# Veteran cameraman claims: BBC 'fakes wildlife shots all the time'



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 9, 2013)

An interesting article on Daily Mail, which I thought might interest some CR members.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450381/BBC-fakes-wildlife-shots-time-Veteran-cameraman-claims-species-smaller-rabbits-filmed-custom-built-sets.html


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 9, 2013)

Personally, I do not consider it as "fake" ... to recreate a natural environment takes a lot of talent, skill and above all dedication. At the end of the day I'd rather see an interestingly filmed/recorded footage of wildlife, which I'd otherwise never get a chance to see in my life. I consider those who call such footage "fake" as just a bunch of cribbing whiners who cannot produce any worthwhile footage on their own. What Doug Allan (the cameraman) and Sir David Attenborough have done is incredible and I respect their skill and dedication to their craft.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Personally, I do not consider it as "fake" ... to recreate a natural environment takes a lot of talent, skill and above all dedication. At the end of the day I'd rather see an interestingly filmed/recorded footage of wildlife, which I'd otherwise never get a chance to see in my life. I consider those who call such footage "fake" as just a bunch of cribbing whiners who cannot produce any worthwhile footage on their own. What Doug Allan (the cameraman) and Sir David Attenborough have done is incredible and I respect their skill and dedication to their craft.



Yes I agree, I sometimes think that when people see behind the "magic of TV" they are often dissolusioned or dissapointed...afterall... these wildlife guys just rock up to a killer whale with a camera and a boat and they just love to do a dance for them...then they pop into a plane and pop over to africa and point their cameras at a lion and elephant or two and the they do a little act and the awards just roll in by themselves ;-D

How many great pieces of top wildlife film footage or stills have occured from walkabouts? Not much compared to the footage which a huge amount of persoanl sacrifice, ambition, field craft and dedication took place.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz and GMCPhotographics +1 to both

Fake would be in a studio or a zoo and trying to pass it off as if it were in the wild. Fake is not setting up shots through painstaking planning. 

Someone my wife went to school directed and filmed some of Attenborough's Frozen Planet and it took a lot of effort, preparation and luck to get some of the killer whale shots that they got. Not fake, just prepared and planned for.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 9, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> Fake would be in a studio or a zoo and trying to pass it off as if it were in the wild. Fake is not setting up shots through painstaking planning.



Interesting thread & point - we had a similar recent thread about what's allowed editing and what's not.

My option: No, it's not "_fake_", but it is still _misleading_ to _deceiving_ as it's well known a good part of the viewers don't know about the methods that are applied and is lead to believe you've just gotta go out and this is what you'll see. If they were straight, they'd include a quick "behind the scenes" or "how we got the animals into this synthetic setting".

My problem with this: It creates a surrogate reality about man & nature, and this is diametrical to what I think a "real" nature film about *wild*life should be. I see the result in the local zoo - people expect the animals to look into the camera when they want to, they've paid good money after all and they know what's to be expected from tv.

My favorite wildlife show were back in the good ol' times without equipment overkill. If it was about polar bears, the film just showed a wandering bear from miles away - but with a proper scientific explanation & backgrund about their behavior and you probably shouldn't get near them. Or if it was about shy small animals, you didn't get to see much of them, they *are* shy after all. Back then I felt much better educated and entertained than with perfect closeups.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 9, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> Fake would be in a studio or a zoo and trying to pass it off as if it were in the wild. Fake is not setting up shots through painstaking planning.



Interesting you say that, for I've had that exact experience. In the Adelaide Zoo about 10-15 years ago, walking around with a bunch of kids as part of some school-holiday daycamp thingy (something my then-gf roped me in to help with).
We get to the Siamang section, and there's a camera crew there, looking rather bored. Being the nut I am, I start talking to the camera crew. They say they're working for a new David Attenborough series (which turned out to be 'Planet Earth'). They'd just spent weeks in the wild trying to find these monkeys to film, and given up, filming in the wild is damned expensive. On a hunch they thought they'd try the Adelaide Zoo, there's a really good habitat for them there.
So there they were, and the damned monkeys were silent, and the film crew were rather annoyed. But then the kids started yelling at the monkeys, and we being the 'responsible adults' were ridiculously embarrassed, trying to shut the kids up. But then the monkeys started yelling back. So as it turned out, we turned it into a game with the kids. Got them to yell for a bit, enough to get the monkeys started, then get the kids to shut up for a few minutes (the hardest part) while the film crew could get their shots, and repeat.
I always like it when that series comes on, because I can still pick the bits that were shot in the Zoo (you can kind of tell, the sky is really blue and it's shot from almost directly underneath and the monkeys are looking straight at the camera). Nowhere does it say in that scene that it's in a zoo, but nowhere does it also say it's in the wild. It mentions the Adelaide Zoo in the credits (either in the 'filmed on location' bit or the 'thanks to' bit), along with a whole lot of other zoos and wildlife parks.

I know it's nothing like when Attenborough was the first white guy to set foot in some remote forest to collect specimens for the London Zoo (which is how he started), but finding something classed as 'wild' is getting harder and harder these days. So I don't mind if stuff is filmed in Zoos or whatever. The only time I'd mind is if it was a faked one of those 'look at how these monkeys have started using tools in the wild', which it wasn't. In the end, there's only about 5-10s of stuff filmed there, spliced in with 'real' jungle footage, so who cares?



edit: I should call them Siamangs and not Howler Monkey, before some nerd picks me up on it


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 9, 2013)

Five hour video of Kerkrand station in the Little Karoo, South Africa. If you want "action" then you'd better stage it!


----------



## caruser (Oct 9, 2013)

dr croubie said:


> TrabimanUK said:
> 
> 
> > Fake would be in a studio or a zoo and trying to pass it off as if it were in the wild. Fake is not setting up shots through painstaking planning.
> ...


At least it sounds like they gave it an honest try before reverting to the zoo...


----------



## Brymills (Oct 9, 2013)

*"Man makes shocking claim in Daily Fail to sell books..."*

There you go, that's a better thread title??


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 9, 2013)

Most wildlife filming is fake.... if you want real, be prepared to stare at the screen for 5 days to get that 30 seconds of interesting footage...

It's like my moose pictures.... go on a canoe trip and see no moose... another trip and no moose, another trip, no moose...(repeat a few dozen times).... go on a canoe trip, see a moose, take lots of pictures.... and then a few dozen trips with no moose... someone looks at my pictures, sees moose, and assumes that I see them all the time.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Most wildlife filming is fake.... if you want real, be prepared to stare at the screen for 5 days to get that 30 seconds of interesting footage...
> 
> It's like my moose pictures.... go on a canoe trip and see no moose... another trip and no moose, another trip, no moose...(repeat a few dozen times).... go on a canoe trip, see a moose, take lots of pictures.... and then a few dozen trips with no moose... someone looks at my pictures, sees moose, and assumes that I see them all the time.



I can easily imagine that the filmographers have to balance the need to get great and impressive or credible footage against very real deadlines...no footage, no programme = no wages. I can imagine a phone call from the producer which goes something like this "...Bob...I don't care how....just GET THE SHOT!!!"


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Most wildlife filming is fake.... if you want real, be prepared to stare at the screen for 5 days to get that 30 seconds of interesting footage...
> 
> It's like my moose pictures.... go on a canoe trip and see no moose... another trip and no moose, another trip, no moose...(repeat a few dozen times).... go on a canoe trip, see a moose, take lots of pictures.... and then a few dozen trips with no moose... someone looks at my pictures, sees moose, and assumes that I see them all the time.


Good one!
For me fake is only when someone does a CG to recreate the whole scene ... but when someone has gone through countless hours of preparation and hardship to recreate a scene which we could otherwise not see on our own, that is not fake ... that is skill ... it is not necessary for the maker to tell everyone that he has done it in the zoo, because the important thing is the story, not how he got that story ... calling it fake takes away the person's skill and dedication to his/her craft.


----------



## wjm (Oct 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Most wildlife filming is fake.... if you want real, be prepared to stare at the screen for 5 days to get that 30 seconds of interesting footage...
> ...



And also: How would you e.g. ever get shots of a newborn polar bear (like in the article)? Better build a artificial den/nest with cameras in place then intrude an exicting one with te possibility of scaring the mother away (and let the new born die ...).

I think you can better make a 'set' and invite nature in, then intrude their own habitat. Animals only come in when they want to, if not ... bad luck for the film maker but nature stays undisturbed.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 9, 2013)

Not commenting directly on this article, but it's a sad fact that as long as money is involved, people will fake wildlife photos. Whether it's shooting in zoos, using animal models, roadkills, reeling in a dead mouse to attract owls, etc. it will be done. If your livelihood depends on it, you really can't blame people for doing it. I just wish people would label it as such, as the North America Nature Photography Association (NANPA) advocates: http://nanpa.org/positions_overview.php.

For me, wildlife photography is all about the challenge of finding wild animals, which is often about luck, and the skill of getting the shot when the opportunity presents itself. If it were easy, I don't think I would enjoy it. Then again, my income doesn't depend on getting these shots.


----------



## ME (Oct 9, 2013)

I believe that it is sometimes ok to set up scenes, but also important to disclose that fact, depending on what the situation is. I have watched quite a few wildlife programs over the years, and am usually disappointed to find out it was set up, but not as much if it is not revealed. I know sometimes it might be necessary. On the light side, I am usually amused at weather people who stand in the middle of a hurricane or very bad weather to show what it is like. I get the idea of how powerfull the weather is without them risking their lives. I have not seen one killed yet, but it would be very popular news and would wind up on youtube .


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 9, 2013)

I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 9, 2013)

What is amazing is that these stories pop up and we still talk about them.
Fake wildlife pics and video have been going on for a very long time.
As long as budgets and money are involved people are going to take short cuts.


----------



## ME (Oct 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture




;D ???. Predator & prey living in harmony. Do you have any BIF photos of those birds? Would be interesting to see ;D

PS: Nice bokeh!


----------



## Beamengine (Oct 10, 2013)

'An interesting article on Daily Mail'

Sorry, I stopped reading there.

For those of you not familiar with the DM, it is an absolutely vile paper with an anti-BBC obsession that make the Tea Party look like an Obama fan club.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with it – seriously.

Others may disagree, they are simply wrong.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 10, 2013)

"Fake" is when you don't get what you're led to believe you're getting. If I buy a poster of a Picasso, I know what I'm getting, so it's not fake. I guess I'm just a fan of science, but it would not bother me that they took video of polar bear births in a "fake" (i.e. constructed) den if I'm told, outright, that's what it is.

"Nature films" are a form of journalism, and should be held to the same standard. It's OK to stage something for educational purposes so long as it's plainly disclosed.

I do not accept at all that everything we see in image or video should be presumed "fake" (manipulated, staged, fauxtoshopped, etc) unless specifically stated otherwise. Everything has context: what looks "real" to a reasonable viewer ought to be presumed "real." Aesthetic does not reign supreme.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 10, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture


Surely you put out some food or something, that's just amazing to have so many stuffed, ahem, wild animals all together. Great photo!


----------



## gary (Oct 10, 2013)

I am surprised that this is thought of as a news piece as the Daily Mail wouldn't know news if they fell over it. This way of filming was addressed by David Attenborough a number of years back when he was asked about how some of the great shots were achieved. So Mr Editor Daily Mail, this is old news very old news.


----------



## CharlieB (Oct 10, 2013)

Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile". Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.


----------



## Pi (Oct 10, 2013)

It is fake, indeed.


----------



## GDub (Oct 10, 2013)

Surprise, surprise!


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 10, 2013)

CharlieB said:


> Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile". Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.



I remember watching that show as a young kid, and loving it. At the time I didn't even think about whether it was fake/staged/dramatized, I just took it at face value. A few years later I watched zoologists bring captive animals onto the set of the Tonight Show with Johnny C, and that was equally fascinating. As a child, the Tooth Fairy is interesting; as an adult, physical anthropology (or any "dry" science) is interesting.

At some point I'll have to watch some episodes of "Wild Kingdom" to see them through adult eyes. If it's obviously fake I'm willing to write it off as a dramatized children's show. I'm more concerned with well-done fakes, where it's not possible to find the fakery unless you're an expert.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

CharlieB said:


> Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile". Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.



Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom was presented as real wildlife at the time. I have never heard the stories that you just outlined but some of the cast later talked about going to remote locations, they would bait the wildlife or arrange for wildlife confrontation. They would also release tame animals in to the wild to get the action shots they wanted. They did what they had to do to arrange the shots and told no one.

This was old news and it is amazing that some will read this news story and think it is something new.

But the whole thing cheapens the value of wildlife photography. Those of us that would rather take pictures of wildlife in wild settings doing their natural thing work hard to produce a product that compares to a so called Pro's staged, lighted pictures of animal actors. 

Of course we can say these pro's are deceptive. But then I know many bird photographers with feeder in their back yard, great lighting and great photoshop skills and they pass their bird photography off as wild life pictures. When a wild animal starts eating from the food you provide and sits on the perch you provide it is semi domesticated IMO.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 10, 2013)

Only thing I cared about in the thing was the lens. Was the venerable 150-600 L FD I saw?


----------



## moreorless (Oct 10, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Not commenting directly on this article, but it's a sad fact that as long as money is involved, people will fake wildlife photos. Whether it's shooting in zoos, using animal models, roadkills, reeling in a dead mouse to attract owls, etc. it will be done. If your livelihood depends on it, you really can't blame people for doing it. I just wish people would label it as such, as the North America Nature Photography Association (NANPA) advocates: http://nanpa.org/positions_overview.php.
> 
> For me, wildlife photography is all about the challenge of finding wild animals, which is often about luck, and the skill of getting the shot when the opportunity presents itself. If it were easy, I don't think I would enjoy it. Then again, my income doesn't depend on getting these shots.



Bare in mind that the nature programs involved generally involve the best wildlife video footage the world has ever seen.

For Americans the Daily Mail is basically Fox News in print form and is opposed to the BBC as an independent public broadcaster. The grandfather of the current owner was a fascist sympathiser pre WW2 yet he ran a highly dishoniest story on the current center left leaders dead father "hating britan".


----------



## dolina (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> An interesting article on Daily Mail, which I thought might interest some CR members.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450381/BBC-fakes-wildlife-shots-time-Veteran-cameraman-claims-species-smaller-rabbits-filmed-custom-built-sets.html



I am an an avid, avid watcher of BBC programing, especially the documentaries. They do show how they get their wildlife shots are done. As a wildlife photographer I find their workflow interesting.

I take the educational content seriously. How they get it, I do not make too much of a fuss over it.

Now, is it a news program? If it isn't then they can stage the heck out of it.

Is it a photo/video contest that disallows any form of staging? If it isn't then they can stage the heck out of it.

People should be more scandalized on the staged nature of "reality TV" and talent/singing contests. 

Finally, if you dislike what the BBC is doing then all you have to do is turn the TV off.

=========

We must remember that the health & safety of the production staff should take paramount importance rather than the authenticity. We should also consider that the level of difficulty & budget in making such a production somewhat limit the authenticity.

=========

Earlier this year I was being bugged on "authenticity" and "truthfulness" of wildlife photography and to be honest what other people do is their business. If you're in an organization then you should follow their protocols or else just keep out.

=========

In my mind, why the ****** (pardon the language) would I spend so much money to fight people on how they do their business?

Because at the end of the day, you post or otherwise make public your work some idiot with "good intentions" will appropriate your work for their advocacy without even the decency of either acknowledging you for your time/effort/money or compensating you.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

dolina said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting article on Daily Mail, which I thought might interest some CR members.
> ...


I absolutely agree


----------



## Pi (Oct 10, 2013)

moreorless said:


> [...] to the BBC as an independent public broadcaster.



In most countries, organizations funded by taxes would be called governmental ones.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 10, 2013)

Not in the UK, the BBC seem to do their utmost to take down whichever government is in power. Kind of biting the hand that feeds, but shows independence.


----------



## dolina (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I absolutely agree


So chill out, relax or else you might get hypertension over wildlife. 

Or better yet go after people who destroy the habitat and pouch wildlife rather than some overly enthusiastic cameraman.

Again, for the record. I did not get serious in my photography just so I can dictate others how they should lead their lives. I am neither paying them for their time and gear so best bet is to keep out of their business so long as what they are doing is legal.

If animals and bugs knew what people are on about they'll all think we're f-ing batty. ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> Kind of biting the hand that feeds, but shows independence.



In the case of this thread would it be the BBC photographer getting his hand bit by a wild animal?


----------



## Famateur (Oct 10, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture



You may have fooled others, but not me. A common loon in a tree? Nice try! ;D


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2013)

Pi said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > [...] to the BBC as an independent public broadcaster.
> ...


That is probably correct, for most countries. But it gives you a tilted view of the consequences. BBC, NRK (Norway), SVT (Sweden) and a few other broadcasters are financed through the tax system, rather than commercials. They are controlled by independent bodies, which does not control the money. That gives you two major benefits. One; There are no commercials (American TV is totally wrecked by commercials), and you can watch a program from start to finish without numerous noisy commercial interrupts. Two; Because they have a fixed and firm budget, with clear rules to also serve the niches, they produce programs without being slaves to viewer volumes.
So summing up, BBC, NRK and SVT are a lot more independent than a commercially driven broadcaster. Wether it is public or governmental is academic.


----------



## dolina (Oct 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> That is probably correct, for most countries. But it gives you a tilted view of the consequences. BBC, NRK (Norway), SVT (Sweden) and a few other broadcasters are financed through the tax system, rather than commercials. They are controlled by independent bodies, which does not control the money. That gives you two major benefits. One; There are no commercials (American TV is totally wrecked by commercials), and you can watch a program from start to finish without numerous noisy commercial interrupts. Two; Because they have a fixed and firm budget, with clear rules to also serve the niches, they produce programs without being slaves to viewer volumes.
> So summing up, BBC, NRK and SVT are a lot more independent than a commercially driven broadcaster. Wether it is public or governmental is academic.



It also allows for documentaries on such interesting subjects such as cranes (the mechanical kind, not the bird kind).

Such subjects would never ever get enough funding to make it interesting production-wise.


----------



## ME (Oct 12, 2013)

CharlieB said:


> Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile". Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.



I remember it well. Used to watch it frequently. And was often amused at the events you describe. He looked like he was getting pretty old, though.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2013)

CharlieB said:


> Quite obviously, the previous responders to this thread are beyond the age that would remember "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom', with Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler, whereupon, on some back of some studio in California, Marlin would "watch from the safety of the helicopter while Jim wrestled the crocodile". Whereupon, the helicopter was in fact on the ground (the chopper shots of Marlin looking on were often repeated from show to show), and the crocodile was... well it was somthing in the mud, and could have been a deflated weather balloon for all we know.



That show was incredible.... There was the show where he wrestled a dead anaconda, then the show where they shot the bear up with so much tranquilizers that they killed it, so they spread honey on the carcas and filmed the babies "nursing".... but the best show of all was when they filmed the legendary migration of the lemmings and had a conveyor belt flinging them off of a cliff while they filmed the lemmings "jumping" from below....

Walt Disney rented a lot of trained animals for his wildlife documentaries.... I was impressed with how well groomed his cougars and wolves were....

Go watch "mountain men".... the wild animals are rented from Wasach Rocky Mountain Animals.....


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2013)

Famateur said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I would never fake or stage a "wildlife" picture
> ...



How about a groundhog in a tree?


----------



## photo212 (Oct 12, 2013)

Faking is what you lead your audience to believe. If you tell them you are film the birth a polar bear in the wild, it had better be in the wild. Lying is even worse than faking. Faking is not telling the audience what is really going on. 

As a wildlife photographer I do not want captive animals considered wild. Just state that some of the scenes were filmed in captivity. That makes the truly amazing wildlife image precious compared to one taken where the animal was under some control.

Ethics.


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 12, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Jackson_Bill, love that great blue heron shot!

+1...how about a juvenile AND an adult BCN Heron in the same Octopus tree? ;D


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 12, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



LOL ;D...you win, no bears in Hawaii (except at the zoo) 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2013)

serendipidy said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I would have been more impressed with an Octopus in an Octopus tree 

While we are stretching..... how about cats in a tree? I used this picture last winter for Christmas Cards, and yes, that is the front of a canoe on the wall of my living room


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



Very nice..and lovely cats


----------



## Famateur (Oct 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



LOL...now _that _is something I've never seen.



serendipidy said:


> Jackson_Bill, love that great blue heron shot!
> 
> +1...how about a juvenile AND an adult BCN Heron in the same Octopus tree? ;D



Fake, fake, fake. Everyone knows an octopus isn't a tree.


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 13, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



OK, you asked for it ;D


----------

