WWF to Tell Australian Cattlemen How to be “Sustainable”

The Queensland Country Life today carried a story entitled “WWF sinks hooks deeper into beef industry” by Brad Cooper which makes it beyond doubt that WWF is to project manage beef sustainability courses at the behest of Mc Donalds and with the full co-operation of CCA and MLA.

WWF, through their influence with the Greens in Queensland have been responsible for Vegetation Management laws implemented without ‘just terms’ and with no carbon credit for avoided deforestation. Those were stolen by the government to meet its Kyoto commitments.

An early task force reviewing damage to the Great Barrier Reef wanted to say that the reef was in good shape. However they bowed to the protests of the WWF representative and highlighted the small areas that appeared slightly damaged. WWF have claimed ever since that farming and grazing are damaging the reef in spite of lack of research and knowledge that urban centres are actually causing more alleged pollution.

All green groups have been involved in Wild Rivers legislations and declarations and possible World Heritage listing claiming on the one hand that the areas are either pristine or retaining most of their natural values and on the other denigrating the cattlemen who have lived there for more than 100 years for degrading the landscape and it therefore needs protection.

This legislation has put those graziers in a time warp whose effects will not be felt immediately but over time as it becomes impossible to adopt the results of modern research they will start to bite. One of the great lies told is that declaration will protect the areas from mining and CSG exploitation.

The greatest harm of all has been to our reputation, our self esteem and sense of worth that comes from knowing that you are doing a worthwhile job-feeding the people of the world.

WWF and others have taken the flawed findings of ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow” and publicised them to the point where vegetarian celebrities, authors, journalists, governments and research organisations including our own National Health and Medical Research Council have urged limited or zero meat intake on environmental grounds.

The upshot is that our credentials have been damaged as part of a campaign by environmentalists to discredit those of us who live by the land in order to set themselves up as the environmental gods and the only people deserving of dictating policy and receiving funding and even big business has fallen for the scam.

Be aware that when you respond to that beautifully worded invitation to an Ausgraze workshop your presenter will be in the employ of WWF and the “voluntary” course will soon become mandatory.

Have CCA and MLA let us down once again by not highlighting the science that is on our side instead of responding to the dark green Mob.




The table below is found at page two of the document, Naked extortion? Environmental NGOs imposing [in]voluntary regulations on consumers and business found at the IPA web site. To read the entire document click on this link.       


PRECEDING DISCUSSION - http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/international-green-group...



Beef Central article, WWF: To engage or not to engage?



Follow up article by Brad Cooper published at farmonline, Sustainable beef plan under wraps




Tags: CCA, MLA, McDonalds, WWF, barrier, cattlemen, graziers, great, reef

Views: 14518

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Livestock producers and members of PRA would love this bit of wisdom from JG member John C.Fairfax -

"Hutcho, why hide from WWF agenda. 

Cattlemen on this site don't seem interested in the real cause of damage to the GBR and you are in a state of denial about it. So let the damage and more unjust restrictive legislation continue."


or the permalink -



Now somebody may realise why I get very p----ed off with some people.


Skip to content

Only global poverty can save the planet, insists WWF - and the ESA!




Windfarms for all, but without using steel or concrete

Analysis Extremist green campaigning group WWF - endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency - has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world's wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race's energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now.

Most astonishingly of all, the green hardliners demand that the enormous numbers of wind farms, tidal barriers and solar powerplants required under their plans should somehow be built while at the same time severely rationing supplies of concrete, steel, copper and glass.

The WWF presents these demands in its just-issued Living Planet Report for 2012. It's a remarkable document, not least for the fact that it is formally endorsed for the first time by the European Space Agency (ESA) - an organisation which would cease to exist in any meaningful form if the document's recommendations were to be carried out.

The report is also unusual in that it seeks to set policy on economics and energy, but doesn't anywhere give any figures expressed in units of energy (watt-hours, joules etc) or currency (dollars, euros or what have you). Instead the WWF activists prefer to base their argument on various indices invented either by themselves or by other international non- or quasi-governmental organisations.

For instance one key figure used in the report is the Living Planet Index, invented by the WWF, which apparently shows "trends in the overall state of global biodiversity".

It does this by examining the number of individuals (or sometimes pairs) in various local populations of 2,688 selected species - of vertebrates only. Every two years WWF changes what species and populations are included, in large numbers: and anyone would acknowledge that a limited, localised picture of a couple of thousand vertebrate-only species is an utterly minuscule, extremely selective pinpoint on the picture of all the Earth's life.

Nonetheless WWF think that their LPI number offers conclusive proof that "biodiversity has decreased globally".

This is bad, because:

Biodiversity is vital for human health and livelihoods ...

All human activities make use of ecosystem services – but can also put pressure on the biodiversity that supports these systems.

If that's not enough for you, the document is liberally spattered with case studies showing how various animal populations have plunged. For instance there are now many fewer wild tigers than there were in 1970, which is plainly a bad thing for human health and livelihoods.

The report then assumes that global resources in general are limited, which is easily achieved by measuring them in terms of "biocapacity" expressed in hectares of Earth surface, and further stipulating that no resources can come from beyond Earth (which seems an odd idea for a major space agency to endorse, but there). WWF goes on to assign numbers showing how much of these hectare-resources everyone is using, their "ecological footprint".

In these terms, the only people on Earth who are living within their means are those in the poorest nations - their "footprint" exactly matches the "biocapacity" in their countries (doubtless a coincidence) offering a picture of the sort of life all human beings could aspire to in a WWF-run world. Middle-income nations use more "biocapacity" than they actually have, and high-income ones - all the ones where you as a Register reader are most likely to live - use nearly twice as many eco-resources as they produce.

What does this mean?

The Earth’s natural capital – biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services – is limited ...

Human demands on the planet exceed supply.

The WWF eco-nomists also argue that human beings actually don't - or anyway, shouldn't - want to get richer, as people getting rich means economic growth and that (regardless of what all world governments and almost all economists think, especially right now) is a Bad Thing as it leads to consumer demand which leads to resources and energy being used.

"We need to measure success beyond GDP," says WWF, an argument they've made before. In particular the organisation argues that "human development" or the still-flakier metric "inequality adjusted human development" is a far better one than GDP per capita. (One may note that under the normal HDI (Human Development Index) it is better to live in Ireland, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Slovenia, Spain, Italy or the Czech Republic than in the UK.)

As the green hardliners note:

In countries with a low level of development, [HDI] development level is independent of per capita [ecological] Footprint.

As development increases beyond a certain level, so does per person Footprint — eventually to the point where small gains in development come at the cost of very large Footprint increases.

Or, paraphrased, provided that development and consumption are both miserably low, you can achieve some development without noticeably increasing consumption. Of course only a cynic would suggest that the very design of the "human development" index - whether adjusted for inequality or not - ensures that there will come a point where only tiny increases in development can be achieved no matter the resources used. This is because the Human Development is on a scale from zero to 1, with 1 being unachievable.

It's not just resources that are limited, in the WWF's view: human potential itself is up against a hard limit beyond which the race cannot ever advance. Even progress thus far, as seen in the wealthy nations, has been achieved only by an unfair and wasteful over-use of precious resources: we rich Westerners are already beyond the practical limits that humans should ever aspire to achieve in terms of health, wealth - and even of education.

That's not economics - that's religion. And not very nice religion either.

All this is followed up with some standard rehashing of the standard carbon-driven apocalypse arguments, so setting the stage for WWF's policy agenda. Some of it is relatively uncontroversial: creation of nature reserves, efforts to control overfishing, efforts to ease deforestation.

But then we get onto the big stuff. First up, there must be an "immediate focus" on "drastically shrinking the ecological footprint of high income populations".

That means you, Reg reader: you are to accept a massively lower standard of living, in order to reduce your "footprint" to match your nation's "biocapacity". Then you'll have to take another cut, because your nation - being rich - has more "biocapacity" than a poor country does (despite their claim that planetary resources are finite, WWF acknowledges that new "biocapacity" can be created in the form of cropland, forests etc), but this should be shared with the poorer lands under "equitable resource governance".

That means less heating when it's cold - no cooling at all, probably, when it's hot. It means sharply limited hot water: so dirtier clothes, dirtier bedding and a dirtier you - which will be nice as you will also have to live in a smaller home and travel almost exclusively on crowded buses or trains along with similar smelly fellow eco-citizens. Food will be scarcer and realistically much less nutritious (milk for kids will be a luxury, let alone meat, fruit, coffee, that sort of stuff. Get ready to eat a lot of turnips, if you're a Brit.)

Windfarms, tide barriers, solar panels to power EVERYTHING. But you can't have any concrete or steel or iron or copper. Or glass. Or shipping either. Get on with it!

All this means more disease, and there will also be less health care (only rich nations can afford proper health care for all or most).

Everything - everything - will be a lot more expensive: materials, tools, books, booze, gadgets, clothes. Holidays will be bus trips to the seaside if you're lucky, not trips overseas by plane or car. So it goes on.

Even this grim poverty-stricken dystopia, though, is not the biggest of the WWF demands. The real biggy is that by the year 2050 all energy is to be supplied in the form of renewables-generated electricity, that is by means of windfarms, solar plants, tidal barriers and so forth. For almost all of human history and prehistory we have burned things to generate energy - it is one of the things that makes us human - but now, within a single generation, that is to almost completely stop. After a million years, the fires will go out.

That won't be simple. At the moment, the great bulk of energy used by humanity is not electrical at all - it is generated directly by burning fossil fuels (a little, by burning biofuel such as wood). What electrical energy there is (only a tenth of the total even in countries like the UK) is also mostly fossil-generated right now, and the small proportion of this small proportion which isn't fossil is mainly nuclear, not renewable - presumably to disappear for some reason under the WWF plan.

Then, regardless of the impression one gets from the media, it is not perhaps-dispensable things like aviation or gadgets which use most of our energy. Overwhelmingly, energy is used either in the home, by industries - including for example the health and construction industries - and for ordinary everyday forms of transportation.

And as even WWF acknowledges, billions of people worldwide have no access to any electricity grid at all.

Yet nonetheless - without giving any specifics as to how - WWF considers that just about everyone on Earth can be hooked up to an electrical grid and that these grids can be entirely powered by renewables; and the transport sector can be pretty much entirely electrified; and all of industry, all the mines and smelters and refineries and factories, all of it, can go electric. All this, within 38 years.

There will need to be quite a lot of industry remaining. Even quite limited renewable power goals - for instance (pdf) getting the US onto 20 per cent wind electricity by say 2030 (in other words achieving roughly 2 per cent renewables power for the US) would require every year:

About 6.8 million metric tons of concrete, 1.5 million metric tons of steel, 310,000 metric tons of cast iron, 40,000 metric tons of copper, and 380 metric tons of the rare-earth element neodymium.

Even this equates to 3 per cent of current US domestic consumption of steel, iron and copper - much more in the case of neodymium. To achieve full renewable power you would be talking about doubling or tripling production of concrete, steel and copper. At the moment these materials are produced by burning vast amounts of fossil fuels, so even if you managed to slash use of energy in all other sectors then huge increases in energy demand for materials to build the windmills would cause a massive further demand for more windmills and more materials for them and so on. And all this stuff would have to be hauled all over the place, as renewable plants normally have to be built in inaccessible locations - hauled by electric transport!

But in the WWF cloud-cuckoo-land all this steel and concrete and copper is probably, somehow, unnecessary. The 2012 report says that there must be:

Ambitious energy demand management, especially in sectors with limited renewable options that are likely to be dependent on bioenergy. (Aviation, shipping and high heat industrial applications are likely to be among these.)

"Demand management" is eco-nomics code for "rationing, or making mostly illegal". Rationed aviation is not a big deal except socially (no flying means a return to the days when only the rich and powerful ever got to travel other than for war and migration).

But rationed shipping, in a world which needs to shift gigatonnes of iron and concrete and steel and copper about, is fantasy - the more so as much of the new infrastructure would have to be situated offshore.

And far worse still, "ambitiously" rationing "high heat industrial applications" means that you basically can't have much concrete. Or steel, or copper. Or carbon fibre for your wind-turbine blades. Or glass for your possible solar plants either.

No: the whole plan is plain and simple barking lunacy, based on comedy made-up numbers that signify nothing.

And yet WWF is big stuff. Reports of this type get picked up not just by the mass media but by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and used in official UN doom warnings (often much to the UN's subsequent embarrassment, as in the cases of the non-melting glaciers and the non-burning rainforests). WWF turns over half a billion dollars a year: not much money in some contexts, but a very big budget in marketing or PR terms. WWF can sign up the ESA, for goodness' sake. ESA astronaut André Kuipers - now in space aboard the ISS - is an official WWF ambassador, and his signature is in the front of Living Planet 2012. He writes:

Looking out of my window and watching Earth from space comes with my job as an astronaut. Nevertheless, I feel I am privileged ... I will live on the International Space Station for five months ...

Seeing Earth from space provides a unique perspective. Our planet is a beautiful and fragile place, protected only by a very thin layer of atmosphere essential for life on our planet. And seemingly large forests turned out to be small and passed by very quickly. It was this perspective, and realization, that lie behind my motivation to become a WWF ambassador.

And yet the hundreds of billions it took to build the ISS, the lesser but still enormous sums that sent Kuipers up to live aboard it - there isn't the slightest prospect that these resources would have been available in a world of the sort that WWF advocates. In a world where governments cared nothing for GDP and economic growth and surpluses, where rich nations or populations able to afford proper space programmes had been outlawed (and poor nations with small space programmes, like India, no longer got aid payments from rich ones) ... in that world, Kuipers would never have got the chance to look down on Earth. With WWF-mandated rationing on aircraft, most of his previous career as an aviation-medicine expert and airforce officer would also not have happened.

But people have a strange blind spot about WWF. They think it's still the cuddly old World Wildlife Fund (CNN does, anyway - and so indeed does the ESA). But it's not the WWF any more, nobly trying to save the whale and the dolphin and the tiger. It has transformed into simply WWF - the initials, like those of global arms multinational BAE Systems, no longer stand for anything.

Today's WWF is not really about tigers and dolphins any more, though they make excellent figureheads for fundraising. Just to show how much they aren't, in fact, in step with everyone else, the organisation's activists would be very happy if the present desperate efforts to end global recession were to fail; and this just as a prelude to making you (perhaps still more) miserably poor and launching a frankly insane effort to stop the human race using fire in just 38 years - by building windmills without steel or carbon, tide barrages without concrete and solar panels without glass.

Think about it, next time one of your kids asks if you can sponsor a dolphin, or the next time you hear "WWF says ..." on the news. ®



The article above has the flavour of Paul Erlich and "The Population Bomb" and its dire predictions which did not eventuate.

One quote which I find curious because WWF philosophy doesn't really care for human beings and, it seems, would rather seee a smaller population by whatever means.

This is bad, because:

Biodiversity is vital for human health and livelihoods

When will our gullible governments wake up to this anti-human, anti-growth strategy. Hopefully to be joined by the succesfiul capitalist titans of the beef industry who think these modernday doomsdayers have something to offer our industry.

By a strange coincidence, the European Space Agency's Envisat died early May.

This satellite was an earth observing platform, providing temperature, ocean currents and a lot of relevant data for assessing climate correctly instead of relying on models and estimated guesses.

It will be interesting to see if there is a replacement, and if it changes the observations.

Envisat was 10+year old, so I suppose they don't make 'em like they used to.

Very good post Rob.Even on a scientific analysis the WWF argument falls down.History is proving that  increased education and prosperity will decrease the birth rate.With development people are denuding the countryside and moving to mega cities.Even when full development has taken place by western standards this migration from the country side continues.Providing the damage to the enviroment that these cities do providing they need to be properly governed so pollution can be kept at a minimum.

With fewer people in the country areas wildlife can flurish as they do on many farms in Australia.All we need is a bit of help to control feral pests and we would be OK producing food in harmony with nature.

What is WWFs agenda or is it just stupidity

Not stupidity Brad but they do have an agenda.
They are obsessed with the areas that things take and believe in more intensive agriculture.
Under those circumstances the use of Australian rangelands for livestock production is never going to get a tick from them. They really don't care about how environmentally friendly we are but whether they can muscle in and exert influence.
Just measuring the areas that things take is a simplistic, unscientific and crude measure which we need to refute the validity of.
Meanwhile, they are amassing huge areas designated as nature reserves on five continents, often with government funds and certainly with huge donations from charitable trusts. They are also trying to capture the significant food chains with their certification schemes.
Polar Bears, Tigers, Silver Back Gorillas and Orangtangs are not the only things in their sights.

Hi Joanne,

I've probably put up about the ENGO, The Nature Conservancy before, but here's a link to a post on another JG thread from a day or so back, in response to a post by Dale Stiller.


"Meanwhile, they are amassing huge areas designated as nature reserves on five continents, often with government funds and certainly with huge donations from charitable trusts."

Yep, sounds like -

There are more than the WWF and Greenpeas, I'm afraid.

Yes Jeff

There are more than Greenpeace and WWF but WWF is still the biggest.

This quote from the link in your post is the lowest number I have seen so far for a suggested population,

Are the people of the world ever going to protest and declare loud and strong that they are important too.

Mr. Foremen, a former board member of the Sierra Club, and The Nature Conservancy stated, “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

No doubt Mr Foreman sees himself and his as some of the 100 million.

The question I would have liked to ask our panel at the Beef 2012 discussion on the adoption of WWF as our watchdog:

Could each member of our unelected activists in CCA ( self branded in pre beef discussions on the Strategy...Passionate members of the beef industry = activists, and as far as I know, unelected), state their membership status and if positive, level of membership, of the unelected activist group WWF?

From QCL... that would have then begged the question of at least the chairman as to where his allegiance lay?

The interview this morning with the Green peace activist for Forests,in America ( sounded very Australian in accent to me), on KFC maybe using Old  growth rainforest pulp in their packaging, an example of rough times ahead.

Joanne Rea said:

Yes Jeff

There are more than Greenpeace and WWF but WWF is still the biggest.

This quote from the link in your post is the lowest number I have seen so far for a suggested population,

Are the people of the world ever going to protest and declare loud and strong that they are important too.

Mr. Foremen, a former board member of the Sierra Club, and The Nature Conservancy stated, “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”


I thihk in this instance we should be guided by the experience of the Vietnamese Pangasius fishermen who were taken off the desirable European fish list with huge disruption to the industry.

The fishermen wanted to know what standards they had been judged against.

Only after a public outcry did WWF admit that the decision to delist was not based on science (they seem good at that) and that they were now "in negotiations" about being returned to the list.

Once you are tied to these people you are at their mercey with no science and no negotiation until they have the dominant position.

As posted on the PRA group page, Tim Wilson, our keynote Conference speaker, believes that altough there are exceptions under the Competition and Consumer Act for environmental organisations engaging in othewise illegal secondary boycotts and third line forcing, the businesses at the end of the supply chain has no such protection and the new head of the ACCC has undertaken to keep an eye on this situation.

It appears that in some cases "no standards" means whatever WWF decides they  will be backed up by a sloppy MSM, a gullible public and what they claim is "science" rather than real science.

Tim Wilson puts the case in

  An Unsustainable Economic Transformation

How green groups are creating false foundations and restricting the Australian economy


3.2.1 [In]voluntary certification schemes

While MSIs and certification schemes were designed as ‘voluntary’ market instruments, it is now clear that, that is not the intent. According to its September 2010 MSI review, through the implementation of ‘voluntary’ certification standards stakeholders have found that the effectivenes is limited by the essentially ‘voluntary’ nature. In response the report concluded that complimentary measures were required including:

1. ‘To increase MSI uptake, governments and international organisations in consumer and producer countries should establish complementary mechanisms to create an enabling environment. Such mechanisms could include national legislation, public procurement policies, tax incentives and tax relief, and start-up grants. Financial institutions also have an important role to play to support and enable MSIs.

2. There is a need to explore non-market based mechanisms that can drive better management practices for domestic production (eg. regulatory waivers in exchange for certification).’31

31 World

These recommendations are now being put into practice, turning voluntary market schemes into involuntary ones. WWF’s MTI strategy also outlines that while existing certification standards are useful, they are only one phase in an overall strategy, and that the next step is to transfer the objectives of certification into measurable standards. What is clear is that the MTI comfortably creates a framework for moving the ‘voluntary’ nature of certification schemes, into their compulsory application onto products. 31 World

The intent of the strategy to influence and control supply chains was outlined in a strategy document from October 2010.32 According to the same strategy, WWF gloats that in response to the question whether ‘government regulation *is+ the next step’ it argues ‘Yes, it’s already happening *and they’ve+ ...already set up standards that governments are using in their regulations’.33

Further, WWF also poses the question about whether there will be a time when consumers will not have a choice between products that do and do not meet their standards arguing. ‘Absolutely ... [and] at some point in the not-so-distant future, this needs to be regulated by governments, not [E]NGOs’.34

Some of the actions outlined in 3.2.1 may also beillegal in Australia under the Competition Act except for exemptions for environmental groups.

Hi Joanne,

If you haven't seen this article from Der Spiegel (Der Spiegel skewers WWF) posted on Donna la Framboise's "No Frakking Consensus", may I suggest you read it.

It would probably make good handout material for your next conference with the WWF representative.



The movie mentioned in that article "Pact With The Panda" is blocked for 'copyright reasons' Hmmmm.


Reply to Discussion


Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect



Australian Father of Seven to Spend 8 months in Jail for Protecting Unborn 320 Replies

Started by Rory Donnellan in General. Last reply by Rory Donnellan 8 hours ago.

Dessins Extraordinaires 125 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule 9 hours ago.

INDEX = FOOD Doctrine AFTER the FARMER. 194 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule 10 hours ago.

Maxwell Szulc - Criminal or Hero? 317 Replies

Started by Janet H. Thompson in General. Last reply by Rory Donnellan 19 hours ago.


Started by Alyn Roule in Climate Change. Last reply by Michaelng Clayton yesterday.

Playground, Juke Box and Notepad 2177 Replies

Started by Geoff Hutchesson in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Brendan Michael yesterday.

Islamia Anyone? 3826 Replies

Started by Bob Stewart in Activism. Last reply by Rory Donnellan yesterday.


Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.

Point of View from SA 649 Replies

Started by Bob Stewart in General. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.

Barb's veggie flower Receipe photo chatt Patch 1826 Replies

Started by Barbara lee in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.

Coal Mining!!! 1 Reply

Started by Australian Beef Association in Agriculture. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.

Mining Issues 41 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Environment. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.

Packers and Stockyards Act or Processors and Saleyards Act 9 Replies

Started by Joanne Rea in Agriculture. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.


Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.

Govt Position on DCCEE = Dept of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency 216 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Climate Change. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.

Inherent Property Rights 7 Replies

Started by Leon Pittard in General. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.

UN out of control 27 Replies

Started by Rory Donnellan in General. Last reply by Stephen Cox yesterday.


Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule on Friday.


Started by Alyn Roule in Activism. Last reply by Alyn Roule on Friday.

UNI + NAPLAN School Education + GONSKI 206 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Education. Last reply by Alyn Roule on Friday.

Blog Posts


Posted by Ian Yeates on November 21, 2015 at 7:27am — 5 Comments

Politicians expenditure hidden from us?

Posted by Kevin Hicks on November 9, 2015 at 7:05pm — 1 Comment

Our finance system

Posted by Bob Yabsley on October 2, 2015 at 6:34pm — 3 Comments

For Whom The Bell Tolls

Posted by Kevin Hicks on August 28, 2015 at 8:10pm — 3 Comments

Retail needs Therapy

Posted by Kevin Hicks on August 12, 2015 at 9:58am

© 2015   Created by David Byard.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service