YorkieTalk.com Forums - Yorkshire Terrier Community


Welcome to the YorkieTalk.com Forums Community - the community for Yorkshire Terriers.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You will be able to chat with over 35,000 YorkieTalk members, read over 2,000,000 posted discussions, and view more than 15,000 Yorkie photos in the YorkieTalk Photo Gallery after you register. We would love to have you as a member!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please click here to contact us.

Go Back   YorkieTalk.com Forums - Yorkshire Terrier Community > Breeding / Showing / Traveling > Breeder Talk
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar JavaChat Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-23-2006, 11:52 AM   #1
Donating YT 4000 Club Member
 
feminvstr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 4,405
Default The Backyard Breeder Fallacy

The Backyard Breeder Fallacy
http://www.thedogpress.com/default.asp

I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No. Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper. However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that either.


Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being relieved of their civil rights.


While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another.


Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like “puppy mill” and “backyard breeder” and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on “death row”. Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics.


It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding”. Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter.

Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist. Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak.



The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers.


Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it.

We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive.


According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not “puppy mills”, breed enthusiasts or “backyard breeders” of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a “designer” product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.

Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same “hybrid vigor” so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process.

The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future.


Am I a “backyard breeder”? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win.

Ms. Jade magikworksmins@yahoo.com
May 2006
__________________
Kimberly
feminvstr is offline   Reply With Quote
Welcome Guest!
Not Registered?

Join today and remove this ad!

Old 05-23-2006, 12:32 PM   #2
YT Addict
 
oceanair27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feminvstr
The Backyard Breeder Fallacy
http://www.thedogpress.com/default.asp

I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No. Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper. However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that either.


Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being relieved of their civil rights.


While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another.


Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like “puppy mill” and “backyard breeder” and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on “death row”. Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics.


It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding”. Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter.

Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist. Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak.



The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers.


Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it.

We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive.


According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not “puppy mills”, breed enthusiasts or “backyard breeders” of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a “designer” product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.

Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same “hybrid vigor” so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process.

The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future.


Am I a “backyard breeder”? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win.

Ms. Jade magikworksmins@yahoo.com
May 2006

Well said!!!! I agree 100%
__________________
Cindy's mom
oceanair27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2006, 12:25 AM   #3
YT 2000 Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,992
Default

I wasn't surprised to see few responses to "The Backyard Breeder Fallacy."

I think the only one I see so far was something about "I agree with it 100%."
I'm sure I can't go that far. I might agree with it about 10% - but even before doing this, I would have to give it far more consideration and "grueling thought" than I an muster up at this time of night. Actually, I'm not sure I'll ever be up to it.

Ms. Jade's personal opinons on so many issues are covered in this one article that it might be somewhat overwhelming for most people to respond to more than only one or two of them. And, actually, many of us have voiced our opinions on most of her topics often on YT, many times over.....but we did have the advantage of discussing them one at a time.

Well - let's see if anyone else is going to tackle this article.


Carol Jean
__________________
http://tinypic.com/ipxhmb.jpg
A Yorkie is worth a thousand words.
SnowWa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2006, 02:40 AM   #4
Donating Yorkie Yakker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: .
Posts: 493
Default

Alright, since we are going to be free thinkers (that and Mia woke me up at 4 in the morning and I have nothing better to do at the moment), let me tackle this article. Not because I completely disagree with it, but rather because it deserves to be analyzed for better understanding of the issues discussed, like all texts (can you tell I am a literature person?).
In this article there are some blatant red flags. One of which is the author's tendency to stereotype and scapegoat "animal rights activists." First of all its too easy to homogenize a group of people under umbrella terms, and to describe this group with characteristics that cannot possibly be attributed to the entire group. Let me give an example. I believe I used to be (and maybe still am) an "animal rights activist." I was a PETA member before I found out that they "euthanized" animals at their shelters, I used to be a HSUS member, and I have been a vegetarian all my adult life (which is like 4-5 years, but its somethin'). I would advocate vegetarianism to anyone who is considering. I have taken in a pregant stray cat and nursed her through all her difficulties during/after pregnancy and unfortunate lymphoma (she died on Memorial day). I have found good homes for three of her babies, and I will do home visits to ensure that the babies get spayed/neutered. I have a beautiful cat from the local animal shelter (which gasses animals once or twice a week). Boy do I feel good for rescuing my cat from that hell-hole. And, I am the recent owner of a beautiful pure bred Yorkie. I would like to breed Yorkies some day (in my 40s when I have more stability in my life) to better the breed as a knowledgable and responsible person. To me breeding Yorkies seems like a better occupation of my time than raising kids. And I absolutely fell in love with the breed thanks to Mia. I also love taking care of animals to the best of my abilities and knowledge. But, I would also like to help stray animals, abused animals and animals that are in shelters for the rest of my life.
Now, let me tell you why I have, in the past, agreed to the philosophy of "animals are not for us to use, so on and so forth," which includes pet ownership. It may not be a good reason, but it was my reason. Because it is never ever ever going to happen. Not many people care enough about animals and how they are treated. How many of you would treat your pets as your baby and then have dinner at a steak house? Many. I am not trying to judge anyone. I am just pointing out the selective love most people give animals. I used to think that if you aim for such an extreme goal, on your way to that goal, you are bound to accomplish the alleviation of animal suffering. Right now I think such philosophy just polarizes the existing animal lover "community," and makes it easy for people that care to dismiss animal activism as this author does. And that is not helping anyone, including the pet owners. It is also hysterical (!) that the author writes "Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive," later on since that is what she is doing.
When it comes to the shelter statistics, this example does not support the author's argument because we don't know the statistics of pet ownership. The reason animals at the shelters are a problem is because there are no homes for them to go to. The main idea "animal activists" rely on when attributing animal overpopulation to the breeders is because "they" think that a person who bought a pure-bred could have adopted, and reduced the overpopulation at the shelters. Not because pure breds crowd animal shelters.
There are shortcomings of our understanding of DNA, and there is the basic fact that predictions are just predictions. Not that breeders should not know this stuff, I think they should be up to date on the scientific part of it, but this knowledge does not grant anyone a special untouchable status. Nor does this incomplete knowledge of the breeder grant her puppies a special quality or give her the right to demonize mutts. Some mutts make better pets than pure breds. It depends on the animal. The proposed solution to spay/neuter mutts and to "eliminate" them based on the fact that they are mutts is quite unreasonable. It is very very sad to see a person that is a self-proclaimed "Nazi" anything since it should be clear to everyone (by now) what is wrong with such mentality. This is not joking material.
And the reason HSUS would have (I am guessing) promoted mutts "as a 'designer' product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory" is because that is why some people buy pets. I have come across several people that wanted less than 5 lbs. Yorkies to carry around as fashion accessories. HSUS is just trying to save some animal lives by trying to improve mutts' image. Not that it seems to be working.
Okay, this is getting long and I am getting bored. These are some of my objections to the article. I agree that the activists' efforts are sometimes misdirected, and that the actions taken are not that productive. They are sometimes unnecessarily restrictive. I think she has some good points, and it is definitely a subject worth our attention. I just wanted to expand the discussion.
Thanks for reading.
__________________
lolabella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2006, 03:08 AM   #5
Yorkies Rock My World!
 
Jaspermom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,721
Sun

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolabella
Alright, since we are going to be free thinkers (that and Mia woke me up at 4 in the morning and I have nothing better to do at the moment), let me tackle this article. Not because I completely disagree with it, but rather because it deserves to be analyzed for better understanding of the issues discussed, like all texts (can you tell I am a literature person?).
I think she has some good points, and it is definitely a subject worth our attention. I just wanted to expand the discussion.
Thanks for reading.
Well said! I am impressed that not only did you analyze the article beautifully, but your writing style is excellent.

Kim, you did not give your own opinion on the article. How about it? What compelled you to post it? Just curious...
__________________
Glad
Mom to Jasper, Wosie & Dreama, RIP sweet babies.
Jaspermom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2006, 11:37 PM   #6
Donating YT 4000 Club Member
 
feminvstr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 4,405
Default

My reason for posting is I found it an interesting article simple as that ... did I agree with most of it? No! Did I agree with some of it of course.

For example the on going debate and possible legislation of the PAWS act. I personally spoke with AKC regarding this purposed legislation. I am not a proponent of the bill but I do better understand it (if it does pass) and the possible effect it may have on the small hobby breeder. Government enforcement has its place, the "millers door step" in the large breed for profit kennels, but for small hobby breeder I question their needed involvement. In their eyes its all about business and or in some instances public pressure.

I dont agree with mix breeds, nor breeding the flavor of the month, but every pet should have a home and every breeder should be held responsible for the health and well being of every pup they may produce, requiring a return/rehome agreement be signed with every placement or be an important part of their contract. Because society has become more involved in the welfare of animals there are more pet rescues, no kill shelters, not to mention responsible breeders doing their part in fostering and placement, but it is in my opinion if more breeders would adopt strict spay/neuter contracts no matter the breed the less likely others would entertain the thought of breeding their beloved pet.

Also Ms. Jade points out "our disposable society" which I couldnt agree more with yesterday, but I take issue with today. It is also my opinion todays life style has changed, public acceptance has broadened, the "PET BUSINESS" has become big business and with big business comes government involvement.

Even though we've become a kinder more gentler society advocating animal rights, count the number of doggie day cares, there are now numerous pet therapists, pet trainers, pet videos, pet radio, pet camcorders, pet insurance, pet cemeteries, all day pampered pet salons, pet boutiques, pet clothing designers, dog walkers, pet sitters, mobile vet practices and groomers. Glance at the pet food manufacturers alone; 20 years ago there was puppy chow today there is a smorgasbord for pets from the raw diet to the doggie bakery. Today people celebrate their pets, who would have imagined 20 years ago a pet wedding or a puppy birthday party?

Many businesses allow employees to bring dogs to work, colleges allow pets in classes or some provide doggie day care. Families can travel more freely with their pets, its amazing how many pet friendly hotels and restaurants are available throughout the world. Todays pampered pooches are treated more like children living the spoiled life instead of an outside guard dog.

Like in anything there is good and bad and when the government gets involved more often than not its for monetary reason over public pressure.
__________________
Kimberly
feminvstr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Google
 

SHOP NOW: Amazon :: eBay :: Buy.com :: Newegg :: PetStore :: Petco :: PetSmart


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2003 - 2018 YorkieTalk.com
Privacy Policy - Terms of Use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167