--part1_148.2290e5f8.2d67a5ed_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
I would like to reply to Bob Russell's comments. I write as a former=20 Minnesota Ornithological Records Committee member who assisted in the author= ship of=20 the 2004 checklist, but I did not confer with my fellow MORC members, so thi= s=20 is not an official MORC response. Most of the concerns addressed by Russell and others can be found in the=20 checklist itself. The Accidental, Casual, and Regular status terms are clear= ly=20 defined on the first page of the 2004 MORC checklist; an Accidental species=20= is=20 one "for which there are Accepted records in two, one, or no years out of th= e=20 last ten years." Thus, designating a species as Accidental only refers to it= s=20 yearly occurrence in the last ten years. The idea that an Accidental species is one which is "not likely to occur=20 again" has never appeared on any official MORC checklist (1978 to 2004). Not= e that=20 Russell has apparently taken this definition from Green and Janssen (1975),=20 who define Accidental as "not likely to occur again, or only at very infrequ= ent=20 intervals" Also note that he has conveniently left out the very important=20 latter part of the definition! Janssen (1987), which is an update of Green a= nd=20 Janssen (1975), defines Accidental the same way MORC does, without the langu= age=20 used by Green and Janssen (1975). In summary, Russell has complained about t= he=20 status of King Rail becoming Accidental based on an out of date and=20 incomplete definition! Either way, I think that Accidental clearly defines the current status of=20 King Rail in Minnesota=E2=80=94a species which has not been seen since 1992=20= and is likely=20 to occur again only at very infrequent intervals. When MORC completed the=20 1999 checklist, King Rail had been seen in only three of the last ten years,= but=20 we erred on the side of positivity, and defined this species as Casual. The=20 last nesting attempt was in 1983 and the last positive breeding was in 1976.= =20 This species has not been Regular since the 1978 edition of our checklist, s= o a=20 move to Accidental is not at all unexpected or surprising. What alternative=20 status does Russell suggest for King Rail? Casual? Regular? Extirpated? Exti= nct?=20 These are the only choices. Russell acts surprised that King Rail has changed status in the last 20 or 3= 0=20 years, but think of all the species which have changed significantly in that= =20 amount of time (on the 1978 checklist, House Finch was considered=20 Hypothetical, Baird's Sparrow was Regular but is now Accidental, and Lesser=20= Black-backed=20 Gull did not even occur on the checklist even thought it is now Regular). Russell claims King Rails may breed in South Dakota, but the current status=20 of this species in South Dakota is Accidental (!), with only two breeding=20 records, the last in 1974 (Tallman, Swanson and Palmer, 2002). Although Russ= ell=20 also claims King Rails breed in Iowa and Wisconsin, a quick internet check s= howed=20 this species to be both Endangered and Casual in Iowa, and to be rare in=20 Wisconsin with Special Concern or "imperiled" breeding status (the current=20 Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas does not show any confirmed breeding reports).= Thus, he=20 has painted a picture of King Rails breeding all around Minnesota based on=20 faulty information. Note that the new Minnesota checklist contains annotations for each species.= =20 These were drafted specifically for the purpose of avoiding the type of=20 confusion that has resulted concerning the status of King Rail. The annotati= on for=20 King Rail clearly states: "Former summer resident. Last recorded in 1992. St= ate=20 designation: Endangered." Other species that Russell may consider Acccidenta= l=20 by his own definition (not MORC's), such as Fieldfare, are annotated with th= e=20 single record. How does defining King Rail as Accidental in Minnesota make i= t=20 similar to a species such as South Polar Skua in North Dakota? Who suggested= =20 all species considered to be Accidental were similar? Are all Regular specie= s=20 similar? Since both House Sparrow and Lesser Black-backed Gull are Regular,=20 does this mean their occurrence in the state is similar? Definitely not! Birding coverage of Minnesota is far more extensive than it was 20 or 30=20 years ago, which makes the disappearance of King Rail all the more perplexin= g. I=20 really doubt that observers in Minnesota are substantially different from th= e=20 observers in neighboring states that report breeding King Rails. There HA= VE=20 been surveys in Minnesota within the last ten years that have searched for=20 King Rails by canoe and by foot (such as the DNR's Minnesota County Biologic= al=20 Survey, which I participated in). Hundreds of observers report other species= of=20 rails from throughout the state, why not King Rails? It would be great if=20 extensive surveys of marshes in Minnesota turned up a King Rail or two, but=20= it is=20 quite clear that this species does not occur in numbers anything close to wh= at=20 it did formerly. As with his concerns about King Rail, Russell uses illogical reasoning to=20 suggest that Gyrfalcon should in fact be Regular in Minnesota. Gyrfalcon was= =20 considered Casual on an official Minnesota checklist as recently as 1993, an= d it=20 has always maintained a barely Regular status (average of only 3.4 records p= er=20 year in the last 40 years). Gyrfalcon was voted Casual by MORC for the 2004=20 checklist because there were no reports in 1995 and 1999. How do the 20 records in Illinois in the last 35 years support Regular statu= s? =E2=80=94this is evidence for Gyrs in a maximum of only 57% of all years, bu= t records=20 in at least 80% of all years is required for Regular status! Why would a=20 hawkwatch at Grand Portage net more Gyrfalcons than at Hawk Ridge? How does the regular occurrence of Gyrs in South Dakota translate into=20 Minnesota observers missing this species? Note that the area where Gyrfalcon= s are=20 seen most often in South Dakota is west of the Missouri River, 150 miles fro= m=20 Minnesota. This area is substantially different from any part of Minnesota i= n=20 many respects: vegetationally, climatically, ornithologically. As a birder w= ho=20 used to explore South Dakota, Russell knows this. Hundreds of species change= =20 significantly in status in a range of 150 miles: west of the Missouri River,= =20 species such as Lark Bunting, Lazuli Bunting, Bullock's Oriole, Long-billed=20 Curlew, Burrowing Owl, etc. all breed regularly, but all of which have less=20= than=20 Regular status in Minnesota. Is Russell suggesting all these species be=20 considered Regular in Minnesota because they occur regularly within 150 mile= s? Russell asks: "Who checks the chicken flocks regularly in western MN?" Many=20 observers bird in western Minnesota and report hundreds of Greater=20 Prairie-Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse each season, including this past wi= nter when many=20 observers have noted Short-eared Owls and other raptors in the same areas as= =20 all those "chickens." Many regular seasonal report contributors live in=20 western areas such as Fergus Falls, Fargo-Moorhead, East Grand Forks, Crooks= ton, and=20 Thief River Falls=E2=80=94and these observers regularly report "chickens" an= d raptors=20 (such as Prairie Falcons). I am a disbeliever in the theory that Gyrfalcons are Regular in northwestern= =20 Minnesota. I have made at least one trip to northwestern Minnesota every=20 winter since 1992, specifically looking for Gyrfalcons (I haven't seen a Gyr= there=20 since 1994), and I know Peder Svingen birds in that part of the state even=20 more often that I do. Finally, Russell's suggestion that we are missing=20 Gyrfalcons in northwestern Minnesota where there are relatively few observer= s is=20 contradicted by his evidence that Gyrs occur regularly in South Dakota, and=20= that=20 Illinois has 20 records in the last 35 years; by this logic, Gyrs should be=20 capable of occurring anywhere in the state, not just northwestern Minnesota! In my opinion, Russell has insulted the entire birding population of=20 Minnesota (especially BBS surveyors) by suggesting we are not finding the bi= rds that=20 HE thinks are out there, and he has insulted the birders in neighboring stat= es=20 by mis-representing the status of King Rails outside our borders. Lastly, ev= en=20 if King Rails and Gyrfalcons are occurring in Minnesota more often than MOU=20 records indicate, how is this a fault of MORC? We have simply defined each=20 species based on the data that was available. Is Russell suggesting we give=20= these=20 species a status which is based on something other than the available data? Karl Bardon Literature cited Green, Janet C. and Robert B. Janssen 1975. Minnesota Birds: Where, When, an= d=20 How Many. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Janssen, Robert B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press,=20 Minneapolis. Tallman, Dan A., David=C2=A0 L. Swanson and Jeffrey S. Palmer. 2002. The Bir= ds of=20 South Dakota, Third Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen. In a message dated 2/18/04 12:18:52 AM, [email protected] writes: > I think this Minnesota rarities committee has been locked up in a=20 > Koochiching cabin way too long this winter.=C2=A0 Let the suns shine in me= n and women!! To=20 > call a King Rail "accidental" is to treat records of this species like som= e=20 > of the truly accidental records that dot the annals of the birding world,=20 > great records like a Slender-billed Curlew in New York or a Skua in North=20= Dakota=20 > or a Manx Shearwater on a lawn in Michigan.=C2=A0 Accidental means not lik= ely to=20 > occur again, an "accident" of nature.=C2=A0 The great Ontario birder Alan=20 > Wormington says there is no such thing as "accidental."=C2=A0 History will= repeat itself=20 > eventually.=C2=A0 A record of King Rail in Minnesota which breeds in Wisco= nsin,=20 > breeds in Iowa, may breed in South Dakota and definitely breeds in Nebrask= a is=20 > hardly an "accident."=C2=A0 For crying outloud like a nocturnal petrel, th= is is a=20 > rail folks!=C2=A0 Rails can populate the most remote islands in the far re= aches of=20 > the world's oceans so for a King Rail to appear again in Minnesota is hard= ly=20 > accidental.=C2=A0 How does a bird go from breeding in the state within the= past 2=20 > or 3 decades to accidental?=C2=A0 Did it suddenly change its nature?=C2= =A0 So it's=20 > gotten rarer but the continued possibilities of future records is relative= ly=20 > high.=C2=A0 And then there's the detectability issue.=C2=A0 How many birde= rs in this state=20 > ever get out of their SUVs and walk more than 200 yards from the car?=C2= =A0 How=20 > many boat, canoe, kayak records have birders turned in recently? Almost no= ne.=C2=A0=20 > Does anyone go out and walk through marshes, as any thorough check of the=20= big=20 > Mississippi marsh south of LaCrescent been made by boat recently?=C2=A0 Ha= ve the=20 > marshes of Lac qui Parle been checked other than a brief drive down the ro= ads=20 > that lead through the refuge.=C2=A0 Have tapes been played regularly in th= e early=20 > morning and evening?=C2=A0 Is the aged BBS birding population even capable= of=20 > hearing a distant "bup, bup?"=C2=A0 And there's the gyr demoted to casual.= =C2=A0 Let's see=20 > 20 records in Illinois in the past 35 years.=C2=A0 Did all these birds jus= t fly=20 > around Minnesota.=C2=A0 How many folks sit at Grand Portage for 2 months d= oing a=20 > real hawklookout, who birds Koochiching and Kittson and Lake of the Woods=20= on a=20 > regular basis?=C2=A0 Who checks the chicken flocks regularly in western MN= ?=C2=A0 South=20 > Dakota gets multiple gyrs every year and most of these records are 200 mil= es=20 > south of Minnesota's Canadian border.=C2=A0 Certainly there are gyrs in Mi= nnesota=20 > every year.=C2=A0 What good does it do the list to periodically downgrade=20= a=20 > species every decade or so and then put it back on the regular list when a= series=20 > of records demands it?=C2=A0 Why not calm down, admit that species like=20 > Red-throated Loons, jaegers, gyrs, and many other boreal/arctic species ar= e cyclic and=20 > go with the flow rather than trying to pigeonhole these birds which still=20= are=20 > "regular" over a period of, say 50-60 years or more.=C2=A0 Not every invas= ion=20 > occurs every 2 years or even every 10 years in boreal ecosystems.=C2=A0 We= have much=20 > to learn of northern invasions and it makes no sense to change their statu= s=20 > just to make work for the records committee although it does keep this rec= ords=20 > committee out of the woods and out of our hair for extended periods and I=20 > guess that's good.=C2=A0 I feel better now.=C2=A0 We'll make Bobwhite comm= ents later!=C2=A0 Bob=20 > Russell, Dakota County, proud home to at least 2 records committee members= . --part1_148.2290e5f8.2d67a5ed_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Gen= eva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"> I would like to reply to Bob Russell's= comments. I write as a former Minnesota Ornithological Records Committee me= mber who assisted in the authorship of the 2004 checklist, but I did not con= fer with my fellow MORC members, so this is not an official MORC response.<B= R> <BR> Most of the concerns addressed by Russell and others can be found in the che= cklist itself. The Accidental, Casual, and Regular status terms are clearly=20= defined on the first page of the 2004 MORC checklist; an Accidental species=20= is one "for which there are Accepted records in two, one, or no years out of= the last ten years." Thus, designating a species as Accidental only refers=20= to its yearly occurrence in the last ten years.<BR> <BR> The idea that an Accidental species is one which is "not likely to occur aga= in" has never appeared on any official MORC checklist (1978 to 2004). Note t= hat Russell has apparently taken this definition from Green and Janssen (197= 5), who define Accidental as "not likely to occur again, or only at very inf= requent intervals" Also note that he has conveniently left out the very impo= rtant latter part of the definition! Janssen (1987), which is an update of G= reen and Janssen (1975), defines Accidental the same way MORC does, without=20= the language used by Green and Janssen (1975). In summary, Russell has compl= ained about the status of King Rail becoming Accidental based on an out of d= ate and incomplete definition!<BR> <BR> Either way, I think that Accidental clearly defines the current status of Ki= ng Rail in Minnesota=E2=80=94a species which has not been seen since 1992 an= d is likely to occur again only at very infrequent intervals. When MORC comp= leted the 1999 checklist, King Rail had been seen in only three of the last=20= ten years, but we erred on the side of positivity, and defined this species=20= as Casual. The last nesting attempt was in 1983 and the last positive breedi= ng was in 1976. This species has not been Regular since the 1978 edition of=20= our checklist, so a move to Accidental is not at all unexpected or surprisin= g. What alternative status does Russell suggest for King Rail? Casual? Regul= ar? Extirpated? Extinct? These are the only choices.<BR> <BR> Russell acts surprised that King Rail has changed status in the last 20 or 3= 0 years, but think of all the species which have changed significantly in th= at amount of time (on the 1978 checklist, House Finch was considered Hypothe= tical, Baird's Sparrow was Regular but is now Accidental, and Lesser Black-b= acked Gull did not even occur on the checklist even thought it is now Regula= r).<BR> <BR> Russell claims King Rails may breed in South Dakota, but the current status=20= of this species in South Dakota is Accidental (!), with only two breeding re= cords, the last in 1974 (Tallman, Swanson and Palmer, 2002). Although Russel= l also claims King Rails breed in Iowa and Wisconsin, a quick internet check= showed this species to be both Endangered and Casual in Iowa, and to be rar= e in Wisconsin with Special Concern or "imperiled" breeding status (the curr= ent Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas does not show any confirmed breeding repor= ts). Thus, he has painted a picture of King Rails breeding all around Minnes= ota based on faulty information.<BR> <BR> Note that the new Minnesota checklist contains annotations for each species.= These were drafted specifically for the purpose of avoiding the type of con= fusion that has resulted concerning the status of King Rail. The annotation=20= for King Rail clearly states: "Former summer resident. Last recorded in 1992= . State designation: Endangered." Other species that Russell may consider Ac= ccidental by his own definition (not MORC's), such as Fieldfare, are annotat= ed with the single record. How does defining King Rail as Accidental in Minn= esota make it similar to a species such as South Polar Skua in North Dakota?= Who suggested all species considered to be Accidental were similar? Are all= Regular species similar? Since both House Sparrow and Lesser Black-backed G= ull are Regular, does this mean their occurrence in the state is similar? De= finitely not!<BR> <BR> Birding coverage of Minnesota is far more extensive than it was 20 or 30 yea= rs ago, which makes the disappearance of King Rail all the more perplexing.=20= I really doubt that observers in Minnesota are substantially different from=20= the observers in neighboring states that report breeding King Rails. There&n= bsp; HAVE been surveys in Minnesota within the last ten years that ha= ve searched for King Rails by canoe and by foot (such as the DNR's Minnesota= County Biological Survey, which I participated in). Hundreds of observers r= eport other species of rails from throughout the state, why not King Rails?=20= It would be great if extensive surveys of marshes in Minnesota turned up a K= ing Rail or two, but it is quite clear that this species does not occur in n= umbers anything close to what it did formerly.<BR> <BR> As with his concerns about King Rail, Russell uses illogical reasoning to su= ggest that Gyrfalcon should in fact be Regular in Minnesota. Gyrfalcon was c= onsidered Casual on an official Minnesota checklist as recently as 1993, and= it has always maintained a barely Regular status (average of only 3.4 recor= ds per year in the last 40 years). Gyrfalcon was voted Casual by MORC for th= e 2004 checklist because there were no reports in 1995 and 1999.<BR> <BR> How do the 20 records in Illinois in the last 35 years support Regular statu= s?=E2=80=94this is evidence for Gyrs in a maximum of only 57% of all years,=20= but records in at least 80% of all years is required for Regular status! Why= would a hawkwatch at Grand Portage net more Gyrfalcons than at Hawk Ridge?<= BR> <BR> How does the regular occurrence of Gyrs in South Dakota translate into Minne= sota observers missing this species? Note that the area where Gyrfalcons are= seen most often in South Dakota is west of the Missouri River, 150 miles fr= om Minnesota. This area is substantially different from any part of Minnesot= a in many respects: vegetationally, climatically, ornithologically. As a bir= der who used to explore South Dakota, Russell knows this. Hundreds of specie= s change significantly in status in a range of 150 miles: west of the Missou= ri River, species such as Lark Bunting, Lazuli Bunting, Bullock's Oriole, Lo= ng-billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, etc. all breed regularly, but all of which=20= have less than Regular status in Minnesota. Is Russell suggesting all these=20= species be considered Regular in Minnesota because they occur regularly with= in 150 miles?<BR> <BR> Russell asks: "Who checks the chicken flocks regularly in western MN?" Many=20= observers bird in western Minnesota and report hundreds of Greater Prairie-C= hickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse each season, including this past winter when= many observers have noted Short-eared Owls and other raptors in the same ar= eas as all those "chickens." Many regular seasonal report contributors live=20= in western areas such as Fergus Falls, Fargo-Moorhead, East Grand Forks, Cro= okston, and Thief River Falls=E2=80=94and these observers regularly report "= chickens" and raptors (such as Prairie Falcons).<BR> <BR> I am a disbeliever in the theory that Gyrfalcons are Regular in northwestern= Minnesota. I have made at least one trip to northwestern Minnesota every wi= nter since 1992, specifically looking for Gyrfalcons (I haven't seen a Gyr t= here since 1994), and I know Peder Svingen birds in that part of the state e= ven more often that I do. Finally, Russell's suggestion that we are missing=20= Gyrfalcons in northwestern Minnesota where there are relatively few observer= s is contradicted by his evidence that Gyrs occur regularly in South Dakota,= and that Illinois has 20 records in the last 35 years; by this logic, Gyrs=20= should be capable of occurring anywhere in the state, not just northwestern=20= Minnesota!<BR> <BR> In my opinion, Russell has insulted the entire birding population of Minneso= ta (especially BBS surveyors) by suggesting we are not finding the birds tha= t HE thinks are out there, and he has insulted the birders in neighboring st= ates by mis-representing the status of King Rails outside our borders. Lastl= y, even if King Rails and Gyrfalcons are occurring in Minnesota more often t= han MOU records indicate, how is this a fault of MORC? We have simply define= d each species based on the data that was available. Is Russell suggesting w= e give these species a status which is based on something other than the ava= ilable data?<BR> <BR> Karl Bardon<BR> <BR> Literature cited<BR> <BR> Green, Janet C. and Robert B. Janssen 1975. Minnesota Birds: Where, When, an= d How Many. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.<BR> <BR> Janssen, Robert B. 1987. Birds in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press,=20= Minneapolis.<BR> <BR> Tallman, Dan A., David=C2=A0 L. Swanson and Jeffrey S. Palmer. 2002. The Bir= ds of South Dakota, Third Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen.<= /FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2= "><BR> <BR> In a message dated 2/18/04 12:18:52 AM, [email protected] writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;=20= MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE=3D"CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0= 00000" FACE=3D"Arial" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2">I think this Minnesota= rarities committee has been locked up in a Koochiching cabin way too long t= his winter.=C2=A0 Let the suns shine in men and women!! To call a King Rail=20= "accidental" is to treat records of this species like some of the truly acci= dental records that dot the annals of the birding world, great records like=20= a Slender-billed Curlew in New York or a Skua in North Dakota or a Manx Shea= rwater on a lawn in Michigan.=C2=A0 Accidental means not likely to occur aga= in, an "accident" of nature.=C2=A0 The great Ontario birder Alan Wormington=20= says there is no such thing as "accidental."=C2=A0 History will repeat itsel= f eventually.=C2=A0 A record of King Rail in Minnesota which breeds in Wisco= nsin, breeds in Iowa, may breed in South Dakota and definitely breeds in Neb= raska is hardly an "accident."=C2=A0 For crying outloud like a nocturnal pet= rel, this is a rail folks!=C2=A0 Rails can populate the most remote islands=20= in the far reaches of the world's oceans so for a King Rail to appear again=20= in Minnesota is hardly accidental.=C2=A0 How does a bird go from breeding in= the state within the past 2 or 3 decades to accidental?=C2=A0 Did it sudden= ly change its nature?=C2=A0 So it's gotten rarer but the continued possibili= ties of future records is relatively high.=C2=A0 And then there's the detect= ability issue.=C2=A0 How many birders in this state ever get out of their SU= Vs and walk more than 200 yards from the car?=C2=A0 How many boat, canoe, ka= yak records have birders turned in recently? Almost none.=C2=A0 Does anyone=20= go out and walk through marshes, as any thorough check of the big Mississipp= i marsh south of LaCrescent been made by boat recently?=C2=A0 Have the marsh= es of Lac qui Parle been checked other than a brief drive down the roads tha= t lead through the refuge.=C2=A0 Have tapes been played regularly in the ear= ly morning and evening?=C2=A0 Is the aged BBS birding population even capabl= e of hearing a distant "bup, bup?"=C2=A0 And there's the gyr demoted to casu= al.=C2=A0 Let's see 20 records in Illinois in the past 35 years.=C2=A0 Did a= ll these birds just fly around Minnesota.=C2=A0 How many folks sit at Grand=20= Portage for 2 months doing a real hawklookout, who birds Koochiching and Kit= tson and Lake of the Woods on a regular basis?=C2=A0 Who checks the chicken=20= flocks regularly in western MN?=C2=A0 South Dakota gets multiple gyrs every=20= year and most of these records are 200 miles south of Minnesota's Canadian b= order.=C2=A0 Certainly there are gyrs in Minnesota every year.=C2=A0 What go= od does it do the list to periodically downgrade a species every decade or s= o and then put it back on the regular list when a series of records demands=20= it?=C2=A0 Why not calm down, admit that species like Red-throated Loons, jae= gers, gyrs, and many other boreal/arctic species are cyclic and go with the=20= flow rather than trying to pigeonhole these birds which still are "regular"=20= over a period of, say 50-60 years or more.=C2=A0 Not every invasion occurs e= very 2 years or even every 10 years in boreal ecosystems.=C2=A0 We have much= to learn of northern invasions and it makes no sense to change their status= just to make work for the records committee although it does keep this reco= rds committee out of the woods and out of our hair for extended periods and=20= I guess that's good.=C2=A0 I feel better now.=C2=A0 We'll make Bobwhite comm= ents later!=C2=A0 Bob Russell, Dakota County, proud home to at least 2 recor= ds committee members.</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY= =3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></HTML> --part1_148.2290e5f8.2d67a5ed_boundary--
