blog, we’ve had additional expert review of many Breed Relevancy Ratings (BRRs) – particular in commonly tested eye conditions, and ataxias. As we are growing our expert out-reach for input into BRRs, we are pleased to note that there is consensus between experts self-reviewing their tests as well as peer-reviewing each other. This adds reassurance to us that the current BRR estimation of combining what we can learn from research publications, phene discoverer’s expert opinions, and informal peer-review between geneticists, is working. So far, we have been able to estimate BRRs for more than 1167+ of the 2684 possible breed-specific test combinations. To support BRRs, we are also adding in additional and newly published breed-specific publications and other references in the Breed Specific Information area of the generic phenes. You can find any breed-specific publications or other resources via the "Search by Test/Disease", under the Researched Breeds section. One example is for Spinocerebellar Ataxia, CAPN1-related – where you can see for 3 breeds, there are links to further information, breeding strategies, and researcher comments and publications: Check out in the HGTD by searching on Ataxia...CAPN1 HERE or go directly to the OUTPUT HERE. Our lists of peer-reviewed publications and referenes are growing by the minute. As a reminder, in the Test/Disease (Phenes) section, you can find the original mutation discovery paper (where known) as well as a selection of other relevant references. As this expands, we are exploring other ways to capture this information to be able to share it in a useful way for you. If you are a researcher, or know of a publication we don’t currently list - especially any breed-specific references, please let us know! We try to include the reference as well as links to open-access resources or a pdf, whenever possible. You can email me at aimee.llewellyn-zaidi@ipfdogs.com Terrier image by P. Kirsi, from Pexels
  16. "The IPFD's signature event, the International Dog Health Workshops (IDHW) bring together decision makers from kennel and breed clubs, professional, regulatory, national and regional, welfare and other organisations that are stakeholders in dog health, well-being and welfare and human-dog interactions under the tagline 'From Information and Collaboration to Action'." We are excited to report the online publication of the report on the 4th International Dog Health Workshop. We are particularly excited to report that actions prioritized at that meeting are underway and outcomes are being realized. Links to come.... Open Access - thanks to our Collaborators at Canine Medicine and Genetics Author details: 1 The Royal Veterinary College, UK; 2, 3 CEO, IPFD Canada and Sweden; 4 Svenska Kennelklubben, Sweden; 5 Queen’s University Belfast, UK; 6 The Kennel Club, UK; 7 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden; 8 Université Paris-Saclay, Inrae, AgroParisTech, France; 9 Project Director, IPFD, Oregon, USA; 10 Chairman Dachshund Breed Council, London, UK. View Full Article at Canine Medicine and Genetics Here Download PDF: Report on the 4th IDHW Canine Medicine and Genetics May 2020.pdf
  17. We get questions about how we ensure the quality of the information available on HGTD. It can actually be very challenging, and we rely on having good processes, and collaboration when developing content. To meet the IPFD principle of transparency, we are starting a series of blogs to describe how we manage this resource. We hope to then provide a regular news feed on HGTD developments and changes, to give you all an insight into this work. To get started, here is a little insight into running and maintaining HGTD. How do new genetic test providers (GTPs) join? GTPs reach HGTD as part of the wider IPFD network, research conference outreach, and direct contact. Leadership Sponsors, Sponsors and Participants include commercial providers, non-profits, and large and smaller research groups. Donations from our participants and sponsors to help off-set some of the running costs and development of HGTD. All data received is checked for accuracy, and legitimacy. GTPs who offer ISAG, or other accreditation are checked. All testing information is reviewed to standardize nomenclature and catch any errors or mis-translations. Regular reviews of all databases (GTP, Tests, and Phenes) ensure changes in the industry or emerging research is captured, and disseminated. Quick, and accurate publication is our goal. We aim to have new GTP information, and updates added within 48 hours, but this is often much faster. Publication allows for peer-review, and is key to an open and transparent system. What does the general running work look like? As our GTPs are international, we harmonize across different languages, nomenclature, and national/regional accreditations. We also collaborate with groups such as OMIA and ISAG to improve consistency and harmonization across the industry. At any given time, we are the caretakers of information on dozens of GTPs, hundreds of phenes, and thousands of lines of associated data. All of which have to be checked against independent sources, and regularly reviewed to reflect the fast-paced changes in the genetic testing world. What if I want to help? Use HGTD. The most important way to help is to use HGTD, and tell your friends about how helpful you find it. If we can improve it, let us know. Recommend, Donate! If you have a favorite GTP and they aren’t participating, get in contact with us to help us encourage them to become a part of HGTD. If you have the ability to donate, even a small amount, you can choose to direct it towards IPFD, or directly to HGTD. Either way, you will be supporting us in building resources to improve dog health and welfare. Be part of our Collaboration Community. You can send questions about tests, research papers, experience that your breed club has had, or other feedback to us. We work hard to respond quickly, and while we can’t include everything, we always aim to integrate robust new information. Further information/References: Sponsors, Participant, and databases can be viewed in the Genetic Testing section of IPFD: https://dogwellnet.com/ctp/
  18. David Eikelberg

    Everything is Connected

    This terrific video really puts a smile on my face!!! It is a clever and thoughtfully engaging way to illustrate what IPFD is all about..., "integration" of a set of vital initiatives and subsets of types of data that are all essential in the overall wellbeing of dogs. The music makes it lighthearted and entertaining. It also makes people think about the fact that while all these things may be been done by organizations..., no one single organization has ever pulled them all together for an overall impact assessment. All the canine health care..., breed clubs..., genetic testing labs..., they all work independently and because of the lack of a coordinated effort between all organizations, vital comparative information is lost..., and that is exactly what IPFD adds..., a global harmonization of data. Well done! Great video.
  1. Load more content
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.