if*n' 
 
 
 
 *wi 
 
 'i^-. 
 
 •^1i 
 
 mm- ' 
 
 mm- 
 
 m 
 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 
 :.'/■ 1 4 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^*H>^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 '^iiJV, 
 
 
a I B R.AFLY 
 
 OF THE 
 UN IVERSITY 
 Of ILLl NOIS 
 
 cop, 2 
 
 .AiUKAL HISTORY 
 SURVEY 
 
STATE OF ILLINOIS 
 
 Willidm G. Sfrdtfon. Governor 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION 
 
 Vera M. Binks, Dlrccfor 
 
 ■ '■' t:•^•' 
 
 NIGHT-LIGHTING: 
 
 A Technique for Capturing 
 Birds and Mammals 
 
 Ronald F. Labisky 
 
 ha 
 
 l#l» 
 
 *^ ^* "k ^' . 
 
 : ' ,^^ v^>M ^^?r. ^"^']^\ 
 
 {I 
 
 V 
 
 fr 
 
 
 Biological Noi^feVl^b; 40 ^ 
 
 '<^ Pnn+edby'^w^ority of tkg State of Illinois ""» 
 
 
 NATURAL WjSTORY 
 SURVEY DIVISION 
 
 ^. ) '■ i \v 
 
 Hir.TORV ?'J:^VET 
 
 Harlow B. Mills. Chief 
 
 Urbana, Illinois 
 July, 1959 
 
 \ 
 
 <i 
 
Fip. 1.- Pheasant captured during night-lighting operation heing placed in burlap holding bag until it can be processed. 
 
 1 
 
NIGHT-LIGHTING: 
 
 A Technique for Capturing 
 
 Birds and Mamnnals* 
 
 Ronald F. Labiskyt 
 
 Capturing large numbers of wild birds and mammals 
 for the purpose of marking the animals for ecological 
 and behavioral studies is usually a difficult task. This 
 paper describes a technique which was found effective 
 for capturing pheasants {Phasianus colchicus), cover 
 and fig. 1, and certain other animals by using bright 
 lights at night to blind them temporarily. The idea for 
 this technique is not original with the writer nor is it 
 of recent origin. If records existed from prehistoric 
 time, they would probably show that preliterate man 
 used the light shed by burning torches in capturing wild 
 animals for food. 
 
 The capturing of pheasants by night-lighting, also 
 called "jack-lighting" or "shining," has been employed 
 in practical game management since the late 1920's. 
 Oscar Johnson (Leopold 1931:118) reported that workers 
 in South Dakota captured about 10,000 pheasants during 
 the winter of 1926-27, and 12,000 pheasants during the 
 winter of 1929-30, by "shining" roosting birds with auto- 
 mobile headlights. More recently, workers in Idaho (Anon- 
 ymous 1952), South Dakota (Smith 1954), Nebraska 
 (Anonymous 1955), and California (Hart et al. 1956:137) 
 have employed night-lighting in capturing pheasants. 
 
 In Illinois, one of the problems in pheasant research 
 has been that of capturing and marking a large enough 
 number of wild pheasants to permit investigations of 
 behavior, population dynamics, and movements. While 
 bait trapping of wild pheasants is successful in many 
 states, it is difficult, or frequently impossible, in east- 
 central Illinois during fall and winter; this difficulty is 
 probably the result of an abundant year-round food supply 
 and moderate winter weather (Robertson 1958:21). In 
 order to facilitate the pheasant research program in 
 east-central Illinois, a mobile, night-lighting rig was 
 designed and outfitted. The work reported in this paper 
 was conducted on a 23,200-acre study area in Ford and 
 
 *A contribution from Illinois Federal Aid Project No. 30-K, 
 the Illinois Department of Conservation, the United States 
 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Illinois Nat- 
 ural History Survey, co-operating. 
 
 tAssistanl Wildlife Specialist, Illinois Natural History 
 Survey; at time of study Labisky was employed by the Illinois 
 Department of (Conservation under terms of the Fednral Aid in 
 Wildlife Restoration Act and was assigned to the Illinois 
 Natural History Survey for administrative and technical super- 
 vision. 
 
 McLean counties, near Sibley, during the fall and win- 
 ter of 1956-57, 1957-58, and 19.58-59. 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 Acknowledgment is made to personnel of the Illinois 
 Natural History Survey and the Illinois Department of 
 Conservation for assistance in the field, especially to 
 Louis F.James, Rexford D. Lord, Jr., Charles B. Mack, 
 and Stuart H. Mann; to Thomas G. Scott, James S. Ayars, 
 Carl 0. Mohr, Ralph E. Yeatter, and Mrs. Frances 
 Robbins, all of the Natural History Survey, for advice 
 concerning presentation of the data; to Mrs. Diana R. 
 Braverman of the Natural History Survey for editing 
 the manuscript; and to Robert 0. Ellis, David B. Cooley, 
 Everette Edwards, Sr., and Glenn G. Poor, Sr., all of 
 the Natural History Survey and Geological Survey ga- 
 rage, for assistance in designing and constructing the 
 night-lighting equipment. The cover photograph and all 
 other photographs were taken by William E. Clark, 
 Natural History Survey photographer. 
 
 EQUIPMENT 
 
 The basic equipment for night-lighting consisted of 
 a 3,000-watt, AC-DC, gasoline generator, which was 
 mounted in the rear of a panel or carrv-all truck, fig. 2, 
 a floodlight cluster, and a hand-held spotlight. A 4- 
 wheel drive vehicle proved to be a desirable kind for 
 night-lighting work. 
 
 The gas line of the generator was connected directly 
 to the main gas line of the truck. The generator was 
 equipped with an electric starting motor powered by a 
 12-volt battery; the battery was placed on the floor 
 next to the generator. 
 
 A series of five 150-watt PAR /FL projector flood 
 lamps, which were held by Killark model SLH lamp- 
 holders and mounted in a Killark model SY wiring trough, 
 comprised the floodlight cluster. The wiring trough was 
 mounted at the apex of a tripod made from three 3-foot 
 lengths of 1-inch metal conduit that were welded to- 
 gether at the top and bolted at the bottom to a metal 
 car-top carrier, fig. 3. The tripod, which extended about 
 3 feet above the cab of the truck when in use, was 
 easilv detachable and could be placed in the rear of 
 the truck when not in use. Only about ,5 minutes were 
 
Fig. 2. — Interior of carry-all truck, showing generator bolted to floor. The exhaust pipe is at the left of the geno'ator, and 
 the gas line tubing is at the lower right of the generator. The equipment box at the right contains materials for 
 marking pheasants. 
 
 required to attach the tripod to the top of the cab. The 
 floodlights produced a semicircle of light extending 
 about 10 yards on either side of the truck and about 15 
 yards forward. The individual flood lamps were adjust- 
 able so that the area of projected light could be con- 
 trolled. 
 
 The major electrical wiring consisted of a cable 
 (llO-volt, single phase AC cable, No. 10 wire) leading 
 from the llO-volt, AC outlet of the generator to a 110- 
 volt master switch box with a fuse. The switch box 
 was mounted on the inside wall of the truck, and a siiort 
 electrical cable, which terminated in a female recep- 
 tacle, led from the switch box, fig. 4. The cable from 
 the floodlight cluster terminated in a locking, heavv 
 duty male plug and was connected with the short lead 
 from the switch box to complete the power circuit to 
 the floodlights. A flexible, mechanically operated con- 
 
 trol cable, running from the switch box to the ceiling of 
 the truck cab above the driver, provided a means of 
 switching the floodlights on or off during the trapping 
 operations, figs. 2 and 4. 
 
 The hand-held spotlight used in this work was a 
 Unity Model \o. 742, 100.000 candle power, 12-volt 
 automobile searchlight equipped with a male plug. To 
 provide electrical current for the spotlight, a short elec- 
 trical cable, W'hich terminated in a female receptacle, 
 was attached to the terminals of the 12-volt storage 
 battery; tiie spotlight was plugged in to complete the 
 circuit. 
 
 A net, used to capture pheasants, was equipped with 
 a 10-foot handle, which was constructed of 1-inch con- 
 duit, and a hoop 30 inches in diameter. The bag of the 
 net was made of l-inch mesh netting and had a depth of 
 about 1.5 inches. Because the net was heavy, a short 
 
Fig. 3 Floodlight cluster mounted at apex ot tripod; support arms bolted to metal car-top carrier. 
 
 piece of pipe was welded to the front bumper of the 
 truck so that the netter could rest the butt end of the 
 net handle in this holder to steady the net while the 
 truck was moving. The holder was particularly valuable 
 in cold weather because it enabled the netter to hold 
 the net handle in the crook of his arm and to avoid touch- 
 ing the metal with his hands except when the net was 
 in use. 
 
 To give the driver good visibility, the netter rode on 
 the right fender, where a rubber mat was mounted to 
 provide a secure seat. A safety cable was attached 
 across the front part of the hood of the truck; the netter 
 could hold on to the cable with one arm to keep his 
 balance while the truck was moving. 
 
 In capturing pheasants by night-lighting operations, 
 researchers in .South Dakota (Smith 19.'it:3)and Nebraska 
 (Anonymous 1055:1R) used five men in eacii of their 
 trapping crews: a driver, two netters, and two men op- 
 
 erating the spotlights. With few exceptions, we employed 
 a two-man crew and experienced a high degree of effi- 
 ciency in our trapping operations. One man drove the 
 truck and controlled the floodlights;also he manipulated 
 the spotlight, which he held out of the window of the 
 truck, fig. S. The other man netted the pheasants. 
 
 PROCEDURE AND TECHNIQUES 
 
 The procedure followed for capturing pheasants by 
 night-lighting was to systematically cruise fields of 
 relatively flat terrain, such as hayfields and grain stub- 
 ble fields, to locate roosting pheasants. Usually night- 
 lighting operations were begun shortly after sunset and 
 were continue<l throughout the night. The roosting pheas- 
 ants were observed in the arc of light produced bv the 
 floodlights. The most effective cruising speed was about 
 
5 mph, but, once a roosting bird was sighted, speeds of 
 15 to 20 mph were often necessary to place the netter 
 in a position to attempt the capture. 
 
 When a roosting pheasant was observed in the arc 
 of the floodlights, the driver immediately switched on 
 the hand-held spotlight, pinpointed the bird with the 
 spotlight beam, and simultaneously switched off the 
 floodlights. He then drove toward the bird, keeping it 
 centered in the spotlight beam until the netter jumped 
 from the truck and made his netting attempt. Most pheas- 
 ants were captured within 25 feet of the truck. Many 
 pheasants were captured at or within a few feet of their 
 roosting sites, but some birds walked or ran consider- 
 able distances before holding well enough for the netter 
 to capture them. If a pheasant flushed, it could be 
 "knocked down" at distances up to about 200 yards by 
 the spotlight beam if the bird was so oriented in flight 
 
 that the beam of light reached its eye and temporarily 
 blinded the bird. 
 
 When attempting to capture a pheasant, the netter 
 usually approached from the spotlighted, or blinded, 
 side of the bird. The net was placed over the pheasant 
 swiftly, with the hoop parallel to the ground, to lessen 
 the chance of injuring the bird, fig. 6. The actions of 
 the driver and the netter had to be closely co-ordinated 
 to obtain a high degree of efficiency in capturing pheas- 
 ants by night-lighting, and, in order to attain this ef- 
 ficiency, much operational experience was required. 
 
 Because it was too time consuming to process each 
 pheasant as it was trapped, the captured birds were 
 placed in burlap holding bags until 10 or 12 had been 
 collected, fig. 1. The birds quieted down quickly and 
 remained in good physical condition if onlv one or two 
 pheasants were placed in each holding bag. Cocks and 
 
 Ki 
 
 g. 4. -The 110-volt switch box, with fuse, mounted on the wall of the truck alongside the generator. The electrical cable 
 that enters the switch hox at the lower left corner is the lead from the 110-volt power outlet of the generator. The 
 electrical cable that loaves the switch box at the upper right corner terminates in a female receptacle that con- 
 nects with a cable from tlic floodlight cluster. The flexible control cable is sho\TO attached to the circuit-breaker 
 arm of the switch box. The receptacle and plug for the liand-held spotlight are shown connected at the far right. 
 
Fig. 5. — Night-lighting rig in operation in a grain stubble field. The electrical wiring system shown on this rig is an early 
 design, less refined than the system that is described in this paper. 
 
 ^^Bn^^^^^^^I 
 
 ^1 
 
 ■ 
 
 H 
 
 
 B^r^^''^^iH 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 B^Hi^^ 
 
 1 'vTK[ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H 
 
 "... X Wr ' 
 
 4 * ^r» 1. 
 
 ■f 
 
 „ 
 
 ^^^^^^^^B 
 
 * 1 «. * , 
 
 
 
 
 »v — - - 
 
 
 "*" ■.. .. 
 
 ^"s^ 
 
 Fig. 6. —Capture of a marked hen pheasant (under net). Another hen, near the captured hen, flushed. 
 
hens were held separately because cocks generally 
 fought the holding bags more than did hens. In cold 
 weather, the birds adapted themselves more quickly to 
 holding bags than in warm weather. Pheasants were 
 seldom kept in holding bags longer than 1 hour before 
 being processed and released. 
 
 The captured pheasants were processed in the rear 
 of the truck, fig. 7. The processing procedure for each 
 bird included (1) measuring the depth of the bursa (mm.) 
 to determine age, (2) measuring the length of the spur- 
 tarsus (mm.) of cocks, (3) weighing, (4) measuring the 
 length of the replacement of the most recently molted 
 wing primary (mm.), (5) attaching an aluminum butt-end 
 band to a tarsus, and (6) attaching a plastic back-tag 
 marker, fig. 8. To facilitate handling and to avoid injury 
 to the birds, we placed each pheasant headfirst into a 
 large woolen sock for all processing steps with the ex- 
 ception of attaching the back-tag marker. 
 
 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 
 
 Individual pheasants were more susceptible to cap- 
 ture by night-lighting than larger groups of roosting 
 pheasants; if a single member of a larger group flushed, 
 it seemed to stimulate the entire roosting group to flush. 
 However, many of the pheasants that flushed flew only 
 short distances before alighting, usually within the 
 same field, where a second attempt could be made to 
 capture them. 
 
 The pheasants were easier to trap after they had 
 been roosting 3 to 4 hours than thev were shortly after 
 the onset of the roosting period; trapping was most 
 efficient after midnight. Constant night-lighting within 
 any one field usually caused the pheasants in the area 
 to become skittish; trapping then became less efficient. 
 
 Strong winds generally caused the roosting pheas- 
 ants to flush rather wildly; this was true particularly 
 
 Fig. 7. — Processing a (-apturnd plipasant insitle the oarrv-all truck. Tho generator is behind the biologist at the left. 
 
of large flocks. Wind caused the vegetation to wave, 
 making it difficult to locate pheasants when they began 
 to run or walk from the roosting sites. Fog, rain, heavy 
 dew, or frost caused the pheasants to hold tight to the 
 roosting sites and made them more susceptible to cap- 
 ture by night-lighting. Pheasants were most susceptible 
 to capture by night-lighting on cold, cloudy nights fol- 
 lowing rain. Snow caused the birds to be flighty. 
 
 Pheasants were skittish and difficult to capture on 
 bright, moonlight nights when the vegetation was dry. 
 But if the vegetation was wet or frosty, moonlight seemed 
 to have little effect on the flightiness of roosting pheas- 
 ants. 
 
 There were never nights, regardless of the weather 
 or the behavior of the pheasants, in which night-lighting 
 did not yield a sufficient capture of pheasants to make 
 the operation worth while. There was, however, con- 
 siderable variation in the ease with which pheasants 
 were captured under different nighttime conditions. 
 
 Sometimes slight alterations in technique were nec- 
 essary to increase trapping efficiency. 
 
 About one of every three unmarked pheasants that 
 were flushed during night-lightingoperations in 1956-57, 
 1957-58, and 1958-59 was captured, table 1. There were, 
 of course, seasonal and year-to-year variations in the 
 proportions of pheasants captured to those flushed. 
 
 Although the total pheasant population of the study 
 area was smaller after each hunting season than before, 
 the number of pheasants per unit of cover that was ex- 
 amined was greater after the season than before. Fall 
 plowing reduced the amount of roosting cover, and by 
 the beginning of winter the pheasant population had 
 become concentrated in the remaining cover. In general, 
 the percentage of pheasants captured varied inversely 
 with the number of pheasants that were flushed per unit 
 of cover examined; the trapping effort that was expend- 
 ed per bird was greater if few birds were flushed than 
 if many birds were flushed. Proportionately larger num- 
 
 F"ig. 8 — Attaching a bell-shaped, plastic back-tap lo a pheasant. I'he material used in this marker is Elastic I)..S. Naupa- 
 hyde, a durable, cloth-backed, vinyl resin plastic. 
 
bars of flushed pheasants were captured each fall (be- 
 fore the hunting season) than in the following winter 
 (after the hunting season), table 1. 
 
 An average of 6.7 minutes per pheasant was required 
 to capture the 1,334 pheasants taken during 1956-57, 
 1957-58, and 1958-59, table 1. The average time per 
 pheasant was less in seasons and years in which pheas- 
 ant populations were high than in periods in which the 
 populations were low — only slightly less before the 
 hunting season in each year than after. 
 
 An average of 5.6 minutes was required to process 
 each pheasant that was captured. 
 
 For the 1,334 pheasants handled in the night-light- 
 ing operations, the mortality rate attributed to these 
 operations was 2.4 per cent. Data reported by Leopold 
 et al. (1943:390) indicate that 5 per cent of the birds 
 caught during the bait trapping operations on the Uni- 
 versity of Wisconsin Arboretum were killed in the traps; 
 most of the losses were caused by dogs. Other Wiscon- 
 sin studies of bait trapping showed a 7 per cent average 
 mortality among trapped pheasants (Buss 1946:123). The 
 
 mortality rate among about 10,000 pheasants captured 
 
 in stationary, baited traps in Wood County, Ohio, over a 
 
 period of 7 years, was 2.5 per cent (Leedy & Hicks 
 
 1945:118). 
 
 We captured other birds, in addition to pheasants, 
 
 by night-lighting. Species that were very susceptible 
 to capture by night-lighting included sora rails (Por- 
 zana Carolina), Virginia rails (Rallus limicola), barn 
 owls (Tyto alba), vesper sparrows (Pooecetes grami- 
 neus), and grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savan- 
 narum). Meadowlarks (Sturnella spp.j, screech owls 
 (Otus asio), and stubble quail (Cotumix coturnix) were 
 only moderately susceptible to capture by night-lighting. 
 Mourning doves fZenaidura macroura), marsh hawks 
 (Circus cyaneus), and short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) 
 did not seem to be affected by the lights and could not 
 be captured by night-lighting. 
 
 About 50 cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus) 
 were captured coincidentally with the trapping of pheas- 
 ants by night-lighting during 1957-58 and 1958-59. The 
 rabbits were most susceptible to capture by night-light- 
 
 Table 1. — Data relative to capturing pheasants by night-lighting and to processing the captured birds during the prehunling 
 season (October and early November) and posthunting season (December and January) periods of 1956-57, 1957-58, and 1958-59 
 on a 23,200-acre study area in Ford and McLean counties, Illinois. 
 
 Trapping 
 Period 
 
 Pheasant Density 
 (Birds/Square Mile) 
 
 Number of 
 Pheasants 
 Captured* 
 
 Average 
 Capture Time 
 (Minutes/Bird) 
 
 Capture: Flush Ratiot 
 (Per Cent Captured) 
 
 Number of 
 Pheasants 
 Processed 
 
 Average 
 
 Processing Time 
 
 (Minutes/ Bird) 
 
 1956-57 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Preseason 
 
 (150)** 
 
 267 
 
 7.0 
 
 36.7 
 
 258 
 
 5.3 
 
 Postseason 
 
 60 
 
 189 
 
 8.5 
 
 35.6 
 
 171 
 
 5.6 
 
 Total or 
 Average 
 
 .... 
 
 456 
 
 7.6 
 
 36.3 
 
 429 
 
 5.4 
 
 1957-58 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Preseason 
 
 115 
 
 220 
 
 7.4 
 
 47.2 
 
 216 
 
 6.0 
 
 Postseason 
 
 80 
 
 127 
 
 10.0 
 
 42.2 
 
 127 
 
 5.3 
 
 Total or 
 Average 
 
 .... 
 
 347 
 
 8.3 
 
 45.3 
 
 343 
 
 5.7 
 
 1958-59 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Preseason 
 
 (175)** 
 
 354 
 
 4.8 
 
 50.2 
 
 354 
 
 6.3 
 
 Postseason 
 
 (100)** 
 
 177 
 
 5.0 
 
 15.8 
 
 177 
 
 4.4 
 
 Total or 
 Average 
 
 .... 
 
 531 
 
 4.8 
 
 29.9 
 
 531 
 
 5.6 
 
 All Years 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Preseason 
 
 .... 
 
 841 
 
 6.2 
 
 43.7 
 
 828 
 
 5.9 
 
 Postseason 
 
 
 
 493 
 
 7.6 
 
 26.2 
 
 475 
 
 5.0 
 
 Total or 
 Average 
 
 .... 
 
 1,334 
 
 6.7 
 
 35.3 
 
 1,303 
 
 5.6 
 
 * Includes marked pheasants that were recaptured. 
 
 T The ratio of unmarked pheasants flushed to unmarked pheasants captured. 
 ♦♦Numbers of birds in parentheses are estimates based on rough counts. 
 
 10 
 
ing when the ground and vegetation were saturated with 
 rain or snow water, but even under these conditions 
 the rabbits were not easily captured. It was almost im- 
 possible to capture cottontails when the weather was 
 clear Snd the vegetation dry. 
 
 The night-lighting rig was found to be useful for ob- 
 serving and studying the behavior of animals during 
 
 nighttime. This study technique is particularly valuable 
 when many animals have been marked for individual 
 recognition. Observing animals with bright lights during 
 nighttime has promise as a method of obtaining prehunt 
 sex ratios of pheasants, but the validity of sex ratios 
 that have been obtained by this method has not yet 
 been determined. 
 
 LITERATURE CITED 
 
 Anonymous 
 
 1952. Pheasants in the spotlight. Idaho Wildlife Hev. 4(5):3. 
 
 1955. Ring-neck research for better hunting. Part 1: Tagging and banding to keep track of the birds. Outdoor Nebr. 
 33(4): 18-20. 
 Buss, Irven 0. 
 
 1946. Wisconsin pheasant populations. Wis. Cons. Dept. Pub. 326, A-46. 184 pp. 
 Hart, Chester M., Ben Glading, and Harold T. Harper 
 
 1956- The pheasant in California. Pp. 90-158 in Pheasants in North America (Durward L. Allen, Ed.). Stackpole Com- 
 pany, HarrisbuTg, Pennsylvania; Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D. C. 490 pp. 
 Leedy, Daniel L., and Lawrence E. Hicks 
 
 1945. The pheasants in Ohio. Pp. 57-130 in The ring-necked pheasant and its management in North America (W. L. McAtee, 
 Ed.). American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D. C. 320 pp. 
 Leopold, Aldo 
 
 1931. Report on a game survey of the North Central states. Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, 
 Madison, Wisconsin. 299 pp. 
 Leopold, Aldo, Theodore M. Sperry, William S. Feeney, and John A. Catenhusen 
 
 1943. Population turnover on a Wisconsin pheasant refuge. Jour. Wildlife Mgt. 7(4):383-94. 
 Robertson, William B., Jr. 
 
 1958. Investigations of ring-necked pheasants in Illinois. III. Dept. Cons. Tech. Bui. 1. 137 pp. 
 Smith, Eldon H. 
 
 1954. Spotlighting for better pheasant management. South Dakota Cons. Digest 21(4):2-4. 
 
 11 
 
r :■ ' 
 
 
 ^ .-v^^i^n'; 
 
 . ^., 
 
 
 ■ 1 ■ ' ■ . ^, . . 
 
 
 ^ ':'/!- 
 
 
 Ji '. 
 
 
 V ;■ 
 
 ■'■(!.■''■'••■■ 
 
 <"i .1-' - . t 
 
 t •■■ ■ ■;.•., ' 
 
 ■r ■ /<. 
 
 
 
 ... . 
 
 
 • > - 
 
 ■.v>:Vr^v ;::•,■:: :'^i:| 
 
 v; 1 
 
 "• ?.: ; ' . ■ ; . . ■:-.-: '.-1 
 
 1 - 
 
 ■ : . ■-• - •;: ^ : > r Vv ' 
 
 
 
 
 » : i:vv' ^. .• , \ . , 
 
 
 •;-,., i w ;•.-.. v.- J 
 
 
 1 . i , • I. V - '■ ■ ;' .1 
 
 
 ■r • •,'■ ;^-'- • ■■ 
 
 
 ■\\.^--^:-y- :..'':■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •: -ft'. If '-«c.->c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WP •v'v:i'K'* 
 
 
 • --i'tk''.' \.---;«<; 
 
 
 
 
 • ■ ' : 1 r ■