Jump to content

Menu

Azure Standard: County threatens to spray 2,000 acre organic farm


milovany
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whether you shop through Azure Standard or not, whether you eat organic or not, this is such a highly questionable and erroneous action (well, in my opinion). Sherman County officials in Oregon are considering changing the wording of their noxious weed ordinance from "controlling" (which can be done organically and which Azure does) to "eradicating" (which cannot be done organically and which Azure cannot do).  Azure  Standard's farm has been an established organic farm for 18 years and the county says if this goes through, they will spray the 2000 acre farm with Round Up type chemicals, thereby destroying the organic farm -- and then put a lien on the farm to pay for the labor and chemicals.  :(

 

If you feel so inclined, if you think organic farms should not be so threated, please see the following link for contact information for Sherman County officials.  You do NOT have to live in Sherman County to voice your opinion.  Azure delivers to numerous states outside of Oregon and this would affect a great many people beyond Oregon's borders. 

 

https://hl.azurestandard.com/healthy-living/info/azure-farm-moro/

Edited by milovany
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EPA stole our family farm this way. They did a "clean up" of non harmful chemicals and charges us more than the farm was worth. They are allowing my elderly father to live on it until they sell it. Fortunately they are trying to sell it for the entire cost of the clean up so he may outlive them. But this is wayyyy more common that people think. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the state would come in, use chemicals that will destroy the farm, and then charge the farm.

 

I wish I was surprised.

Just to clarify it is the county, not the state, doing this. Politically, there is very much a rural/urban divide in Oregon. Some of the rural counties are larger than other states in the US, but very sparsely populated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EPA stole our family farm this way. They did a "clean up" of non harmful chemicals and charges us more than the farm was worth. They are allowing my elderly father to live on it until they sell it. Fortunately they are trying to sell it for the entire cost of the clean up so he may outlive them. But this is wayyyy more common that people think. 

 

Wow, that is awful! 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify it is the county, not the state, doing this. Politically, there is very much a rural/urban divide in Oregon. Some of the rural counties are larger than other states in the US, but very sparsely populated.

There is quite possibly some jealousy involved in this. Most people in agriculture in this county are in beef, which is suffering now, so there may simply be animosity against someone more prosperous. That is an ugly aspect of rural life that people don't understand until they live it. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is quite possibly some jealousy involved in this. Most people in agriculture in this county are in beef, which is suffering now, so there may simply be animosity against someone more prosperous. That is an ugly aspect of rural life that people don't understand until they live it. 

 

In our area this sort of thing happens when city folks move to rural areas wanting the calendar picture lifestyle and using "laws" to get it. In our township, they had a group wanting to outlaw weeds in fields (much like the article here suggests) and wanting to limit livestock noise to daytime hours.

 

A)  It's impossible to get rid of weeds in fields without using all the chemicals one uses to get artificial lawns.  No thank you when it comes to our critter pastures, garden, and even hayfields.  Many of those "weeds" critters even enjoy (like dandelions).

 

B)  YOU tell my stallion he has to be quiet after 10 pm - or babies looking for their mamas if they end up not paying attention and getting separated.  Ditto that for those who have cattle.

 

We won't even get into smells and farm equipment on the highway.  Fortunately, rural minds won the vote - this last time.  As more "citiots" move here, who knows next time.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a county government were trying to be fair and unbiased, how do you even decide between, say, the interests of a thousand people who don't want to see or smell weeds, and the interests of the farmer and his customers who don't want pesticides? Of course you can say that one side or the other is right/wrong/stupid, but if you don't, how do you weigh the different interests? Do you go by number of people? How activist they are? How much money they have? Who was there first? Whichever side the city official is on? Which side gets better social media attention? Do you just go with the government not interfering when it's not a clear case for it? The people who want the farm not sprayed probably want a factory to be carbon-limited, for example, which is suddenly the pro-intervention side.

 

Of course, the part about spraying and charging them is beyond absurd and immoral!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a county government were trying to be fair and unbiased, how do you even decide between, say, the interests of a thousand people who don't want to see or smell weeds, and the interests of the farmer and his customers who don't want pesticides? Of course you can say that one side or the other is right/wrong/stupid, but if you don't, how do you weigh the different interests? Do you go by number of people? How activist they are? How much money they have? Who was there first? Whichever side the city official is on? Which side gets better social media attention? Do you just go with the government not interfering when it's not a clear case for it? The people who want the farm not sprayed probably want a factory to be carbon-limited, for example, which is suddenly the pro-intervention side.

 

Of course, the part about spraying and charging them is beyond absurd and immoral!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Noxious weeds are not about something being unsightly or smelling bad.  Noxious weeds are things like kudzu or scotch broom with take over the natural vegetation of an area and thereby harm the area's habitat for people and animals. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EPA stole our family farm this way. They did a "clean up" of non harmful chemicals and charges us more than the farm was worth. They are allowing my elderly father to live on it until they sell it. Fortunately they are trying to sell it for the entire cost of the clean up so he may outlive them. But this is wayyyy more common that people think. 

 

I have absolutely no doubt about that. 

 

 

 

ETA:

 

If a county government were trying to be fair and unbiased, how do you even decide between, say, the interests of a thousand people who don't want to see or smell weeds, and the interests of the farmer and his customers who don't want pesticides? Of course you can say that one side or the other is right/wrong/stupid, but if you don't, how do you weigh the different interests? Do you go by number of people? How activist they are? How much money they have? Who was there first? Whichever side the city official is on? Which side gets better social media attention? Do you just go with the government not interfering when it's not a clear case for it? The people who want the farm not sprayed probably want a factory to be carbon-limited, for example, which is suddenly the pro-intervention side.

 

Of course, the part about spraying and charging them is beyond absurd and immoral!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

You go with common sense.  2000 acres is a LOT and it's in the middle of nowhere.  Very few people are going to see (or smell) very little of the farm.  My uncle's farm is 140 acres, and the driveway proper is 3/4 of a mile long, with another nearly 1/4 mile of gravel road to a paved road and the mail box.  No one just passing through the county would ever even see his fields.  Unless it really is an invasive species that is encroaching on someone else's property (which I sort of doubt, but ok it's possible), it really sounds like someone has their knickers in a bunch over something.

 

On top of that, Round Up is not a weedkiller  It's an indiscriminate herbicide that will kill and any all plant life if even a drop of it touches the leaves.  And from when I've used it, I've noticed spots that have had it applied don't readily grow much of anything else well for a while (I didn't keep track).  And if you have a creeping species, like St. Augustine, spraying one leaf will kill everything connected to that particular root system (as in, if you miss your sidewalk and get a bit on your creeping grass lawn, a whole patch will go brown within a few days).  I have no idea where these fields are in their production cycle, but this will ruin them, and whatever crops might be growing in them now.  And then I guess it's up to the USDA to determine how long after treatment they are able to claim organic status for those 2000 acres.  If the term this decision hinges on is "eradicate," the the county is "justified" in doing this over a solitary weed.  Knotted knickers.

 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf

Page 4 discusses Round Up in soils, though if it's more water soluble, I wonder what happens when it rains on soil that has recently been treated with Round Up, especially 2000 acres' worth.  Maybe it's dry up there this time of year.

 

 

ETA2:  I'm not ranting at you HTR; I'm sorry.  I just think this is ridiculous and maybe there's a detail or two that would make it not ridiculous, but to me there's no way this is a government trying to be fair.

Edited by CES2005
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a county government were trying to be fair and unbiased, how do you even decide between, say, the interests of a thousand people who don't want to see or smell weeds, and the interests of the farmer and his customers who don't want pesticides? Of course you can say that one side or the other is right/wrong/stupid, but if you don't, how do you weigh the different interests? Do you go by number of people? How activist they are? How much money they have? Who was there first? Whichever side the city official is on? Which side gets better social media attention? Do you just go with the government not interfering when it's not a clear case for it? The people who want the farm not sprayed probably want a factory to be carbon-limited, for example, which is suddenly the pro-intervention side.

 

Of course, the part about spraying and charging them is beyond absurd and immoral!

 

PA has a "Right to Farm" clause that pretty much everyone buying a place in a rural area needs to sign respecting the fact that farms are farms and come with noises, smells, inconveniences, etc.  Had the citiot vote won, you betcha it would have been challenged in court.  If folks don't want to live with farms, then don't move to rural farming areas!

 

Noxious weeds are not about something being unsightly or smelling bad.  Noxious weeds are things like kudzu or scotch broom with take over the natural vegetation of an area and thereby harm the area's habitat for people and animals. 

 

Killing with herbicidal chemicals is not the only way to keep weeds at bay - and - it's not exactly healthy.  We use very little on our farm - pretty much only for poison ivy and sometimes cockleburrs/burdock.  Interestingly enough, those are the first things to return after spraying.  They're hardy things.  We mostly remove them by hand (well, with gloves).  Mustard also get removed by hand.  Some other things we simply learn to live with and try to keep borders on (multi-flora).

 

Personally, I detest "artificial" green lawns. They are so unnatural.  Keep them in cities if one must.  I prefer those with wildflowers in them.  They're so much prettier and more like nature.

 

I very much believe a 2000 acre organic farm that is living off their income does a decent enough job keeping weeds at bay.  If not, require more manpower, not herbicides.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA has a "Right to Farm" clause that pretty much everyone buying a place in a rural area needs to sign respecting the fact that farms are farms and come with noises, smells, inconveniences, etc. Had the citiot vote won, you betcha it would have been challenged in court. If folks don't want to live with farms, then don't move to rural farming areas!

 

 

Killing with herbicidal chemicals is not the only way to keep weeds at bay - and - it's not exactly healthy. We use very little on our farm - pretty much only for poison ivy and sometimes cockleburrs/burdock. Interestingly enough, those are the first things to return after spraying. They're hardy things. We mostly remove them by hand (well, with gloves). Mustard also get removed by hand. Some other things we simply learn to live with and try to keep borders on (multi-flora).

 

Personally, I detest "artificial" green lawns. They are so unnatural. Keep them in cities if one must. I prefer those with wildflowers in them. They're so much prettier and more like nature.

 

I very much believe a 2000 acre organic farm that is living off their income does a decent enough job keeping weeds at bay. If not, require more manpower, not herbicides.

I agree with you on not using herbicides. I was just pointing out that "noxious weeds" has a specific definition where the word noxious isn't just used as an adjective. Lots of weeds are not specifically classified as a noxious weed. That is a designation for invasive species that harm an ecosystem.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a county government were trying to be fair and unbiased, how do you even decide between, say, the interests of a thousand people who don't want to see or smell weeds, and the interests of the farmer and his customers who don't want pesticides? Of course you can say that one side or the other is right/wrong/stupid, but if you don't, how do you weigh the different interests? Do you go by number of people? How activist they are? How much money they have? Who was there first? Whichever side the city official is on? Which side gets better social media attention? Do you just go with the government not interfering when it's not a clear case for it? The people who want the farm not sprayed probably want a factory to be carbon-limited, for example, which is suddenly the pro-intervention side.

 

Of course, the part about spraying and charging them is beyond absurd and immoral!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since everyone needs to eat and breath and drink water, this is a crazy question to even have. Yes, you tell the ignorant morons that cows poop and moo and edible corn doesn't grow on golf course grass and what goes on top of the dirt eventually ends up down in the water.

 

And you further explain to the idiots that their desire for picturesque hallmark life doesn't trump reality needs for all of humanity.

 

And vote out an official who is too stupid or too financially selfish to mandate against such obvious facts.

 

Ugh. *smh*

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PA has a "Right to Farm" clause that pretty much everyone buying a place in a rural area needs to sign respecting the fact that farms are farms and come with noises, smells, inconveniences, etc.  Had the citiot vote won, you betcha it would have been challenged in court.  If folks don't want to live with farms, then don't move to rural farming areas!

 

 

Killing with herbicidal chemicals is not the only way to keep weeds at bay - and - it's not exactly healthy.  We use very little on our farm - pretty much only for poison ivy and sometimes cockleburrs/burdock.  Interestingly enough, those are the first things to return after spraying.  They're hardy things.  We mostly remove them by hand (well, with gloves).  Mustard also get removed by hand.  Some other things we simply learn to live with and try to keep borders on (multi-flora).

 

Personally, I detest "artificial" green lawns. They are so unnatural.  Keep them in cities if one must.  I prefer those with wildflowers in them.  They're so much prettier and more like nature.

 

I very much believe a 2000 acre organic farm that is living off their income does a decent enough job keeping weeds at bay.  If not, require more manpower, not herbicides.

sheep eat most of the things people thjink are "weeds" and what they don't eat, the cows will. It shocks me that sheep manage to consume blackberry thickets!

 

The best way of a managing a farm, IMHO, is to avoid the monoculture. Thats part of what got us into this mess ecologically!

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since everyone needs to eat and breath and drink water, this is a crazy question to even have. Yes, you tell the ignorant morons that cows poop and moo and edible corn doesn't grow on golf course grass and what goes on top of the dirt eventually ends up down in the water.

 

And you further explain to the idiots that their desire for picturesque hallmark life doesn't trump reality needs for all of humanity.

 

And vote out an official who is too stupid or too financially selfish to mandate against such obvious facts.

 

Ugh. *smh*

 

Ahhh... the stories I could tell on this topic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a county government were trying to be fair and unbiased, how do you even decide between, say, the interests of a thousand people who don't want to see or smell weeds, and the interests of the farmer and his customers who don't want pesticides? Of course you can say that one side or the other is right/wrong/stupid, but if you don't, how do you weigh the different interests? Do you go by number of people? How activist they are? How much money they have? Who was there first? Whichever side the city official is on? Which side gets better social media attention? Do you just go with the government not interfering when it's not a clear case for it? The people who want the farm not sprayed probably want a factory to be carbon-limited, for example, which is suddenly the pro-intervention side.

 

Of course, the part about spraying and charging them is beyond absurd and immoral!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, I think all of these questions are moot - farms are needed to grow food. Weeds happen. Farmers should be able to decide how to manage their land as long as it isn't harming anyone else. Weeds on ones own property don't harm anyone else. Chemicals, however, are known to harm others and in this case, would cause the farm to loose it's customer base, which is financial harm. This is a no brainer. No farm = no food. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's far more to this story than Azure's side. I've seen several articles and comments on Facebook presenting the surrounding farms' concerns. They argue that Azure hasn't practiced any weed control. Organic does not mean weeds grow wild. The weeds are infecting other farmers' lands requiring them to fight the weeds, but they can only do so much since Azure refuses to combat the problem on their own land.

 

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20170515/county-may-press-for-quarantine-of-an-organic-farm

 

I take no position on the issue. I'm just sharing the other side's arguments, which involve more parties than just the county.

Edited by ErinE
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think all of these questions are moot - farms are needed to grow food. Weeds happen. Farmers should be able to decide how to manage their land as long as it isn't harming anyone else. Weeds on ones own property don't harm anyone else. Chemicals, however, are known to harm others and in this case, would cause the farm to loose it's customer base, which is financial harm. This is a no brainer. No farm = no food. 

 

Bolding mine.

 

I understand your point, but I'm going to disagree. I live in a neighborhood where everyone has acre lots. The folks just west of me barely mow, never water, and certainly do not manage their property. If Johnson grass and nutsedge go to seed in their yard (and they do), birds and the wind will carry the seeds to my yard and beyond. There is some responsibility to each other to keep easily spread weeds under control.

 

I do not know enough about the farm situation to comment on it. It is scary to think the government can take over a property without due course in the courts.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a rural county and if you let your property get overgrown with noxious weeds, you get a letter from the Weed Commissioner (yes, that is an actual title!) stating that you need to remove the weeds or you will be fined. You don't have to use weed killer, mowing is sufficient. The rule is enforced in an effort to control weed seeds from spreading and creating problems for other property owners. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolding mine.

 

I understand your point, but I'm going to disagree. I live in a neighborhood where everyone has acre lots. The folks just west of me barely mow, never water, and certainly do not manage their property. If Johnson grass and nutsedge go to seed in their yard (and they do), birds and the wind will carry the seeds to my yard and beyond. There is some responsibility to each other to keep easily spread weeds under control.

 

I do not know enough about the farm situation to comment on it. It is scary to think the government can take over a property without due course in the courts.

 

This. Land is not contained within manmade borders. If my neighbor has ticks/fleas/mice... so will I in short order. Land management is like good fences - it makes good neighbors and just generally good land stewardship.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's far more to this story than Azure's side. I've seen several articles and comments on Facebook presenting the surrounding farms' concerns. They argue that Azure hasn't practiced any weed control. Organic does not mean weeds grow wild. The weeds are infecting other farmers' lands requiring them to fight the weeds, but they can only do so much since Azure refuses to combat the problem on their own land.

 

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20170515/county-may-press-for-quarantine-of-an-organic-farm

 

I take no position on the issue. I'm just sharing the other side's arguments, which involve more parties than just the county.

 

This is why I take my position that IF weeds truly are an issue, then mandate manpower (or use and put a lien).  It does not have to be contaminated with herbicides to be done.  They do not have to ruin an organic section of land.  Mowing and pulling are both organic options.  We opt to use them both quite a bit.  Even this morning I was out pulling some weeds and discussing with hubby what needs to be mowed... It's an ongoing job, but to us, very worth it to avoid most herbicides.  It's pretty darn good exercise too TBH.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I take my position that IF weeds truly are an issue, then mandate manpower (or use and put a lien). It does not have to be contaminated with herbicides to be done. They do not have to ruin an organic section of land. Mowing and pulling are both organic options. We opt to use them both quite a bit. Even this morning I was out pulling some weeds and discussing with hubby what needs to be mowed... It's an ongoing job, but to us, very worth it to avoid most herbicides. It's pretty darn good exercise too TBH.

My understanding from the article linked above is they've had ample time and opportunity to do this and have chosen not to. They also have until may 22 to come up with a workable viable plan to stop the weeds. If this is the route they wish to take, they still have time.

I live in a farm, weed management is an ongoing issue. It didn't crop up overnight.

At this point drastic action needs to be taken to protect neighboring farms.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding from the article linked above is they've had ample time and opportunity to do this and have chosen not to. They also have until may 22 to come up with a workable viable plan to stop the weeds. If this is the route they wish to take, they still have time.

I live in a farm, weed management is an ongoing issue. It didn't crop up overnight.

At this point drastic action needs to be taken to protect neighboring farms.

 

So take the drastic action with manpower instead of herbicides - and add a lien for the cost.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They county will go with the fastest, easiest option available.

 

And that's where they're wrong - doing a huge disservice to the planet and oodles of people.

 

If they have a lien (their plans as listed), they'll eventually get their money back anyway costing the county nothing in the long run (aside from court costs if they get challenged in court due to using herbicides).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I take my position that IF weeds truly are an issue, then mandate manpower (or use and put a lien). It does not have to be contaminated with herbicides to be done. They do not have to ruin an organic section of land. Mowing and pulling are both organic options. We opt to use them both quite a bit. Even this morning I was out pulling some weeds and discussing with hubby what needs to be mowed... It's an ongoing job, but to us, very worth it to avoid most herbicides. It's pretty darn good exercise too TBH.

From my understanding of the other farms' arguments, this is a long term issue, with multiple warnings that were ignored. With Azure allegedly doing very little, the weeds grew so bad that the county has taken actions to control the problem, steps that haven't happened yet. It sounds like the threat of using chemical herbicides has forced Azure to come up with an alternative plan, something it sounds like everyone wanted in the first place.

Edited by ErinE
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an aside---I'm not of any opinion on this..but if azure is having trouble with weed control, that explains the bag of organic wheat berries that I received that had tons of weed seeds. Fully 10-15 % of the bag had weed seeds. I returned it and haven't bought wheat grain from them again.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this.

 

I hope they will find a way to get rid of the weeds that does not involve herbicides.

 

A property in our area used a hot steam device some years ago that worked on such weeds and did not contaminate the land--and also did not take a huge amount of time or manpower. I wish I could remember the details and then get them to the Azure people. I think that NCAP (the A and P stand for alternatives to pesticides), knew about the steam system and was somehow involved and is a Eugene area group. But the management of NCAP changed some years ago and the people who run it now may not know.

 

Even though I know there are 2 sides, I plan to call because I think that herbicides are more dangerous to the environment and our health than weeds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's far more to this story than Azure's side. I've seen several articles and comments on Facebook presenting the surrounding farms' concerns. They argue that Azure hasn't practiced any weed control. Organic does not mean weeds grow wild. The weeds are infecting other farmers' lands requiring them to fight the weeds, but they can only do so much since Azure refuses to combat the problem on their own land.

 

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20170515/county-may-press-for-quarantine-of-an-organic-farm

 

I take no position on the issue. I'm just sharing the other side's arguments, which involve more parties than just the county.

 

Thanks for posting the link. I knew there had to be another side but all my googling turned up only article for Azure's side. It does sound like this has been building up for a while. Azure didn't have to let it get to this point. And it's not just a trivial weed problem. It's costing neighboring farmers money. 

 

I hope it can work out to everyone's benefit but if Azure just digs their heels in as they seem to want to do, it doesn't look like that will happen.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding of the other farms' arguments, this is a long term issue, with multiple warnings that were ignored. With Azure allegedly doing very little, the weeds grew so bad that the county has taken actions to control the problem, steps that haven't happened yet. It sounds like the threat of using chemical herbicides has forced Azure to come up with an alternative plan, something it sounds like everyone wanted in the first place.

 

Then it sounds like there will be a decent resolution which would be a win for everyone involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our area this sort of thing happens when city folks move to rural areas wanting the calendar picture lifestyle and using "laws" to get it. In our township, they had a group wanting to outlaw weeds in fields (much like the article here suggests) and wanting to limit livestock noise to daytime hours.

 

 

 

I have never laughed harder in my life!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a county government were trying to be fair and unbiased, how do you even decide between, say, the interests of a thousand people who don't want to see or smell weeds, and the interests of the farmer and his customers who don't want pesticides? Of course you can say that one side or the other is right/wrong/stupid, but if you don't, how do you weigh the different interests? Do you go by number of people? How activist they are? How much money they have? Who was there first? Whichever side the city official is on? Which side gets better social media attention? Do you just go with the government not interfering when it's not a clear case for it? The people who want the farm not sprayed probably want a factory to be carbon-limited, for example, which is suddenly the pro-intervention side.

 

Of course, the part about spraying and charging them is beyond absurd and immoral!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How about erring on the side of the landowner when there is no health and safety risk to their neighbors?

  • Like 5
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...