The Man-Eating Tree of Madagascar

On April 28, 1874, the New York World ran an article announcing the discovery in Madagascar of a remarkable new species of plant: a man-eating tree. The article included a gruesome description of a woman fed to the plant by members of the Mkodos tribe. Numerous newspapers and magazines reprinted the article, but 14 years later the journalCurrent Literature revealed the story to be a work of fiction written by NY World reporter Edmund Spencer. 

Depiction of the man-eating tree, 
from the front cover of Madagascar: Land of the Man-Eating Tree

But despite having been debunked, the story of the man-eating tree refused to die. In fact, it became one of the most enduring hoaxes of the 19th Century, continuing to circulate as fact for decades afterwards. During the 20th Century, several explorers even searched for the man-eating tree in Madagascar. Meanwhile, the identity of the author of the story was completely forgotten and was only recovered when the Current Literature journal was scanned and made available online during the 21st Century.

The Story

The NY World claimed to have obtained its information about the man-eating tree from "the last number of Graefe and Walther's Magazine, published at Carlsruhe," in which there was a letter from the discoverer, the "eminent botanist" Karl Leche, to a colleague, Dr. Omelius Friedlowsky. Most of the NY World article consisted of the text of Leche's letter. 

The beginning of the NY World article

In the letter, Leche described how while traveling through Madagascar he came into a region of the country occupied by the Mkodos, "a tribe of inhospitable savages of whom little was known."

As Leche and his party walked along, they noticed that members of the Mkodos tribe were silently emerging from the jungle and following behind them. They came to a spot where a stream wound through the forest, and here they encountered "the most singular of trees." Leche provided a detailed description of it:

If you can imagine a pineapple eight feet high and thick in proportion resting upon its base and denuded of leaves, you will have a good idea of the trunk of the tree, which, however, was not the color of an anana, but a dark, dingy brown, and apparently hard as iron. From the apex of this truncated cone (at least two feet in diameter) eight leaves hung sheer to the ground, like doors swung back on their hinges. These leaves, which were joined to the top of the tree at regular intervals, were about eleven or twelve feet long and shaped very much like the leaves of the American aguave, or century plant. They were two feet through in their thickest part and three feet wide, tapering to a sharp point that looked like a cow's horn, very convex on the outer (but now under) surface, and on the inner (now upper) surface slightly concave. This concave face was thickly set with very strong thorny hooks, like those upon the head of the teazle. These leaves, hanging thus limp and lifeless, dead green in color, had in appearance the massive strength of oak fibre.

The apex of the cone was a round, white, concave figure, like a smaller plate set within a larger one. This was not a flower but a receptacle, and there exuded into it a clear, treacly liquid, honeysweet, and possessed of violent intoxicating and soporific properties. From underneath the rim (so to speak) of the undermost plate a series of long, hairy green tendrils stretched out in every direction towards the horizon. These were seven or eight feet long each, and tapered from four inches to a half an inch in diameter, yet they stretched out stiffly as iron rods. Above these (from between the upper and under cup) six white, almost transparent palpi reared themselves towards the sky, twirling and twisting with a marvelous incessant motion, yet constantly reaching upwards. Thin as reeds, and frail as quills apparently, they were yet five or six feet tall, and were so constantly and vigorously in motion, with such a subtle, sinuous, silent throbbing against the air, that they made me shudder in spite of myself with their suggestion of serpent flayed, yet dancing on their tails.

The Mkodos, when they saw the tree, began shouting, "Tepe! Tepe!" Then they surrounded one of their women and forced her, at javelin point, to climb the tree until she reached the apex of the cone that contained the treacly fluid. "Tsik! tsik!" the Mkodos men cried, which meant "drink! drink!"

Obediently, she drank, and then, almost instantly, the slender palpi of the tree came alive, quivered, and seized her around her neck and arms. She screamed, but the tendrils gripped her tighter, strangling her, until her cries became a gurgled moan. The contraction of the tendrils caused the fluid of the tree to stream down its trunk, mingling with the "blood and oozing viscera of the victim." 

The Mkodos rushed forward to drink this mixture of blood and tree fluid. Then ensued "a grotesque and indescribably hideous orgie."

Leche concluded his letter by explaining that he studied the carnivorous tree for three more weeks, during which time he found several other, smaller specimens of it in the forest. He saw one of the trees eat a lemur. 

He named the species Crinoida Dajeeana, because "when its leaves are in action it bears a striking resemblance to that well-known fossil the crinoid lilystone, or St. Cuthbert's beads." Dajeeana referred to Dr. Bhawoo Dajee, a "liberal-minded, intelligent Parsee physician of Bombay."

An ancient map of Madagascar, from Madagascar: Land of the Man-Eating Tree

What Was True, What Was False

Karl Ferdinand von Graefe

Almost every detail in the story was fictitious. None of the people who were mentioned in it existed — not Karl Leche, Dr. Omelius Friedlowsky, or Dr. Bhawoo Dajee. Nor were the Mkodos a real tribe. The tree itself, most significantly, was pure fantasy — a gothic horror of the colonial era.

However, the source to which the story was credited — "Graefe and Walther's Magazine, published at Carlsruhe" — was a real publication. Or, at least, there was a scientific journal founded by two prestigious German surgeons, Karl Ferdinand von Graefe andPhilipp Franz von Walther, titled Journal der Chirurgie und Augenheilkunde (The Surgical and Ophthalmic Journal). 

However, this journal was published in Berlin, not Carlsruhe. Also, it began publication in 1820 and ended in 1850, following the death of Walther. So by 1874, there hadn't been a new issue of the journal for 24 years. In other words, this journal was NOT the original source of the man-eating tree story.

Initial Reception and Exposure

Upon its publication, the man-eating tree story immediately attracted attention, and many other newspapers reprinted it for the benefit of their readers. The June 1874 issue of The Garden magazine noted, "There is a harrowing description of a man-eating plant going the rounds of the papers."

Unlike most media hoaxes of the 19th Century, which attracted attention for a few weeks and then were forgotten, interest in the man-eating tree endured. Several years later, reprints of the story were still appearing in magazines such as Frank Leslie's Pleasant Hours and The Farmer's Magazine.

There were notes of skepticism. For instance, in February 1875 the Christian Union noted, "The World published a very clever hoax about the 'Man-Eating Tree of Madagascar.' No doubt many a credulous reader was taken in thereby."

But it wasn't until 1888 that the story was fully exposed as a hoax, and its author identified. In 1888, Frederick Maxwell Somers had launched a new magazine, Current Literature, and in the second issue he reprinted the story of the man-eating tree and provided information about its origin:

It was written years ago by Mr. Edmund Spencer for the N.Y. World. While Mr. Spencer was connected with that paper he wrote a number of stories, all being remarkable for their appearance of truth, the extraordinary imagination displayed, and for their somber tone. Mr. Spencer was a master of the horrible, some of his stories approaching closely to those of Poe in this regard. Like many clever men his best work is hidden in the files of the daily press. This particular story of the Crinoida Dajeeana, the Devil Tree of Madagascar, was copied far and wide, and caused many a hunt for the words of Dr. Friedlowsky. It was written as the result of a talk with some friends, during which Mr. Spencer maintained that all that was necessary to produce a sensation of horror in the reader was to greatly exaggerate some well-known and perhaps beautiful thing. He then stated that he would show what could be done with the sensitive plant when this method of treatment was applied to it. The devil-tree is, after all, only a monstrous variety of the 'Venus fly trap' so common in North Carolina. Mr. Spencer died about two years ago in Baltimore, Md.

No other record has ever been found of the existence of Mr. Edmund Spencer of the N.Y. World. However, Somers was highly knowledgeable about the New York literary scene, so there's no reason his information shouldn't be accepted as credible.

However, Somers' revelation went entirely unnoticed. Throughout the 1890s, the man-eating tree story continued to appear in magazines, but none mentioned that Spencer was the author. By the 20th Century, the NY World wasn't even being identified as the original publisher of the tale. This caused enormous confusion to researchers throughout the 20th Century who came across the story and tried to track down its source.

It wasn't until the 21st Century, when issues of Current Literature became searchable via Google Books, that Somers' information about the identity of the hoax's author reemerged.

In Search of the Man-Eating Tree

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of explorers searched for the man-eating tree in Madagascar, not realizing that the story was a NY World hoax. 

Frank Vincent: The first man-eating-tree searcher was the American travel writer Frank Vincent, author of Actual Africa. He traveled throughout Madagascar during the early 1890s, and while he wasn't there specifically to search for the man-eating tree, he later told reporters that he did ask around about it "for his own personal satisfaction". However, he couldn't find it and concluded that accounts of it were "the purest Munchausenism". 

Chase Salmon Osborn: Osborn, who served as Governor of Michigan from 1911 to 1913, conducted the most extensive search for the man-eating tree. His travels through Madagascar resulted in his 1924 book, Madagascar: Land of the Man-Eating Tree. However, he never found the tree. He wrote in the book's introduction:

In travelling from one end of Madagascar to the other a thousand miles and across the great island, many times traversing the nearly four hundred miles of breadth, I did not see a man-eating tree. But from all the peoples I met, including Hovas, Sakalavas, Sihanakas, Betsileos and others, I heard stories and myths about it. To be sure the missionaries say it does not exist, but they are not united in this opinion, despite the fact that it is properly their affair and responsibility to discredit and destroy anything and everything that fosters demonism and idolatry. No missionary told me that he had seen the devil tree, but several told me that they could not understand how all the tribes could believe so earnestly in it, and over hundreds of miles where intercourse has been both difficult and dangerous, unless there were some foundation for the belief.

However, Osborn also admitted that his primary purpose in titling his book after the tree was simply to capture the attention of readers. The majority of his book did not deal with the tree:

I do not know whether this tigerish tree really exists or whether the bloodcurdling stories about it are pure myth. It is enough for my purpose if its story focuses your interest upon one of the least known spots of the world.

Ralph Linton: The anthropologist Ralph Linton spent several years in Madagascar during the 1920s. While he also wasn't there specifically to look for the tree, he apparently did ask around about it. Newspapers reported that, "He encountered several persons who believed that such a thing existed, but the tree was always in some other part of the country, and he arrived at the conclusion that the story was a myth." He was also quoted as saying that the story was "ridiculous and always was," but that, based on his experience in Madagascar, he would be willing to believe the island was home to man-eating fleas.

Capt. V. de la Motte Hurst: In August 1932, a United Press wire story reported that Capt. V. de la Motte Hurst, who was said to be a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, was going to lead an expedition to Madagascar specifically to hunt for the man-eating tree, which he referred to as the "sacrifice tree." De la Motte Hurst was quoted as saying, "I have been told about the tree by many chiefs of the island and I have no doubt of its existence. It eats human beings, but since the natives worship it they are reluctant to reveal its location." He also planned to take along a movie camera to film the tree sacrifice. However, it's not clear if de la Motte Hurst's expedition ever left. At least, no more was ever heard of it.

Article in the Washington Reporter, Aug 18, 1932

Willy Ley: During the 1950s, science writer Willy Ley came across the story of the man-eating tree, and while he didn't travel to Madagascar to search for the tree, he did conduct an extensive bibliographic search to hunt down the origin of the story. He realized that the story had to be a hoax. However, he arrived at some erroneous conclusions about the history of the story.

Ley knew that the story had once appeared in the NY World, but he didn't know that the story had originated there, so he didn't focus his search on that publication, noting that, "copies of newspapers three-quarters of a century old are hard to come by." Instead, he tried to discover the origin of the story by tracking down clues within the text itself. For instance, he conducted an extensive search for references to Karl Leche and Dr. Omelius Friedlowsky, eventually concluding that neither man existed. 

Next, Ley focused on trying to track down "the elusive Carlsruhe Scientific Journal." This journal actually did once exist (see above), but Ley couldn't find any record of it in the Library of Congress, so he concluded that it too was fictitious.

Ley carefully searched through 17th and 18th Century reference works about Madagascar to see if any of them mentioned a man-eating tree, but he found nothing.

Finally, Ley discovered that the story of the man-eating tree had been published in theAntananarivo Annual and Madagascar Magazine for the Year 1881, and he mistakenly concluded that this was the original source of the story. He hypothesized: 

"Of course the man-eating tree does not exist. There is no such tribe. The actual natives of Madagascar do not have such a legend. But at one time somebody made up the hoax, which was put into the only existing local magazine, possibly as a joke of some kind for the amusement of the readers who knew better. But it then got out of hand and the perpetrators thought it best to keep quiet."

Other Man-Eating Plants

The popularity of the man-eating plant of Madagascar led to reports of other carnivorous plants. For instance, in October 1891, London newspapers reported that a British naturalist, Mr. Dunstan, had encountered a "vampire vine" while in Nicaragua:

It appears that a Mr. Dunstan, a naturalist, has lately returned from Central America, where he spent two years in the study of the plants and animals of those regions. In one of the swamps which surround the great Nicaragua Lake, he discovered the singular growth of which we are writing. 'He was engaged in hunting for botanical and entomological specimens, when he hears his dog cry out, as if in agony, from a distance. Running to the spot whence the animal's cries came, Mr. Dunstan found him enveloped in a perfect network of what seemed to be a fine, rope-like tissue of roots and fibres. The plant or vine seemed composed entirely of bare, interlacing stems, resembling, more than anything else, the branches of the weeping-willow denuded of its foliage, but of a dark, nearly black hue, and covered with a thick, viscid gum that exuded from the pores.' Drawing his knife, Mr. Dunstan attempted to cut the poor beast free; but it was with the very greatest difficulty that he managed to sever the fleshy muscular fibres of the plant. When the dog was extricated from the coils of the plant, Mr. Dunstan saw, to his horror and amazement, that the dog's body was bloodstained, 'while the skin appeared to have been actually sucked or puckered in spots,' and the animal staggered as if from exhaustion. 'In cutting the vine, the twigs curled like living, sinuous fingers about Mr. Dunstan's hand, and it required no slight force to free the member from its clinging grasp, which left the flesh red and blistered.

And in Sea and Land (1887), J.W. Buel included a description and image of a Ya-Te-Veo tree, that was said to grow in South America. It supposedly caught and consumed humans by means of its long tendrils.

Ron Sullivan and Jon Eaton, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007, noted that the man-eating tree of Madagascar served as the "progenitor of a whole literary dynasty of sinister plants." These included: "H.G. Wells' Strange Orchid (it stupefied its victims with perfume and sucked their blood with its tendrils); John Wyndham's peripatetic Triffids; the Widow's Weed in Gus Arriola's 'Gordo' comic strip; and, not least, Audrey II of 'Little Shop of Horrors.'" 

Industrial-Scale Tiger Farms: Feeding China’s Thirst for Luxury Tiger Products

Young, healthy tigers jump through rings of fire, sit upright on cue, clawing at the air, and perform other well-choreographed circus tricks. Enthusiastic crowds cheer. After the show, some pay extra to hold small, cuddly cubs. 

But those who visit these tiger attractions in China have no idea of the suffering behind the scenes or the dark commerce that keeps them afloat.

If they were to slip behind the scenes, they’d see concentration-camp level suffering. Huge numbers of tigers are crammed into barred, concrete quarters or packed into dusty, treeless compounds behind chain link fences. Most of the cats are gaunt, wasted to striped skin and bone. Some are grossly deformed by inbreeding or poor nutrition. Some are blind.

Tiger Farms

Many of these operations are run as tourist destinations—and may masquerade as conservation initiatives—but these facilities are essentially factories that breed tigers for the commercial sale of their parts.

The country’s 200 or so “tiger farms” are working overtime to meet a new, growing market: Tiger products have become coveted status symbols among China’s elite, much like sporting a Rolex watch or serving a bottle of Dom Pérignon.

Tiger farms are supplying a shadowy underground trade, which “serves only to stimulate consumer demand, creating a massive enforcement challenge and wholly undermining the efforts of the international community to protect tigers,” says Shruti Suresh, a wildlife campaigner with the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency.

A tiger carcass is now worth a small fortune. With just 3,000 tigers (from six different subspecies) left in the wild, this luxury market could be the death knell for wild tigers.

Buying or gifting expensive tiger products has become a fashionable way to gain favor or flaunt wealth and power among China’s most influential people, a group that reportedly includes wealthy businessmen, government officials and military officers. China is, by far, the largest consumer of tiger and many other endangered species parts.

It’s created a growing clamor for tiger pelts that are used in high-end décor and for tiger bone wine, made by marinating a tiger skeleton in rice wine—which can sell for $500 a bottle. Tiger meat is sometimes served at fashionable dinner parties where guests may have been treated to a “visual feast” before eating: watching their entrée killed and butchered before them.

Advertisement for China’s Xiongsen Bear and Tiger Mountain Village in China–also advertising tiger bone wine. Photograph courtesy Save The Tiger Fund.

For decades, tiger derivatives used in traditional Chinese medicine drove the black market trade. Today, tiger parts are “consumed less as medicine and more as exotic luxury products,” according to a recent report. “ ‘Wealth’ [is] replacing ‘health’ as a primary form of consumer motivation,” it says. With tigers and other Asian big cats rapidly disappearing, the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) commissioned the report for review at a Standing Committee meeting in Geneva last July.

This current enterprise isn’t about upholding sacred cultural tradition. Nor is it providing necessary medical treatment, says Lixin Huang, president of the American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

It’s simply about money, influence and speculation.

Industrial-scale tiger farming makes millions of dollars for a handful of people. Some speculators are collecting tiger skin rugs and cases of tiger bone wine (vintage brewed from wild tigers is most valuable), watching their investment grow as the numbers of wild tigers dwindle. They’re banking on extinction.

Both graphics courtesy Born Free Foundation / The Environmental Investigation Agency.

Meanwhile, tiger farming is a booming business. About twice as many tigers are living miserable, caged lives in China as  all of the world’s remaining wild tigers put together. The country’s captive tiger population has skyrocketed from about 20 in 1986 to between 5,000 and 6,000 today. (Three other countries also farm tigers, but on a radically smaller scale. Vietnam is thought to hold 127, Lao PDR, 400, and Thailand, 1,000. They, too, trade illegally in tigers.)

Captive tigers are not insurance against extinction: they in no way help wild populations. They’re badly interbred and a tiger raised by humans has never been successfully reintroduced to the wild.

“A lot of biologists view farmed tigers as already dead because they have nothing to do with conservation,” says Judy Mills, author of the forthcoming book “Blood of the Tiger: A Story of Conspiracy, Greed, and the Battle to Save a Magnificent Species.”

Industrial breeding facilities, “speed-breed” to boost production: mothers usually birth two to three cubs; if they’re promptly taken from her, she can bear another litter in as little as five months.  Just one breeding center, the Heilongjiang Siberian Tiger Garden in northeast Heilongjiang Province, is expecting 100 cubs to be born over the coming year.

The largest of these, the Xiongshen Tiger and Bear Mountain Village in Guilin, held about 1,500 tigers at last count in 2010. Seed financing came from China’s State Forestry Administration (SFA) when it launched in 1993. Ironically, this agency both enforces wildlife protection—and promotes farming of endangered species.

Tiger farming is legitimate business, sanctioned under a 1989 law that encourages breeding and utilization of wildlife. Sales of tiger bone and other tiger parts were, in theory, banned in 1993. However, it seems that commercial tiger breeding facilities are essentially skin and bone farms.

At July’s CITES Standing Committee meeting, Chinese officials finally admitted what the world has known for some time: they are licensing sales of tiger pelts. In 2013, EIA revealed that legally-issued permits are regularly reused, making it disturbingly easy to launder skins from tigers killed in India and elsewhere. In addition to selling pelts, many tiger farms stockpile frozen carcasses—and brew tiger bone wine from their skeleton supply.

Tiger carcasses in cold storage at Xiongsen Tiger and Bear Park, Guilin, China. Photograph by Belinda Wright /Wildlife Protection Society of India.

But it’s even worse than that. A factory in Changsha appears to be cranking out tiger bone wine.EIA investigators discovered that the Hunan Sanhong Biotechnology Company in Changsha is apparently manufacturing “Real Tiger Wine” on a commercial scale. Evidence suggests that the State Forestry Administration and other agencies secretly authorized the venture—and sales are not public: regional agents distribute directly to elite clients, including restaurants and guesthouses catering to high-ranking government officials.

The recent CITES report corroborates this. “Internal trading privileges” are allowed for companies dealing in tiger skins and body parts “produced mainly but not exclusively from captive breeding,” it says.

Exactly how many tigers it takes to supply a wine factory—and China’s luxury market—is anyone’s guess. But this illegal enterprise could not be thriving if government officials were not involved, invested, benefitting—or turning a blind eye. It’s become a national embarrassment for China, flying in the face of efforts by President Xi Jinping to root out corruption.

Despite claims that they have completely curbed international trafficking, the country has done little to disrupt the crime networks that control the illegal transnational trade in tiger parts—or to eliminate the nation’s voracious appetite for tiger parts and products, says Belinda Wright, executive director of the Wildlife Protection Society of India.

Wildlife trafficking, now valued at about $19 billion a year, has traditionally ranked low on most governments’ list of priorities. But the ongoing massacre of elephants and rhinos has grabbed headlines and sparked action. (Though fewer tigers are being killed, there are far less left to kill—and they hover closer to extinction.)

An international summit in London in January brought together ministers and heads of state from 50 nations to galvanize a global fight against wildlife crime. They signed a declaration stating that, “Poaching and trafficking undermines the rule of law and good governance, and encourages corruption. It is an organised and widespread criminal activity, involving transnational networks.”

In 2013, Achim Steiner, who heads the United Nations Environment Program, called for a global crackdown, and the U.N. Security Council, General Assembly and other U.N. bodies have taken notice. Interpol is now leading global enforcement operations.

Large conservation organizations claim to be be saving tigers, but the fact is that numbers continue to plummet—and the Chinese demand for tiger products is wiping them out faster than any other threat.

Tiger experts agree that without urgent action to phase out tiger farms and end all commerce in tigers from all sources, wild tigers will disappear—and soon.

WildAid, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that combats illegal wildlife trade, says it very succinctly, with film stars Jackie Chan and Jiang Wen speaking up for tigers. Their message is broadcast in public service announcements, posted on billboards and Tweeted across social media: “When the buying stops, the killing can, too.”

The Horrific Truth About China’s Commercial Tiger Breeding Farms

We’ve seen an enormous decline in the number of wild tigers in recent times. Years ago, tiger populations exceeded 100,000 individuals; as few as 3,200 remain worldwide today. This is due, in large part, to poachers and the illegal wildlife trade.

Killed for their skins, bones and teeth, tigers are a major target for poachers across the world. As we have seen these majestic animals disappear from the face of the earth, many countries have started to implement bans on the use and consumption of tigers and their parts to help protect this struggling species.

In 1993, China, one of the leading countries connected to the illegal wildlife trade, enacted a ban on the consumption of tiger bone; however, since then, they have received a significant amount of international scrutiny due to the lack of enforcement of this law. Additionally, though China has outlawed the consumption and use of wild tiger parts, commercial breeding of these animals for this purpose is perfectly legal.

Bred like cattle and housed in tight conditions reminiscent of the poultry industry, these endangered animals are treated like livestock. It’s estimated that today as many as 6,000 tigers are being held captive on these farms. Many of these tigers show visible signs of severe malnutrition and abuse.

The rationale behind allowing captive breeding facilities to supply consumers with everything from tiger skins to bones is to protect tigers from being poached in the wild. The argument here is that captive breeding actually serves conservation purposes. Sadly, this population of captive tigers persists for one sole purpose: to supply China with tiger parts.

Farming Tigers

Jonathan Watts/The Guardian

In China, there are as many as 200 operating tiger farms, some of which disguise themselves as sanctuaries for the tigers. Many of these farms are operated like safari parks and allow visitors to come in to see the animals perform tricks.

Some of the tigers are de-toothed or de-clawed to perform feats such as jumping through hoops, riding on the backs of horses and balancing on balls. Other performances involve releasing a live cow into an enclosure with multiple tigers. Tragically, because these animals were raised in captivity, they have little understanding of how to properly attack and kill the cow, and at the end of the show it is run over by a tractor.

When the animals are not being used for performances, they are kept in cages and “speed bred.” After a mother gives birth, her cub is immediately taken away so that she can breed again as soon as possible. According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare, tiger farms have a reproduction rate of 1,000.

When tigers die at the facility, operators are supposed to “seal” the bones and label the skins. Some of these products are licensed for domestic sale and a number of commercial dealers work with farmers; however, many are illegally laundered and sold on the black market.

The Demand for Tiger Parts

Panthera

Every single part of the tiger is considered profitable in China. Displaying tiger rugs and stuffed animals outfitted with real tiger skin is seen as a symbol of status in China and many use these “exotic” decorations to accentuate their already lavish lifestyle. Slaughtering farmed tigers is considered a form of entertainment for those who are willing to pay the price. After these “canned” hunts, customers feast on the meat.

According to a report in the Washington Post, the rise of commercial tiger breeding facilities is actually encouraging a rise in the demand for tiger bone amongst the wealthy in China. Tiger bone is believed to have various medicinal qualities. It can also be infused in wine which is considered a particular delicacy; many tiger farms now have wineries right on their property. Once a tiger is dead, the animal can be harvested and the bone or skeleton of the tiger is soaked for a predetermined period of time before being bottled and sold.

Why are Tiger Farms Detrimental to Wild Tigers?

While tiger farms may have been created to slow the demand for illegally poached wild tigers, studies show that they hardly work to this end. Commercially bred tiger parts are more expensive than those that can be purchased illegally on the black market. Further, these farms take all of the stigma away from purchasing or consuming tiger in any way. What little concern consumers had for purchasing endangered tiger is completely done away with when they buy farmed tiger parts.

Many who support the captive breeding of tigers see this as a viable breeding population. Unfortunately, none of the tigers currently being bred on tiger farms are candidates for reintroduction into the wild, nor do the owners of the farms wish to see the wild population conserved. The owners of tiger farms make their living off of exploiting and abusing these animals while they’re alive, and profiting off of them again once they’ve passed.

The government’s hesitation to address tiger farming has only led to an increase in the notion that the tigers are more profitable dead than alive. With tiger parts as lucrative as they are in China, the conservation of the wild species has been neglected. More than anything else this mindset poses a major threat to the future protection of the tiger – both captive and wild.

What Can You Do?

There are more tigers living in backyards in the United States and on tiger farms in China than there are in the wild. Sadly, we’ve seen an increasing number of individuals defend both of these acts in the hope that these captive tigers will ultimately replace the wild population.

These captive tigers are more often than not severely abused, forced to live in small cages within close proximity to one another with little enrichment and no stimulation. Saving wild tiger populations does not entail breeding captive tigers. Continued pressure on the Chinese government (and the United States’ as well) to improve and enforce laws regarding possession of wild animals is imperative, as is educating the public, whether they use tiger parts or not.

In addition to spreading awareness about the plight of captive and wild tigers, you can help to protect these amazing animals by supporting the countless organizations working to sustain these native populations and minimize poaching of wild tigers.

Birds and the Law

Before moving into his new apartment, Michael Hull didn’t pay much attention to the "no pets” clause in the lease. He figured that meant no dogs or cats, and thought that he could get away with having Gilligan, his African grey parrot. But two weeks after moving in, Hull discovered that "no pets” meant no pets of any kind. One of his neighbors saw Gilligan in Hull’s living room window, and promptly reported the bird to the landlord. Hull was given an ultimatum: either get rid of the bird or move out. "I couldn’t imagine not having Gilligan around,” Hull said, "so I felt I had no choice but to pack up my things and go through the hassle of finding another place to live.”

Erin Jablonski lived in a condominium with her blue-fronted Amazon parrot, Pepe, for five years without any problems. Then last year, when someone new moved into the unit above her, the homefront suddenly became a battlefront. The woman now living upstairs seemed to have no tolerance for noise whatsoever. "If Pepe just vocalizes for a couple minutes in the evening, this woman will start banging on the floor with her broom,” Jablonski related. "There’s no reasoning with her. Several times when Pepe’s made a little noise she’s called the police or Animal Control and they’ve come out to my place and every time they’ve sided with me. Now she’s filed a complaint against me with the condo association. With her, there’s something to deal with all the time.”

Probably more than a few parrot owners have been confronted with "no pet” clauses or neighbors who dislike bird noises. Often when these types of situations arise, the parties involved consult with an animal lawyer — an attorney who specializes in lawsuits concerning companion animals. In addition to evictions and disputes between neighbors, animal lawyers may also be involved in cases where a parrot bites and injures someone, in the establishment of pet trusts for the care of companion parrots after their owner’s death, and even in custody battles when pet owners divorce.

There are probably a hundred or more attorneys in the United States who work on animal law cases or pet-related lawsuits at least part of their time. The majority of these lawyers are involved with cases involving dogs or horses. A small number of attorneys also get involved in legal cases involving pet birds.

The majority of the laws affecting companion animals are enacted and enforced by cities and counties, rather than state or federal governments — which means what’s legal regarding pet birds is going to vary from community to community. Still, there are many similarities in local laws regarding what’s OK and what isn’t when it comes to pets.

Here are some common bird-related questions asked of animal lawyers and how they typically counsel their clients:
Can I be sued if my parrot bites someone? 
"Under our system of law, anyone can sue anyone else,” said Carmen Rowe, JD, an attorney in Tacoma, Washington, with a special interest i animal law. If your parrot injures a person, the aggrieved person can file a lawsuit and take you to court. If you lose the case, you may be required to pay the injured victim reimbursement for medical bills, pain and suffering, and even punitive damages. More often than not, though, these types of lawsuits don’t "stick,” according to Rowe.

"People know that parrots bite,” she said. "Most people know that parrots are not domesticated like a dog or cat is, and so biting is almost to be expected. A lot of times when people are bitten by someone else’s parrot, it’s the injured person’s own fault. They should have known there was a good chance they’d get bitten if they messed around with the parrot.”

The person may have went into the bird room on his own — uninvited and without permission, carelessly stuck his hand in the cage, or was provoking the parrot in some way. If that’s the case, no judge is probably not going to hold the bird owner responsible, Rowe said.

Normally, a judge would only hold the bird owner liable if the parrot has had a history of aggressively attacking people — beyond normal nipping — and the pet owner didn’t do anything to contain the bird or protect the visitor.
When my pet bird dies, is it legal to bury him in my backyard? 
Most municipalities prohibit the burial of animals within city limits. "That’s mainly for public health reasons, especially as it pertains to contamination of the water supply,” said Charlotte Lacroix, DVM, JD, sole proprietor of Priority Veterinary Legal Consulting based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. It’s best to have your parrot buried in a pet cemetery, she said. Most large cities have at least one pet cemetery, and many of these cemeteries do accept birds.
I travel a lot and would like to bring my parrot with me when I go. How big of an issue is the interstate and international transport of pet birds? 
Of the two, interstate travel is by far a lot less complicated. Usually the only time you might run into trouble is if you are transporting a quaker parrot and passing through a state where the bird is prohibited, or if the state you are driving through has issued a quarantine (such as much of the Southwestern United States was last year when it had an outbreak of Exotic Newcastle’s Disease) and then you may not be able to enter the state’s borders with your bird.

Before leaving on an interstate driving trip, Brosell recommends you contact the state veterinarians for the states you will be visiting, to see if there are any restrictions for people traveling through with pet birds. Most likely all that you will need is an interstate veterinary health certificate (you can get this from any licensed veterinarian, who will need to examine your bird no more than 10 days before your departure). It’s important to have this. Some states do have border checks on the highway between states and may request to see such documentation for any animals in your vehicle.

International travel with an exotic pet bird is more of a challenge. It requires taking many steps to ensure that all is done on the "export” side (the country you are leaving) and equal amounts of preparations on the "import” side—where you are taking the exotic animal.

If you are planning on leaving the U. S. with your parrot, you will need to get a CITES permit before you go. CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between nations, prohibiting the import of certain species of wild animals and plants, in an effort to protect these species in their natural habitats. All members of the Order Psittaciformes, with the exception of the budgerigar and the cockatiel, are listed in this agreement. Pet psittacines can still be transported from one country to another with a CITES permit. In the U. S., these are issued by the Office of Management Authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

"It does take some time though to get the CITES permit, so you should start working on getting your permit about a year before your trip,” Rowe said. You can get an application for a permit online athttp://www.fws.gov/international/permits/application-forms/ (click on "permits”). The permit will need to be validated by a USFWS wildlife inspector before you leave the U.S. You will need to take a copy of your validated permit with you on your trip, and present it when you re-enter the U.S. with your pet.

You will also need to contact the country(ies) you plan to visit and find out what their requirements are for entry with an exotic pet bird. "A lot of times they’re consistent with CITES, but not always,” Rowe said. "You have to abide by CITES, but there may also be individual specific local requirements of the country you’re visiting.”

The Office of Management Authority can provide you with the contact address, phone or fax number for the CITES permit offices in other countries. At a minimum a re-export certificate from the country(ies) visited will be required, and your bird will need to be examined by a veterinarian in that country. In some cases, your bird may need to go through quarantine in the country you’re visiting — but that’s usually only if you’re staying there for an extended period of time.
Is there a limit on how many parrots a person can own?
Most cities have zoning laws, which limit the number of dogs and cats a person can own, but rarely do municipalities put a limit on the number of indoor pet birds in a household. There are, however, usually local ordinances pertaining to outdoor bird breeding. These ordinances may state the maximum size of the aviary structure, the number of birds that can be kept, and whether or not outdoor aviaries are even allowed.

"Even if you’re just thinking of getting into bird breeding as a hobby, I recommend checking into your local zoning laws,” urged Linda Brosell, JD, an attorney in Seattle, Washington, and president of the NorthWest Exotic Bird Society. "You don’t want to make a huge investment to build your enclosures and increase your flock to find out that you will have to move.” She said there have been cases where neighbors have forced the owners of aviaries out of certain areas, by claiming the birds were a nuisance due to the smells or noise.

In addition to zoning laws established by local municipalities, most subdivisions, condominium complexes and townhome associations have their own set of rules and regulations as well. "Typically homeowner’s associations will put the limit at somewhere between two and five common household pets per household,” noted Bruce Winter, Winter, JD, LLM, CPA, an attorney and parrot owner in Boca Raton, Florida. "This does leave some room for interpretation, because what exactly is a common household pet? Certainly a dog and cat would fall under this category, and so would a budgie and a cockatiel. But a green-winged macaw and a chattering lory would probably not.” It’s these gray areas that can sometimes give parrot owners the most trouble, he added. That’s because while there may not be any rules in your homeowners’ association prohibiting the ownership of a truly exotic parrot, there may not be any rules saying it’s okay either.

I own a quaker parrot and am moving to a state in which these birds are illegal. Does that mean I can’t bring my bird with me?
If you bring your parrot with you to live in a state where quaker parrots have been banned and you are caught with it, "the authorities could possibly euthanize it, they could fine you, or they could do both,” said Brosell. Exactly what the authorities would do depends on the laws of the state, but at the very least, your bird will be confiscated, Brosell said.

Quaker parrots are illegal to own or to sell in California, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Hawaii, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wyoming. In Connecticut, quakers are legal to own, but you can’t sell or breed them. New York and Virginia residents are allowed to own quakers, but they must register with the state.  

The reason so many states prohibit people from owning quakers is because "the birds have been deemed as agricultural pests and those states don’t want pet quakers coming into their borders, possibly getting loose, banding together and threatening the native species in the local environments,” Brosell explained.

What if you’re moving across country with a quaker parrot to a state that allows the birds, but you’ve got to pass through some states along the way that prohibit quakers? "Some states may allow an ‘outlawed parrot’ to be transported through the state as long as it remains in transit and is out of the state with in a short time frame — something like 48 hours. Other states prohibit any entrance of the parrots they feel can create a nuisance and travelers must circumnavigate the state if they are traveling with the suspect parrots,” Brosell said.

Research ahead of time what states are and aren’t "safe” to pass through with your quaker (contact the state veterinarian for each state on your planned route to find out what their policies are regarding quaker parrots), so that you will know if you need to make a detour to another state along the way. To locate a particular state veterinarian office, call 1-800-545-USDA and press option "2,” or visit the USDA Web site at www.aphis.usda.gov, and click on the appropriate state.
I have a parrot even though my lease says "no pets.” Could I be evicted?
"Yes,” said Jennifer Melton, JD, an animal rights attorney in Golden, Colorado, and legal counsel for Rocky Mountain Animal Defense. "The lease is a legally-binding contract. If your lease says there are to be no pets and your landlord discovers you have a parrot, you may either be fined or evicted.” She adds that eviction is a process that in many states can take up to a month or more, so your landlord can’t just walk into your apartment, see your bird, and evict you the same day.

Under certain circumstances, you may be able to get an attorney and fight being evicted. One way tenants sometimes defend their case is to point out that the landlord knew about the pet for a certain period of time, without enforcing the "no pets” clause, said Darryl Vernon, JD, a New York City attorney who does a lot of work in animal law. "In New York, for example, we have the ‘Three month rule,’ which basically says if you had a pet for at least three months and the landlord is aware of it, then anything in the lease prohibiting pets is unenforceable at that point.”

There may also be cases where a lease does indeed say "no pets,” but the landlord is primarily thinking of dogs and cats and will make an exception for pet birds — especially a small bird such as a cockatiel, budgie, canary or finch. But, don’t just assume birds are an exception.

"Most of the time when the lease says ‘no pets,’ the landlord means no animals of any kind,” Rowe said. Talk to the landlord and find out if there are any exceptions to the "no pets” rule. If the landlord does say birds are okay, find out what species are acceptable (the landlord may agree to a conure or a cockatiel but not to a cockatoo or a macaw) and get the landlord’s ok in writing. Keep in mind that this ok is probably going to be conditional. "If your parrot starts screaming all the time and the other residents of the apartment complex complain about the noise, the landlord will have no choice but to tell you to get rid of the parrot or move out,” Rowe said.

What recourse do I have if my veterinarian injures my parrot?
If you believe your vet injured or killed your pet, you have the legal right to file a veterinary malpractice suit against him. Such lawsuits, however, are rarely practical. "Legally, your bird is considered personal property, so if it cost you $200 and it’s been destroyed, many courts will only grant you $200,” Vernon said. After you factor in attorney fees and other costs of a lawsuit, the amount required to go to court will far outweigh that $200 you may eventually recover.

Your best bet is to try to settle the matter outside the courtroom. "Many veterinarians carry malpractice insurance, and a pet owner may well be able to reach a settlement with the insurance company without going to court,” Vernon said.
Can my vet hold my bird as "collateral” until I pay the bill? 
New York, Florida, Michigan and Minnesota have lien laws that allow veterinarians to retain custody of an animal until bill is paid. "That does not mean, however, that the veterinary clinic can hold the pet forever, take it to the pound or have it euthanized,” Vernon said. "Eventually they are going to get tired of holding the animal because it’s an expense to them, and at that point, they have to offer the pet back to the owner.”
I recently visited a pet store and noticed the birds there were housed in cramped, dirty cages, with little or no toys. I’m concerned that these animals are being mistreated. What can I do?
Your first step should be to politely bring up the matter with the pet store manager. Tell him your concerns in a non-confrontational way, and try to educate him (without sounding condescending) about how pet birds should be housed. If that doesn’t get you anywhere, contact an animal law enforcement organization in your area such as the Humane Society, Animal Control or your local police department. One of these agencies will then handle the situation from there.

If there are specific cruelty laws that have been broken (this varies from city to city) the pet store owner may be prosecuted. If the particular form of mistreatment you’ve observed in this store hasn’t been codified as law in your area, the local agency can still come in an try to educate the pet store staff about proper animal care.

My local pet store sells unweaned baby parrots. Is this legal?
Only one state — California — has passed legislation making it illegal for pet stores and vendors at bird marts and swap meets to sell unweaned baby birds. This law (CA Bill AB202) will take effect Sept. 1, 2004. In all other states, it is still legal to buy unweaned baby birds from pet stores. Also, it will be still continue to be legal in California to buy unweaned baby birds directly from bird breeders.
My spouse and I are divorcing. What happens if we both want our parrot? 
Legally, pets are considered personal property, and in a divorce, they’re going to be disputed over like any other piece of property — the house, the sofa, the silverware, the car, etc. "If the man and woman can’t come to an agreement on their own about who gets to keep what, the case will go in front of a judge or mediator,” Brosell said. "If the couple is fighting over pets, the judge may designate an impartial third person who will review the situation and decide which of the couple’s animals are more bonded with the husband and thus should go to him, and which pets should stay with the wife.”

If the couple only has one parrot that they’re fighting over, the judge will decide which party should get the pet. The other person will get the fair market value of the animal.
Can I leave an inheritance to my parrot? 
Under the laws of all 50 states, a pet owner cannot leave any part of his or her estate outright to an animal. "Animals cannot be direct beneficiaries of trusts because legally pets are considered to be personal property, and property cannot own property,” Lacroix said.
It’s possible, however, to leave money in a trust fund for the purpose of paying for your bird’s food, housing, equipment, toys and veterinary expenses. This would require you to designate a person who would be the trustee and hold onto the money, and a second person who would be the beneficiary and caretaker of your pet. The trustee would then give the beneficiary a monthly check to pay for or reimburse bird care expenses.

You can sock money away in a "living trust” for your pet while you are still alive, or the money the money can come from proceeds of your estate (personal and real property) after your death and the will is probated or the estate is administered to closure. Either way, Winter said, "it’s good to put your wishes down in writing — in a legal document — now, while you are healthy and no one’s questioning your sanity. Otherwise, if you wait to do this when you’re on your deathbed, you could have disputes between heirs or prospective heirs as to why money should be set aside for the care of a parrot to the exclusion of your children, grandchildren and other relatives.”
Aren’t some states considering switching their laws from looking at pets as property to looking at pet owners as custodians? What are the pros and cons of this?
The cities of Boulder, Colorado; San Francisco, Berkeley, and West Hollywood, California; and the state of Rhode Island have passed ordinances in the last two years, reclassifying people with pets as "guardians” rather than "pet owners.” The idea is to get away from seeing pets as possessions, in hopes that it will motivate people to treat their animals more humanely.

"It is assumed that a custodian must give a higher standard of care than an owner must,” Brosell said. "With the legislation that has passed in state and local jurisdictions, it is apparent that this ‘duty’ is being applied regardless of the status of ‘Custodian’ or ‘Owner.’ I believe that the approach of having a ‘Custodian Status’ is ‘fashionable’ or ‘different’ — rather than a true epiphany in animal rights.”
What concerns Rowe about this type of legislation is that once you designate an animal as a "companion” and the human as the "guardian” instead of an owner, there’s a lot more room for interference with your rights to keep exotic birds. "A lot of pet people, when they hear about this kind of legislation, support it because they know their pets aren’t just property. But a lot of the legislation that’s being proposed is being backed by some animal rights organizations who really do not want people to own exotic birds,” she said. For example, "some people think confining a parrot to a cage is cruel and if these groups say that you’re being an unfit guardian, then they would have the power to take your bird away,” Rowe said. "But if the parrot is classified as personal property, under the normal animal welfare laws they wouldn’t be able to do that unless you’re actually not feeding or abusing the animal in some way.” She believes this type of legislation could actually end up negatively impacting people’s ability to keep parrots, and for that reason, she believes the risks outweigh the potential benefits.
Do I have to "listen” to my neighbors’ complaints if they believe my parrot vocalizes too much? 
Your neighbors have a right to enjoy their property. If your parrot screams all day while you are away at work, for long periods of time early in the morning, or late at night when your neighbors are trying to sleep — and it’s to the point that the squawking interferes with your neighbors’ enjoyment of their property — legally that is considered to be a nuisance.

Usually these cases start out with the neighbor either knocking on your front door or calling you on the phone and complaining about your bird’s noise. If and when that happens, the most important thing you can do is talk to your neighbor and try to work things out peacefully. See if you can come up with a solution together. One idea may be to relocate the parrot’s cage to the other end of your apartment or house, away from that neighbor. Or, you may be able to install double-paned windows or pad your walls and ceilings or floors with soundproofing material. "Usually if your neighbors just know you are trying to make the situation better for them, that’s enough to get them to stop complaining,” Lacroix said.

It’s important that you make the effort to work things out with your neighbors. Otherwise, they may start calling the Police or Animal Control when your parrot vocalizes, and you could be fined. If your parrot becomes a big enough problem, they could confiscate it or have it destroyed.

Sometimes though, you may find yourself in a situation similar to what Erin Jablonski, the woman mentioned in the beginning of this article, is having to deal with. You may live next door to someone who just seems to have it in for you. Under those circumstances, you may want to consider using a third party.

"Many counties have mediation services for neighbors involved in animal disputes,” Melton said. "They might be able to give you some constructive solutions and bring a dispassionate voice to the situation.”

When it comes to animal law, don’t wait to find out the hard way — through evictions, fines, impoundments or lawsuits — what is legal in your community. Take the initiative to find out what the pet laws are for your city; often all it takes is a trip down to your public library or city attorney’s office to look at the ordinances in the books. If you’ve got serious legal concern relating to your parrot, you might want to consult with an attorney who practices animal law (for referral, call your state bar association). Whether you are a pet owner or just live next door to a raucous parrot, you’ll be better off if you know your legal rights and responsibilities.

Make a Battery from Potato

Introduction:
Batteries generate electricity through a chemical reaction between two different electrodes and one electrolyte. Use of Copper and Zinc electrodes and Sulfuric acid as electrolyte is a proven method for this process. We are wondering if we can use any other liquid as electrolyte? This gave us the idea of using a potato as electrolyte. After all a fresh potato has a lot of juice that may serve our purpose as electrolyte.
Problem:
Can Potato be used to generate electricity?
Hypothesis:
Potato juice contains many water soluble chemicals that may cause a chemical reaction with one or both of our electrodes. So we may get some electricity from that.

Material: For this experiment we use: A fresh potato Copper Electrode Zinc Electrode A Digital or Analog Multimeter to measure Voltage or Current of produced electricity. Alligator clips/ Leads

Procedure:
We insert copper and zinc electrodes in to the potato, close but not touching each other. We use Clip leads to connect our electrodes to the Multimeter to measure voltage between two electrodes or current passing through the multimeter. For this experiment we removed the shell of a broken AA battery for our Zinc electrode. (Make sure to test your multimeter by connecting its Positive and Negative wires to each other that should show no current and no voltage).

Record And Analyze Data:

A digital multimeter showed 1.2 volts between the electrodes, but the analog multimeter showed a much smaller value. In other words even though the voltage between electrodes is 1.2 Volts, the speed of production of electricity is not high enough for an analog multimeter to show the exact voltage. (Analog multimeter gets its power from our potato to show the voltage, but digital Multimeter gets its power from an internal battery and does not consume any of the electricity produced by our potato, that is why it shows a larger and more accurate value). We repeated this experiment with some other fruits and all resulted almost the same. In all cases the produced voltage is between 1 and 1.5 volts, and in all cases they do not produce enough current to turn on a small light.

Another thing that we learned from this experiment is that creating electricity and making a battery is easy, the main challenge is producing a battery that can continue to produce larger amount of electricity for larger amount of time. By connecting multiple potato batteries you can make enough electricity to light-up a super bright light emitting diode (Included in the kit).

13-year-old generates Electricity from Cow’s Urine

A 13-year-old school girl studying in 8th class generated electricity from cow’s urine. Sakshi Dashora, a student of Gadvada Vyas Academy, Mavli made a project ‘Importance of cow breed in 21st century’ entailing the scientific use of cow’s urine and cow dung.

Under Ministry of Science and Technology’s Inspire Award, the project will get international recognition. This project will be represented in Japan at a 7-day seminar after 2 months. Sakshi will be giving a lecture at the event.

Sakshi informed that cow urine has sodium, potassium, magnesium, sulphur and phosphorous. In her project, she immersed copper and aluminum electrode in one liter urine which was attached to LED watch via wires. The watch started to work with generation of electricity and was inferred that electricity will be produced according to the quantity of the urine.

Sakshi Dashora for this project was ranked 6th in Udaipur district in Aug 2014. Later she secured 12th rank at State Level exhibition held at Dungarpur in September and 2nd at National level.