I am reminded of an organization I read about years ago with the tag line "Seeing like a mountain." It was founded by someone who noticed that excess deer were stripping the mountain of vegetation and they concluded that reintroducing wolves was important for creating a sustainable environment.
In the US, deer-vehicle collisions make deer the deadliest animal for people that we have in this country.
Part of my incomplete BS in Environmental Studies was a class in quantifying the economic value of natural resources. I did a case study on wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area that are currently quietly being threatened by the county rail plan.
The US used to pay people to fill in swamps and create "productive" land and then learned that swamps do useful and valuable things of various sorts. We updated the name from swamp to wetlands, overhauled their public image and reversed policy. We now protect and restore such areas.
Quantifying the economic value to humans of a natural resource is a good means to convince people it needs protecting and it is in your best interest to protect it. This is not "charity" and shouldn't be viewed as a sacrifice.
We are cutting our own throats when we ruin the world because of fixation on some overly simplified idea that it needs to put money directly into our pockets for humans to care about it. One of the best ways to fight such entrenched ideas is to quantify just how much it costs us to think that way.
The name of the organization is probably based on an essay called "Thinking like a mountain" by Aldo Leopold. Writing in 1949, Leopold is considered to be one of the first ecologists. It's a beautifully poetic and prophetic text.
I happen to be living on a mountain in southern Tuscany. A place where wolf where hunted to the brink of extinction and the deer population is exploding. This essay resonates with me in profound ways.
As you have written before, most of us who have worked with environmental issues in the real world, have long tried to 'value ' the environment. Forests, wetlands, waterfronts, etc.
Common scenario, let's say there is a beautiful bay. Many tourists visit to see the view. Condos are built around the bay. Now there is no view. There are no tourists. Water quality in and around the bay degraded.
But when trying to stop the development, the only arguable economic value, is the amount of the taxable value of condo, and 'housing starts' .
There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc.
In an adversarial legal system, no one represents "externalities".
Parts of Australia have a deer problem, but despite cultivating a reputation for deadly animals, most of it lacks large terrestrial predators, so introducing wolves is an even harder sell than in the US.
It also has prior historical experience with introducing a species to address a previously introduced species, which then becomes a problem itself: foxes for rabbits; cane toads for cane beetles. cue Simpsons
Unrelated to your point, I have a friend who was a wildlife biologist / game warden for a US state. At one point, at least one insurance company was trying to pressure the department of game and fish to issue many more deer hunting licenses, to reduce the number of deer-vehicle collisions.
First, yes I'm for reintroduction of wolves. However, "In the US: Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year." Really is a poor argument for it.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
USA annual number of deaths: 2,854,838.
So, deer kill about .007% of USA population annually. I don't want to downplay the tragedy, but I wouldn't recommend spending a large amount of the budget on this.
Great points. Most people don’t understand the dangers of deer.
I grew up in a rural area of New York - from age 16-20, I hit or was hit by 5 deer in vehicles, including one that jumped off an embankment and landed on and went through my roof.
That wasn’t a uniquely unlucky track record either. If I recall correctly NY State Troopers were involved in ~500 collisions with deer annually at that time (mid 90s)
Really cool article. They show that Wolves create a “landscape of fear” which reduces deer engagement with roads. So wolves do what hunters can’t; not just reducing populations but also changing behavior. Kind of creepy, if you are a deer!
joking aside the Yellowstone phenomenon gets often cited. We have a long way to go in Europe (cough cough Switzerland, Austria) where the wolf by the rural community is still seen as a huge problem to the way of life (hunting and farming). I wonder if some modern solutions where wolves that are tagged anyway can be combined with trackers on cows/sheep/goats that subscribe to this data, so that the shepherd knows that a wolf is about to approach the herd. The bigger problem in these communities is that hunters have been doing this for generations, I myself come from such a family, my gramps, even my mother my uncle everyone was a hunter. They all believe that the hunter plays an important role in keeping a check on population of deer etc. As Yellowstone has shown reintroducing the wolf hasn't just solved that issue but also brought back types of trees, flowers and biodiversity that was previously lost. All because they allowed apex-predators back to where they were. But try to convince somebody in the countryside about this ... going to be a tough sell.
Steven Rinella talks with Dr. Kevin Monteith, Dr. Matt Kaufmann, Jared Oakleaf, and Janis Putelis.
Subjects discussed: genetics that rewrite our understanding of animals; big game guts; learning how to migrate; who pays for wildlife research?; brain scrambling, extreme sports, and wildlife capture; advancing modern wildlife management; etc.
The same is true for humans, though - the presence of wolves adds to human fear of the wilderness.
I only read the abstract but I wonder if this was accounted for in the article. Sure, it’s plausible that wolves lead to fewer deer-vehicle collisions, and that is a economic benefit. But what is the cost of decreasing humans’ willingness to enter the woods?
Very curious what was the conditions behind human hunting in the article. Did the area have unlimited deer hunting w/ no license renewals required? When I tried deer hunting once I noticed that the deer were not in the areas where we were allowed to hunt, and were very plentiful in areas we were not allowed to hunt.
How long till deer hunters decide they need to hunt wolf to remotivate deer hunting? (I thought of this immediately as some hunters I know have absurd justifications for it being useful for ecosystems)
We were driving on a semi-wilderness highway when a medium-sized deer staggered up from a deep drainage ditch on the same side of the road, about 50 yards ahead. Managed to slow from 65-70 to 50 mph before hitting the animal, which slid along the highway and into the deep ditch on the other side.
The slowdown helped limit the van's damage to $10,000, but it was undriveable. Even if we somehow removed the hood (bent in two over the unbroken windshield), all the fluid had ran out of the crushed radiator and into the semi-wilderness ditch.
Luckily it was a hot July afternoon, and a truck going the opposite way came along in 15 minutes. The driver put the deer out of its misery. Had it been in the winter, after sundown, it might have taken hours just to be found.
Happened in the 1990s (no mobiles), so we waited for a vehicle heading toward the nearest little town to find a tow -truck. With the van towed to that town (no repair shop), it was another hour before relatives arrived from the bigger town (that tow-truck had a repair shop).
The insurance company paid for the repair, then dropped the policy. I never drove that route after noon again.
Its happened to me too. I've heard of deer coming through the windshield.
Deer are the second most deadly animal in North America. Thats because about 100K of them throw themselves into the paths of cars, trucks, motorcycles and bicycles every year.
The most deadly animal is the honey bee. After these two come the usual suspects: snakes, bears, mountain lions, spiders, etc.
I would like to suggest we cede more of our land to nature, and increasing the amount of uninterrupted wilderness.
But that's going to not be popular with a lot of people because it means deciding what area we get to live in or don't. Some towns are going to be removed for lack of sustainability.
For this to work, we would need to also improve our land use policies in the towns and cities we currently live in.
I suggest you look into the American Prairie Reserve! It's a really interesting non-profit located in Montana, which is dedicated to creating one of the largest uninterrupted pristine North American grassland biomes in the country. They do this through the strategic purchase of private tracts of land that connect public space (national parks, forests, BLM land, etc.) and remove all fences and other migration impediments, while still allowing recreational use by people. They even own and manage their own herd of American bison!
1. Only something like 6% of the US is urban. The majority is pasture and forests, which arguably is almost entirely natural. The second largest use is crop land.
2. Deciding where people can live is extremely tyrannical. Many people own this land, what’s the plan, take their ancestral home? That didn’t work out well any time in history.
Every time I see comments like this I come to the same conclusion. My bet: you’re from a city, young, white collar, perhaps grew up in suburbs on a coast?
Nothing wrong with that, but there’s a disconnect between those living in urban environments vs the country.
There are several initiatives in the hunting and fishing community doing this, aka buying land, managing the wilderness, and making it available to the public.
* The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, or TRCP, is a non-profit 501(c)(3) coalition of conservation organizations, grassroots partners and outdoor related businesses, the main goal of which is increased federal funding for conservation while preserving access for hunters and fishers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Conservatio...
* MeatEater’s Land Access Initiative (designed to raise money so we can find properties that will provide more access for regular folks to hunt and fish) https://www.themeateater.com/pages/land-access
I think this is one of the main division in the US Red Tribe/Blue Tribe division.
To Blue Tribe nature is a beautiful park we need to preserve and keep untouched. Work is done in an office, producing documents.
To Red Tribe nature is a source of raw materials to produce food, metals, power, etc. Work is taming and harvesting the resources of nature.
Blue Tribe keeps adding wilderness restrictions, which keeps taking away ways for Red Tribe to make a living, increasing rural poverty, and feeding resentment.
I was reading the other day about how wolves can help reduce Lyme's carrying tick populations as well, which could be considered another positive economic impact. They of course keep deer in check, but they also keep coyotes in check while not preying on the smaller animals that eat ticks and mice like coyotes do.
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He’s not breathing and his eyes are glazed, so his friend calls 911. “My friend is dead! What should I do?” The operator replies, “Calm down, sir. I can help. First make sure he’s dead.” There’s a silence, then a loud bang. Back on the phone, the guy says, “OK, now what?"
The thing they estimate is reduction of deer collisions, according to the abstract. So that’s a rather limited scope in comparison to the title.
What surprises me more (I guess I’m a bit jaded), is that the title suggests that nature is there to be economically exploited. Does a species run up a loss? Extinction is its fate.
As somebody who grew up one state over, I can totally believe this. Deer collision featured importantly driver's ed and my thoughts for highway driving, especially in twilight and dark. Anybody who has ever had a squirrel run out in front of you knows the feeling, except here the squirrel can do 30 mph and weighs as much as a person.
As much as a person!? A big deer can get to 300 lbs. And in some parts of the country Elk and Moose are a large concern. I'll never forget seeing my 16 year old friends truck after he hit an elk.
It makes me sad that laying out the economic benefits of wildlife conservation is even necessary. This is interesting. But why can’t we conserve wolves just because? Why do we need to point to the economics of it? Are they not worth conserving unless they help the bottom line?
Lots of people talking who never had to deal with wolves here. Bottom line to remember about any wolf studies is this: they don't transfer to other wolf locations. This paper is relevant for Wisconsin only. Secondarily, since this topic inevitably comes up as people say stuff like "it's silly to be afraid of wolves", all the claims that wolves don't attack people are lies, using almost exclusively US based data where the wolves were killed until under control for that very reason. For a less ideological understanding of the real danger of wolves look at the statistics in Siberia, etc. My saying for those who harp on this is "It's easy to claim refuge in statistics until you are in the middle of nothing and hear a pack a ridge or two over. Or hear them circle and yip your camp at night. Then statistics don't offer nearly the same comfort." ... Things I have experienced first hand. Slightly off topic but one of the most visually exhilarating things ever for me was to stumble across a wild pack feasting on a fresh kill...
I grew up in a wolf re-intro zone and have had to deal with all the changes to the forest that came with it, many, if not most, of them bad. It wasn't until I was older I went back and re-read the justification papers and they were absolutely horrid science. There is quite a history of wolf related papers being used to justify political actions far outside what the papers support. Please don't fall into that same trap here. This is an interesting paper about the Wisconsin wolf population from a particular angle of study (not a holistic study), that's it.
I read something before how they change the flow of rivers. Basically predation by wolves changes the feeding behaviour of deer and other animals, which changes the type of vegetations that grows along river banks and creeks, and that can change the shape of a river.
I would speculate that road, which due to cars have elevated noise levels, render them intrinsically a good cloaking mechanism to wolves stalking prey.
Or at least, deer feel unable to register sounds there and thus avoid it
I own 100 acres of woodland in south-central Wisconsin. The deer are extremely abundant and cause extensive damage to the ecosystem. We have bow hunters on the property each fall who take maybe a dozen or so deer (no guns, too many houses in the vicinity). Even with that the herd seems to get larger each year (and the deer are getting smaller in size). We're in a heavily farmed area, so a wolf pack might be unpopular, but looks like it would help on my side of the equation!
After reading the headline it took me a second, then I went "Of course, less deer!"
I hate driving country roads because I've had way too many close calls with deer that seem hell-bent on appearing suddenly from off to the side directly in front of you. I once had three separate deer crossing in front of my car incidents in just 48 hours before. 2 extremely close, one I'm surprised I didn't hit and I swerved in a dumb and potentially dangerous way to miss it (probably shouldn't have, but that's what happened in the moment, thankfully I was the only person on the road then).
So yeah, bring on the wolves. I don't want deer to go extinct or anything, but I wouldn't mind being able to loosen my vice grip on the steering wheel and having total vigilance whenever I drive down country roads (especially at night).
Whenever I read about people concerned with wolves threatening humans, it reminds me of how sharks are treated. Both have been vilified in book and film, yet are rarely a threat to humans.
The "bio-economy" and "bio-services" are coming. You'll start to hear these buzz-words more and more in following years, watch for the emphasis in federal science funding initiatives etc. When arguments based on economic impact are translated into laws and rules for how we do things, and we start to tie things like the paper mentions into the picture, then the logical outcome is more "reverence" for the natural world, wrapped in the veneer of capitalism. There is ample precedent, see protection of fishing grounds, biological control saving billions of $ and millions of lives [1], etc. etc.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|4 years ago|reply
In the US, deer-vehicle collisions make deer the deadliest animal for people that we have in this country.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-deadliest-animals-in-...
In the US: Deer–vehicle collisions lead to about 200 human deaths and $1.1 billion in property damage every year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer%E2%80%93vehicle_collisi...
Part of my incomplete BS in Environmental Studies was a class in quantifying the economic value of natural resources. I did a case study on wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area that are currently quietly being threatened by the county rail plan.
The US used to pay people to fill in swamps and create "productive" land and then learned that swamps do useful and valuable things of various sorts. We updated the name from swamp to wetlands, overhauled their public image and reversed policy. We now protect and restore such areas.
Quantifying the economic value to humans of a natural resource is a good means to convince people it needs protecting and it is in your best interest to protect it. This is not "charity" and shouldn't be viewed as a sacrifice.
We are cutting our own throats when we ruin the world because of fixation on some overly simplified idea that it needs to put money directly into our pockets for humans to care about it. One of the best ways to fight such entrenched ideas is to quantify just how much it costs us to think that way.
[+] [-] yoaviram|4 years ago|reply
I happen to be living on a mountain in southern Tuscany. A place where wolf where hunted to the brink of extinction and the deer population is exploding. This essay resonates with me in profound ways.
The essay (PDF): https://www.ecotoneinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/aldo-l...
PS. the whole book is worth reading.
[+] [-] pomian|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperpallium2|4 years ago|reply
Parts of Australia have a deer problem, but despite cultivating a reputation for deadly animals, most of it lacks large terrestrial predators, so introducing wolves is an even harder sell than in the US.
It also has prior historical experience with introducing a species to address a previously introduced species, which then becomes a problem itself: foxes for rabbits; cane toads for cane beetles. cue Simpsons
[+] [-] mcguire|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SapporoChris|4 years ago|reply
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm USA annual number of deaths: 2,854,838. So, deer kill about .007% of USA population annually. I don't want to downplay the tragedy, but I wouldn't recommend spending a large amount of the budget on this.
[+] [-] dillondoyle|4 years ago|reply
Check out some articles about the floods in Canada right now; a big factor is the draining (it needs constant pumping) of a lake for farming.
draining did produce a lot of really productive fertile land. So maybe the cost benefit makes sense maybe you can do the math for us!
but we're starting to see the true cost of our actions
https://fvcurrent.com/article/sumas-lake-flooding-history/
[+] [-] Spooky23|4 years ago|reply
I grew up in a rural area of New York - from age 16-20, I hit or was hit by 5 deer in vehicles, including one that jumped off an embankment and landed on and went through my roof.
That wasn’t a uniquely unlucky track record either. If I recall correctly NY State Troopers were involved in ~500 collisions with deer annually at that time (mid 90s)
[+] [-] swayvil|4 years ago|reply
But it's our #1 tool. So popular that we literally cannot imagine not using it 24-7.
And furthermore we invariably call that model of reality, "reality".
I mean that's just how it is.
Possible antidotes for this ubiquitous plague of profound blindness : drugs, art, disaster, meditation... What else?
[+] [-] Loic|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
[+] [-] scoot|4 years ago|reply
As opposed to part of your complete BS? :D (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|4 years ago|reply
a wolf wrote it.
joking aside the Yellowstone phenomenon gets often cited. We have a long way to go in Europe (cough cough Switzerland, Austria) where the wolf by the rural community is still seen as a huge problem to the way of life (hunting and farming). I wonder if some modern solutions where wolves that are tagged anyway can be combined with trackers on cows/sheep/goats that subscribe to this data, so that the shepherd knows that a wolf is about to approach the herd. The bigger problem in these communities is that hunters have been doing this for generations, I myself come from such a family, my gramps, even my mother my uncle everyone was a hunter. They all believe that the hunter plays an important role in keeping a check on population of deer etc. As Yellowstone has shown reintroducing the wolf hasn't just solved that issue but also brought back types of trees, flowers and biodiversity that was previously lost. All because they allowed apex-predators back to where they were. But try to convince somebody in the countryside about this ... going to be a tough sell.
[+] [-] DeBraid|4 years ago|reply
Steven Rinella talks with Dr. Kevin Monteith, Dr. Matt Kaufmann, Jared Oakleaf, and Janis Putelis.
Subjects discussed: genetics that rewrite our understanding of animals; big game guts; learning how to migrate; who pays for wildlife research?; brain scrambling, extreme sports, and wildlife capture; advancing modern wildlife management; etc.
[+] [-] geenew|4 years ago|reply
I only read the abstract but I wonder if this was accounted for in the article. Sure, it’s plausible that wolves lead to fewer deer-vehicle collisions, and that is a economic benefit. But what is the cost of decreasing humans’ willingness to enter the woods?
[+] [-] novok|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] felipemnoa|4 years ago|reply
This made me laugh! I think this applies to any animal that is prey.
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swayvil|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frabbit|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SavantIdiot|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jmartrican|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8bitsrule|4 years ago|reply
We were driving on a semi-wilderness highway when a medium-sized deer staggered up from a deep drainage ditch on the same side of the road, about 50 yards ahead. Managed to slow from 65-70 to 50 mph before hitting the animal, which slid along the highway and into the deep ditch on the other side.
The slowdown helped limit the van's damage to $10,000, but it was undriveable. Even if we somehow removed the hood (bent in two over the unbroken windshield), all the fluid had ran out of the crushed radiator and into the semi-wilderness ditch.
Luckily it was a hot July afternoon, and a truck going the opposite way came along in 15 minutes. The driver put the deer out of its misery. Had it been in the winter, after sundown, it might have taken hours just to be found.
Happened in the 1990s (no mobiles), so we waited for a vehicle heading toward the nearest little town to find a tow -truck. With the van towed to that town (no repair shop), it was another hour before relatives arrived from the bigger town (that tow-truck had a repair shop).
The insurance company paid for the repair, then dropped the policy. I never drove that route after noon again.
[+] [-] reddog|4 years ago|reply
Deer are the second most deadly animal in North America. Thats because about 100K of them throw themselves into the paths of cars, trucks, motorcycles and bicycles every year.
The most deadly animal is the honey bee. After these two come the usual suspects: snakes, bears, mountain lions, spiders, etc.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|4 years ago|reply
Why did the insurer cancel the policy?
[+] [-] kiba|4 years ago|reply
But that's going to not be popular with a lot of people because it means deciding what area we get to live in or don't. Some towns are going to be removed for lack of sustainability.
For this to work, we would need to also improve our land use policies in the towns and cities we currently live in.
[+] [-] qchris|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.americanprairie.org/
[+] [-] lettergram|4 years ago|reply
2. Deciding where people can live is extremely tyrannical. Many people own this land, what’s the plan, take their ancestral home? That didn’t work out well any time in history.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/december/a-primer-...
Every time I see comments like this I come to the same conclusion. My bet: you’re from a city, young, white collar, perhaps grew up in suburbs on a coast?
Nothing wrong with that, but there’s a disconnect between those living in urban environments vs the country.
[+] [-] DeBraid|4 years ago|reply
* The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, or TRCP, is a non-profit 501(c)(3) coalition of conservation organizations, grassroots partners and outdoor related businesses, the main goal of which is increased federal funding for conservation while preserving access for hunters and fishers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Conservatio...
* MeatEater’s Land Access Initiative (designed to raise money so we can find properties that will provide more access for regular folks to hunt and fish) https://www.themeateater.com/pages/land-access
(Disclosure: no affiliation)
[+] [-] mrfusion|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aperocky|4 years ago|reply
Towns are not the problem, highways are. Specifically interstates and other roads built to that standards.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|4 years ago|reply
To Blue Tribe nature is a beautiful park we need to preserve and keep untouched. Work is done in an office, producing documents.
To Red Tribe nature is a source of raw materials to produce food, metals, power, etc. Work is taming and harvesting the resources of nature.
Blue Tribe keeps adding wilderness restrictions, which keeps taking away ways for Red Tribe to make a living, increasing rural poverty, and feeding resentment.
I hope that makes sense.
[+] [-] goda90|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|4 years ago|reply
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He’s not breathing and his eyes are glazed, so his friend calls 911. “My friend is dead! What should I do?” The operator replies, “Calm down, sir. I can help. First make sure he’s dead.” There’s a silence, then a loud bang. Back on the phone, the guy says, “OK, now what?"
[+] [-] tgv|4 years ago|reply
What surprises me more (I guess I’m a bit jaded), is that the title suggests that nature is there to be economically exploited. Does a species run up a loss? Extinction is its fate.
[+] [-] wpietri|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] earthscienceman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itronitron|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliekelly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arminiusreturns|4 years ago|reply
I grew up in a wolf re-intro zone and have had to deal with all the changes to the forest that came with it, many, if not most, of them bad. It wasn't until I was older I went back and re-read the justification papers and they were absolutely horrid science. There is quite a history of wolf related papers being used to justify political actions far outside what the papers support. Please don't fall into that same trap here. This is an interesting paper about the Wisconsin wolf population from a particular angle of study (not a holistic study), that's it.
[+] [-] dukeofdoom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IG_Semmelweiss|4 years ago|reply
Or at least, deer feel unable to register sounds there and thus avoid it
[+] [-] chkaloon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cableshaft|4 years ago|reply
I hate driving country roads because I've had way too many close calls with deer that seem hell-bent on appearing suddenly from off to the side directly in front of you. I once had three separate deer crossing in front of my car incidents in just 48 hours before. 2 extremely close, one I'm surprised I didn't hit and I swerved in a dumb and potentially dangerous way to miss it (probably shouldn't have, but that's what happened in the moment, thankfully I was the only person on the road then).
So yeah, bring on the wolves. I don't want deer to go extinct or anything, but I wouldn't mind being able to loosen my vice grip on the steering wheel and having total vigilance whenever I drive down country roads (especially at night).
[+] [-] nfc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbnva|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks
I'm not very comfortably hiking in wolf territories.
[+] [-] greedo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xipho|4 years ago|reply
[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenacoccus_manihoti)
[+] [-] peter303|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zzzeek|4 years ago|reply