Jump to content

Forest Service taking caches


Parzival

Recommended Posts

That's a shame! What a gorgeous area!! The cache has been there since 2002, so I'd guess that it was probably legal when it was hidden. Are two nearby caches also in the same jurisdiction?

 

I just did a little looking around, and from what I could see, it would appear that the USFS does not have a universal geocaching policy, but instead it seems to be on a park to park basis. Can anyone verify that?

 

To the OP: I'd still go there anyway, just for the hike!

Link to comment

And all this time, I thought they wanted folks to visit and enjoy the forest. I guess it should suffice to just sit back, read about it, maybe look at pretty pictures and be so very grateful that there's somebody diligently making sure that no one gets to test the question "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around..."

 

Not...

Link to comment

Yeah, wilderness is not allowed, but for crying out loud, 14 visits in 7 years certainly is not a lot of traffic. Probably 10 times that number of hikers in the area. I really don't see how the cache is contributing any problems to the environment.

 

Jim

 

I was going to say something about the fishermen that must go up there for the trout, but then I realized that the policy doesn't simply apply to this one cache. Still, that was rather petty, I have to admit.

Link to comment

Just another bureaucrat with nothing better to do. 14 finds since 2002 there is no way this cache has caused as much damage or disrupted as many folks in their peaceful enjoyment of the area as the other hikers or even the bureaucrat who stole the cache.

Link to comment

What people need to understand is WE OWN THE FOREST. We can complain. The ones who remove geocaches in forests do have to answer to someone. And that person has to answer to someone and ultimately they all have to answer to US!

 

In other words, you can sit back and accept it or you can (attempt to) do something about it.

Link to comment

What people need to understand is WE OWN THE FOREST. We can complain. The ones who remove geocaches in forests do have to answer to someone. And that person has to answer to someone and ultimately they all have to answer to US!

 

In other words, you can sit back and accept it or you can (attempt to) do something about it.

 

In spirit, I totally agree with you. Around here, we have areas with signs that say "State Property. No Trespassing"... and I think, "State? Wait... isn't that... US?"

 

Unfortunately, the reality is that we have "land managers" (remember that term from somewhere?) who somehow get to decide how the public gets to interact with the publically owned land. In some cases, it really is for the greater good. In other cases... pure bureaucracy. That's what it looks like in this case, at the best. At the worst, it looks like Barney Fife.

Link to comment

According to the map that I was looking at, I don't see that this area is protected by local, city, state or federal mandate. Any particular reason they took the cache other than the fact that they can?

I don't know what map you were looking at. The cache was definitely in a designated wilderness area. While, I believe, local forest supervisor has some leeway in allow caches, it has generally be considered that caches are not allowed in designated wilderness. Part of the reason is that wilderness areas are supposed to be untrammeled by man. Permanent and semi-permanent man made changes to the wilderness are restricted by law. Allowing cache in these areas is seen by many as a permanent change. The wilderness is supposed to free from the impact of people who visit there area. Motor vehicles, for example are not allowed in designated wilderness. Depending on the area, the managing agency often restricts access by limiting the number of permits given to visit wilderness. It seems that this area doesn't require a permit but the ranger may feel that the activity of geocaching could result in an increase in the number of visitors so as to lessen the wilderness experience of others. Clearly some wilderness areas have managers who see geocaching as an appropriate recreational use in wilderness areas that get few visitors (or perhaps get so many that the extra traffic from geocachers would be insignificant), while other areas have managers who find geocaching not a appropriate wilderness area pastime. There are tons of acres in National Forest that are not designated wilderness. This leaves plenty of places to hide caches. If you really must hide a cache in a wilderness, at least get permission from the supervisor of the area before doing so. And don't be surprised if the rangers remove your cache.

Link to comment

On the surface this is simply insane. This is/was a cache in the Bitterroot Mountains in Montana/Idaho. The vast majority of this area is mountains and "wilderness". Most people who ever get into this area are riding horses. Some are on foot. Regardless of any rules or regulations that may be quoted it makes absolutely no sense at all to me that any agency would choose to remove a cache from this area. Especially one that is visited about twice per year.

 

I have been in this area many times and have hiked in the mountains. I simply cannot imagine how a cache here could be a problem. :mad:

 

I strongly encourage the CO to contact the ranger and attempt to correct this.

Link to comment

Well if the geocachers can disregard a basic rule of the wilderness areas why can I ignore the rule about stomping around with my Hummer and building fires and not returning the site to its natural appearance.

These rules are simple in concept and strict in enforcement. There are hundreds of square miles (and even a few round ones) which it is perfectly legitamite to place a cache why does ANYBODY feel they have the right to disregard the rules...of a wilderness area, of goecaching site like this and then to bitch and moan about it...golly, people get yer heads on straight. There are some areas that it is inappropriate, illegal and irresponsible to place caches.

I ride a mountain bike but I Do NOT ride in wilderness areas cause that's the rules.

Jeff

The Chicagoan

Link to comment

As toz explained, rules on designated wilderness are there for good reason. If the USFS enforces the rules on some prohibited activities and turns a blind eye to other equally prohibited activities, then you're going to criticize them for inconsistancy. So they can't win for losing, when confronted with the attitudes some are espousing here.

 

Yes, it's on a local basis -- per ranger district IIRC. Caches are not allowed in the national part of the San Jacinto Wilderness (but are in the adjacent state wilderness). No objection has been made to the few caches in the far more lightly visited Dick Clark and San Rafael Wilderness areas.

 

As someone who has enjoyed hiking in many wilderness areas, I very much appreciate the effort and work that has gone into protecting these areas. I was born long before the Wilderness Act was passed. My father was born not long after the National Parks' Organic Act was passed. Remember that when Yosemite was designate a national park, less than 150 years ago, the very concept was revolutionary. It's still struggling to take hold in much of the world.

 

So if I hear that pressure is being applied to this ranger district to allow physical caches in a wilderness area where caches would violate existing regulations, I'll be happy to write them in support of their position. I certainly don't agree with all positions taken by the USFS, not by a long shot, but I want them to continue protecting wilderness.

 

Edward

Link to comment

Well if the geocachers can disregard a basic rule of the wilderness areas why can I ignore the rule about stomping around with my Hummer and building fires and not returning the site to its natural appearance.

These rules are simple in concept and strict in enforcement. There are hundreds of square miles (and even a few round ones) which it is perfectly legitamite to place a cache why does ANYBODY feel they have the right to disregard the rules...of a wilderness area, of goecaching site like this and then to bitch and moan about it...golly, people get yer heads on straight. There are some areas that it is inappropriate, illegal and irresponsible to place caches.

I ride a mountain bike but I Do NOT ride in wilderness areas cause that's the rules.

Jeff

The Chicagoan

From what I can read in this thread it appears the ranger is out of bounds here, not the cachers. If the cache is indeed withing the boundaries of a closed area then it should be removed. My question is why the area is closed, if indeed it is. As far as I can tell I am the only one posting here at this point who has actually been in the area of the cache. That certainly does not make me an expert on the laws, rules and regulations. Nor does it make me an expert on the specific area. What I do know is the general area is one of heavy recreational use and I really can't understand why any of it would be excluded from having cache placements. Just my opinion. Rules are rules but that doesn't mean they make any sense.

Link to comment

The cache appears to be in the Selway-Bitterroot Designated Wilderness area.

 

Here's a map page of designated Wilderness areas on Wilderness.net.

 

The concerns of OP and many others on this topic revovle around the fact that we only hurt ourselves as a community. Angry logs on cache pages, heated emails to rangers and their supervisors, and other acts of outrage do not help our cause.

 

In the cache guidelines, we are told to obtain permission; we are told and agree to understanding local rules and regulations. With knowing the location of the Wilderness Areas provided by Isonzo and the Forest Service's guidelines (at Stewardship of Wilderness in the National Forests - A Forest Service Desk Guide for Managers) we can probably all manage to work togetherand maintain an ability to place caches in National Forests.

 

We do indeed own the forests. However, we can manage to get the "authorities" to become draconian and crack down, and reversing intolerant policies can take years. It's probably better to work with the USFS up front, besides, the cache guidelines require us to do so.

Link to comment

A log entry by an anonymous throwaway account, without links or documentation to Policies supporting their action. Hardly sounds worthy of a Forum thread IMO :mad:

 

Would be interesting if someone contacted the email address to find out if there is a Policy for the area regarding Geocaching and not some "unwritten Guideline" :ph34r: Most of the time, I get the sense that these types of things are based more on cencorship of Geocaching.com, and not so much on concerns for the environment.

Link to comment

First, you have to know which agency is responsible for that land’s management (BLM, NPS, USFS, etc.) as they have different legal mandates. Second, you have to understand there is a difference between wilderness, that is, what most people consider wild areas, and Wilderness with a capital W or Federally Designated Wilderness areas. The National Park Service has basically a blanket prohibition on all geocaching and anything left unattended on their lands is considered to be abandoned property or trash and it will be removed. The USFS is under the Department of Agriculture and they have a multiple-use policy which does allow geocaching. They still can restrict cache placement in environmentally sensitive areas and do ban caching in all Federally Designated Wilderness areas.

 

I had a cache removed a few years ago after they rewrote the Wilderness policy for the WMNF in NH. My cache involved an 18 mile round trip hike with stream crossings, bushwhacking, and significant elevation gain making it the toughest cache in New England. After being contacted by Groundspeak, I went to the District Rangers office to recover my cache container and had a long talk with the Wilderness supervisor. The outcome was that he was interested in understanding geocaching and they monitored geocaching.com. He apologized for having to remove the cache but explained that he had to follow the law. Through this friendly face-to-face meeting we both understood that we could work together to resolve any problems that might arise. After this meeting, if the Wilderness Supervisor or our local reviewer had any concerns about caching I could act as a go-between and make sure there were no problems with new cache placement, etc.. Even though my cache had to be removed I felt geocaching became to be viewed as a more responsible activity in the Nation Forest.

 

My advice is to understand why this policy is there and try to work with the agency to ensure that all caches are placed properly. The fact that the cache in question was placed in 2002 doesn’t exempt it from current regulations. Trying to act adversarial could result in stricter regulations whereas showing them cachers have the same love of the outdoors and concerns for our environment as they do certainly could help.

Link to comment

The cache appears to be in the Selway-Bitterroot Designated Wilderness area.

 

Here's a map page of designated Wilderness areas on Wilderness.net.

 

After doing the comparison between the cache location on gc.com's Google map and the map link you provided here, the location of the cache is debateable on whether or not is was on wilderness land, IMO. As for the USFS Ranger removing the cache, IF it was on wilderness land, the ranger had the right to remove it. Otherwise, I'd write to the ranger, get my cache and replace it after explaining to the ranger that the location is not under the ranger's pervue.

Link to comment

Class 4 Wilderness Areas have been a sore spot with the Forest Service for a long time. They are almost like National Parks subsets within the FS. When a tree falls on a trail, you cannot carry a chain saw to cut it out. You have to use hand tools for noise reasons. You are not even suppose to paint blazes on trails within these areas. A cache placed in 2002 was OK at that time, but over time they have cracked down. They don't like caches in Wilderness Areas.

 

Unfortunately, a bad thing to me is when people who don't live near the area posts notes like this on the cache:

I'm glad she left her Email address. It will be easier to track down her superiors and explain that geocachers are part of the group of people who own the forest and pay her wages.
As a matter of fact the only person intruding on visitors enjoyment of the area is the bureaucrat who stole the cache.

Advocation of hunting them down and calling them bureaucrats and thieves probably isn't going to make them feel better about geocachers. If you want to "track down her superiors", perhaps it would be best to promote the experience of being taken to places you would not normally go to rather than bashing them with anger and grief. The logs on the cache page are glowing and so positive about the experience of finding the cache, and then you have the two logs above. Pretty sad actually.

 

The FS in our state had planned to ban caches completely, but in a meeting with them we explained the geocaching experience and they rescinded that policy, except for Wilderness Areas. They have been off limits here for years. This is pretty much across the board with the FS, and I am not sure but I think they also have a law regarding abandoned property in Wilderness Areas similar to the one used by the NPS to ban caches. Wilderness Areas are typically small subsets of the total FS areas in most states so only smaller percentages of the total National Forests are affected. As an avid hiker, I don't have a problem with it. There are plenty of other areas I can place a cache out there if I want.

Link to comment

The U.S. forrest service should take a lesson from the Minnesota State parks. The Minnesota State parks not only allows caching, but have their own caching programs. And they will loan a gps to anyone that wants to give geocahing a shot. Way to go Minnesota!

 

The state park system and the Forestry system exist for very different reasons. THe park system is there to bring people to the area, as well as to protect it as much as possible from those visitors. The Forestry folks, on the other hand, is mandated with protecting the resources, period. And beyond that, there are those special sections of Forest Service land, the wilderness areas, that are set aside for the sole purpose of having absolutely minimal human contact.

Link to comment

The Forestry folks, on the other hand, is mandated with protecting the resources, period. And beyond that, there are those special sections of Forest Service land, the wilderness areas, that are set aside for the sole purpose of having absolutely minimal human contact.

 

From the USFS Mission:

 

"Mission

 

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

 

Motto: Caring for the Land and Serving People

 

The phrase, "CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLE," captures the Forest Service mission. As set forth in law, the mission is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people: It includes:

 

•Advocating a conservation ethic in promoting the health, productivity, diversity, and beauty of forests and associated lands.

 

•Listening to people and responding to their diverse needs in making decisions.

 

•Protecting and managing the National Forests and Grasslands so they best demonstrate the sustainable multiple-use management concept.

Providing technical and financial assistance to State and private forest landowners, encouraging them to practice good stewardship and quality land management in meeting their specific objectives.

 

•Providing technical and financial assistance to cities and communities to improve their natural environment by planting trees and caring for their forests.

 

•Providing international technical assistance and scientific exchanges to sustain and enhance global resources and to encourage quality land management.

 

•Helping States and communities to wisely use the forests to promote rural economic development and a quality rural environment.

 

•Developing and providing scientific and technical knowledge aimed at improving our capability to protect, manage, and use forests and rangelands.

 

•Providing work, training, and education to the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, youth, and disadvantaged in pursuit of our mission."

 

I think if we, the geocaching community, take some efforts to not appear the raving lunatics as pointed out by others, then we better stand a chance of being "the people" to which "to listen"....

Link to comment

Class 4 Wilderness Areas have been a sore spot with the Forest Service for a long time. They are almost like National Parks subsets within the FS. When a tree falls on a trail, you cannot carry a chain saw to cut it out. You have to use hand tools for noise reasons. You are not even suppose to paint blazes on trails within these areas. A cache placed in 2002 was OK at that time, but over time they have cracked down. They don't like caches in Wilderness Areas.

Hell, with rare exception they can't even fight a fire in a wilderness area. I spent 21 years living near the geographic center of the Plumas National Forest and spent a substantial amount of that time registered with the USFS as a contract tree faller. I'd frequently be assigned to work with Hotshot crews during the height of thunder storm season and I lost track of the times we had to just watch a small lightning strike fire in a wilderness area grow into a monster because we couldn't get the permission to attack it.

 

And don't even get me started about bureaucrats in their neckties and shiny black shoes telling foresters how to do their job.

 

Pete

Link to comment

 

I think if we, the geocaching community, take some efforts to not appear the raving lunatics as pointed out by others, then we better stand a chance of being "the people" to which "to listen"....

 

I think we, the geocaching community, need to step back and let the CO, reviewer and a handful of carefully selected locals take care of this. That is the best step we can take towards not overwhelming a single point of contact.

 

Yes, there may be a larger issue at hand, but this needs to be addressed as it relates to this specific cache and by people that are directly involved.

Link to comment

Jeep_Dog, nice find on the mission statement. However, I guess that what I was trying to say is that the park system exists more for the entertainment value, whereas the USFS exists more for natural resources preservation.

 

Also, that mission statement is for the USFS in general, but does not cover their National Wilderness Preservation System duties specifically.

 

I'm not saying that I totally agree with their attitude toward geocaching, particularily when hiking, fishing, and hunting are encouraged, but whether or not I agree is not the issue here.

Link to comment

I think we, the geocaching community, need to step back and let the CO, reviewer and a handful of carefully selected locals take care of this.

 

Since this cache belongs to the CO, I'm wondering if the CO has talked to the ranger who left the note? She left a very nice note, her name, her contact info, and the reason why it was being removed. If the CO has already talked with the ranger, then all this discussion may be moot.

 

Before anyone starts doing anything to get the cart ahead of the horse, we should talk to the CO and find out if this has already been addressed on his/her end.

Link to comment

Before anyone starts doing anything to get the cart ahead of the horse, we should talk to the CO and find out if this has already been addressed on his/her end.

 

Yes, yes! Right, indeed.

 

Ok. Deep breath.

 

Chad's friend - you take care of the people with the pitchforks and ask them to stop. I've got the people with the torches.

 

Chimp - please continue to ensure the horse is dead by beating it (can't very well get ahead of the cart if it is dead, now can it? Unless a steep slope is involved) and after that continue to talk calmly to the masses.

 

Nothing to see here. Move along...

Link to comment

From the Wilderness Act of 1964...

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

 

© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

I.E., we can leave nothing behind after we visit. That is Federal Law, subject to congressional modification.

 

Curioddity is right, even with regard to fighting fires. Once, after tornado damage just slammed part of the Cohutta Wilderness in GA, they had to file for permits with Washington DC to get permission to take chain saws into the wilderness. The only way they could bring them in and the fuel to run them was via horseback.

Link to comment

In Alaska, we've had BLM and National Forest Lands designated as off-limits to geocaches. While at times frustrating (we had to remove over a dozen caches from BLM lands due to concerns about bear/human interactions and about two dozen caches from military lands near Anchorage), a reasoned, positive response from geocachers has left geocaching in a healthy state up here. Through our voluntary compliance to the BLM exclusion corridor along Campbell Creek, geocaching is still flourishing on all other adjacent BLM lands. While the designated Chugach Nation Forest Wilderness Area exclusion locks geocaches out of some VERY scenic areas of Prince William Sound, the vast majority of the National Forest remains open to geocaching.

 

Land managers often have a thankless job trying to assuage all land users. Consider a National Forest land manager...s/he has to consider land uses covering the spectrum from no/low impact in designated Wilderness Areas to clear-cut logging. With a charge covering that wide range of land uses, no matter what they decide to do, they are going to upset at least one group of people. It's a tough job, not one that I would want, but I'm glad someone is doing it.

 

Responding angrily with a pitchfork and torch attitude certainly won't get off-limits lands reopened. In fact, it very well could have the opposite effect and get more lands designated as "no caching" zones. In part, it was some cachers' failure to get "adequate permission" for placing caches on the military lands near Anchorage that led to ALL caches on those military lands getting the boot.

Link to comment

When I placed the Gem Lake cache, Geocaching was still relatively new, and the USFS had not yet articulated policies concerning their placement. As several posters pointed out, the USFS seems to allow some leeway on caches, but this is on a forest-by-forest basis. It is my understanding that the USFS generally prohibits geocaches in designated Wilderness areas. I left Gem Lake in place since it was hidden before these policies were clarified, and because it was so seldom visited. (The cache was also placed on a rocky slope that could not be easily impacted by foot traffic). I am not sure why the BNF ranger did not contact me to request removal, but I would have done so myself if given the opportunity. However, I feel that the ranger explained herself cordially and rationally in her post, and I feel that she was just doing her job (and got paid to hike into that beautiful area to boot :mad: ).

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

Edited by Macduff
Link to comment

Yeah, wilderness is not allowed, but for crying out loud, 14 visits in 7 years certainly is not a lot of traffic. Probably 10 times that number of hikers in the area. I really don't see how the cache is contributing any problems to the environment.

 

Jim

 

It's not, but I can hear them thinking, "It's the principal dammit!"

 

That said, a cache violates the land use and policy of a wilderness area. Sort of. They aren't permanent but they are man made.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

When I placed the Gem Lake cache, Geocaching was still relatively new, and the USFS had not yet articulated policies concerning their placement. As several posters pointed out, the USFS seems to allow some leeway on caches, but this is on a forest-by-forest basis. It is my understanding that the USFS generally prohibits geocaches in designated Wilderness areas. I left Gem Lake in place since it was hidden before these policies were clarified, and because it was so seldom visited. (The cache was also placed on a rocky slope that could not be easily impacted by foot traffic). I am not sure why the BNF ranger did not contact me to request removal, but I would have done so myself if given the opportunity. However, I feel that the ranger explained herself cordially and rationally in her post, and I feel that she was just doing her job (and got paid to hike into that beautiful area to boot :blink: ).

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

 

Good to see that you're taking this so well and that you're being extremely pleasant and understanding about it. I'd suggest that you might want to delete the notes that have been left on the cache page in the interest of keeping the good will flowing between you and the ranger. They weren't your comments, but a few unfortunate and uninformed words like that might sour any future potential placements and put us all in a bad light.

Link to comment

Yeah, wilderness is not allowed, but for crying out loud, 14 visits in 7 years certainly is not a lot of traffic. Probably 10 times that number of hikers in the area. I really don't see how the cache is contributing any problems to the environment.

 

Jim

 

It's not, but I can hear them thinking, "It's the principal dammit!

 

It's the Federal Law, darnit.

Link to comment

When I placed the Gem Lake cache, Geocaching was still relatively new, and the USFS had not yet articulated policies concerning their placement. As several posters pointed out, the USFS seems to allow some leeway on caches, but this is on a forest-by-forest basis. It is my understanding that the USFS generally prohibits geocaches in designated Wilderness areas. I left Gem Lake in place since it was hidden before these policies were clarified, and because it was so seldom visited. (The cache was also placed on a rocky slope that could not be easily impacted by foot traffic). I am not sure why the BNF ranger did not contact me to request removal, but I would have done so myself if given the opportunity. However, I feel that the ranger explained herself cordially and rationally in her post, and I feel that she was just doing her job (and got paid to hike into that beautiful area to boot :blink: ).

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

 

Good to see that you're taking this so well and that you're being extremely pleasant and understanding about it. I'd suggest that you might want to delete the notes that have been left on the cache page in the interest of keeping the good will flowing between you and the ranger. They weren't your comments, but a few unfortunate and uninformed words like that might sour any future potential placements and put us all in a bad light.

I agree. While I believe the law is overbearing it is still the law and it should be followed. As it appears the cache is within the wilderness area it needed to be removed. I also hope the inappropriate notes that have been left on the cache page will be deleted. I see a big difference between discussion and debate here in the forums and angry notes on cache pages.

 

Thanks to Macduff for playing the game well.

Link to comment
However, I feel that the ranger explained herself cordially and rationally in her post, and I feel that she was just doing her job (and got paid to hike into that beautiful area to boot.

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

 

Well said, well done.

Link to comment

......

It's the Federal Law, darnit.

I'd be interested to see the specific section out of the Code of Federal Regulations, or Forest Service Policy. Law's are subject to intrepretation and we have to live with intrepretation until a new guy intreprets it different. There is wiggle room in intrepreting.

See post #40 above.

 

Indeed, well done Macduff.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

This is something I have seen several times over the last 8 years. Why can't cachers just learn to ask, and follow the regulations. I've pulled more than my share of caches from designated Wilderness Areas when I was in CO as a volunteer ranger.

And what I've noticed over the years is that the biggest amount of complainers about the actions of the USFS. Is that they are not from the area. They have little idea how much area is up in those hills. I have caches all over the back country up there, and most of them are onlly visited once or twice a year. So why complain, its the law of the land and there is a lot of other land to go hide them in.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...