A landlord may apply to terminate a tenancy on the basis the rental unit is needed for use by the landlord, the landlord's family member, or a person who provides or will provide care services to the landlord or landlord's family. A landlord may also terminate a tenancy on the basis the rental unit is required for the personal use of a purchaser, the purchaser's family member, or a person who provides or will provide care services to the purchaser or purchaser's family.
A landlord may also apply to terminate a tenancy on the basis that the landlord: (1) will demolish the rental unit; (2) needs vacant possession to do extensive repairs or renovations; or (3) intends to convert the rental unit to non-residential use.
This Guideline discusses how the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) deals with these applications made under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 ("RTA"). Amendments were made to some of the RTA provisions on September 1, 2017 in Bill 124, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Special transitional rules may apply to some notices and applications served before the amendments were proclaimed.
For general information about eviction applications, see Guideline 10, "Procedural Issues regarding Eviction Applications".
Section 48(1) of the RTA permits the landlord to give notice of termination to a tenant if the landlord, in good faith, requires the unit for residential occupation for a period of at least one year by the landlord, a family member or a caregiver. This notice is often referred to as a "Form N12".
Section 191 of the RTA and LTB Rule 5 set out the rules about how to serve documents.
Who can occupy the rental unit?
The Form N12 can indicate that any one of the following persons intends to occupy the rental unit: the landlord; the landlord's spouse; a child or a parent of either the landlord or the landlord's spouse; or a person who provides or will provide care services to the landlord or a family member of the landlord where the person receiving the care services resides or will reside in the building.
The notice of termination cannot include other family members who are not specified in section 48(1), such as a landlord's siblings. See for example: TSL-70431-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 52813 (ON LTB); NOL-03484-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 5985 (ON LTB).
The termination date in the landlord's notice of termination must be at least 60 days after the notice is given and must be the last day of a fixed term tenancy, or if there is no fixed term, on the last day of a rental period. For example, if the current month is January and the lease expires on June 30 of the same year, the termination date should be June 30. If there is a month to month tenancy agreement and notice is provided to the tenant on January 20, the earliest the termination date on the notice can be is March 31 which is 60 days after the notice is given and on the last day of the monthly rental period.
A notice of termination with an incorrect termination date is defective. A defective notice cannot be amended after it has been given to the tenant. The LTB cannot issue an order terminating a tenancy on the basis of a defective notice of termination. See for example: CEL-02248 (Re), 2007 CanLII 75937 (ON LTB); TSL-72954-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44293 (ON LTB).
After being given the notice, the tenant is allowed to terminate the tenancy at an earlier date by giving give the landlord ten days written notice.
The landlord may apply to the LTB for an eviction order as soon as the notice has been given to the tenant, but section 69(2) of the RTA says that it may not be filed later than 30 days after the termination date in the notice. If the application is filed late, it will be dismissed. The LTB schedules a hearing to consider the landlord's application and all parties have a right to attend the hearing and provide relevant evidence and submissions.
Subsection 72(1) of the RTA requires the landlord to file an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use for at least one year. The person who provided the affidavit is not required to testify at the LTB hearing, unless they have been summoned by one of the parties. However, as a general principle of law, oral testimony at an LTB hearing is given greater weight than testimony provide by affidavit.
Examples of LTB orders addressing the affidavit requirement include: TNL-86355-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 51474; SWL-85060-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44343 (ON LTB); TSL-70431-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 52813 (ON LTB).
If there is a conflict between the oral testimony and the affidavit it is up to the Member to decide what evidence is most persuasive: Sertic v. Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263.
At the LTB hearing the landlord must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she in good faith requires the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation by the person specified in the notice of termination. That means that the Member must decide whether it is more likely than not the landlord or family member will move into the unit within a reasonable time after the unit becomes vacant.
When deciding "good faith" the LTB must consider whether the landlord has a genuine intention to occupy the premises. Whether the landlord's plan is reasonable is not the test: Feeney v. Noble, 1994 CanLII 10538 (ON SC).
In my view, s.51(1) [now RTA s.48(1)] charges the finder of fact with the task of determining whether the landlord's professed intent to want to reclaim the unit for a family member is genuine, that is, the notice to terminate the tenancy is made in good faith. The alternative finding of fact would be that the landlord does not have a genuine intent to reclaim the unit for the purpose of residential occupation by a family member.
While it is relevant to the good faith of the landlord's stated intention to determine the likelihood that the intended family member will move into the unit, the Tribunal stops short of entering into an analysis of the landlord's various options.
Once the landlord is acting in good faith, then necessarily from the landlord's subjective perspective the landlord requires the unit for the purpose of residential occupation by a family member. That is sufficient to meet the s.51(1) standard. The fact that the landlord might choose the particular unit to occupy for economic reasons does not result in failing to meet the s.51(1) standard.
In Fava v. Harrison, 2014 ONSC 3352, the Divisional Court affirmed that the motives of the landlord in seeking possession of the rental unit are largely irrelevant and that the only issue is whether the landlord has a genuine intent to reside in the property. The Court also stated the LTB can consider the conduct and the motives of the landlord in order to draw inferences as to whether the landlord desires, in good faith, to occupy the property.
For example, a tenant may wish to prove that the same landlord gave a notice of termination for personal use of another unit earlier, obtained possession and then rented it to another tenant. This is not determinative evidence that the landlord lacks good faith, but it may be considered by the Member in weighing the landlord's evidence. Evidence of previous problems between the current tenant and the landlord may also be relevant to the genuineness of the landlord's intention to use the unit as stated in the notice.
Examples of LTB orders finding that the landlord has satisfied the good faith requirement: TEL-69842-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38802 (ON LTB); TSL-60770-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 69062 (ON LTB); TSL-56775-14 (Re), 2014 CanLII 71671 (ON LTB); TSL-75867-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 71599 (ON LTB).
Examples of LTB orders finding that the landlord has not satisfied the good faith requirement: TSL-76001-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28525 (ON LTB), EAL-59819-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88067 (ON LTB); TSL-55743-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 9141 (ON LTB); TSL-09908-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 13483 (ON LTB).
The landlord must establish that the unit will be used for "residential occupation" as required by section 48 of the RTA. That term is not defined in the RTA but it has been considered in a number of LTB and court decisions.
Occasional or infrequent use of the rental unit may not constitute residential occupation: TSL-65943-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 94908 (ON LTB); CET-33575-13 (Re), 2014 CanLII 71654 (ON LTB); NOL-09721-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 74622 (ON LTB); TSL-08570-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 76079 (ON LTB).
Using the rental unit as a business office so that the landlord can meet with tenants of the building and have access to a bathroom was found to be inconsistent with the purpose of subsection 48(1): TSL-24120-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 21575 (ON LTB).
Leaving the rental unit empty after the tenant vacates was found not to be residential occupation: TEL-01943 (Re), 2007 CanLII 75965 (ON LTB).
Using the basement rental unit for storage of items the landlord uses for her profession and to construct a recreation room was found to be residential occupation: TSL-62768-15-RV2 (Re), 2015 CanLII 100191 (ON LTB), upheld by the Divisional Court, Sertic v. Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263.
Using a basement rental unit as home office/study where the landlord lives on the upper floors was found to be "residential occupation" so long as the scholarly, professional, business or other such activity does not constitute the predominant use: TSL-72600 (Re), 2005 CanLII 91265 (ON LTB).
On September 1, 2017 the RTA was amended to provide that section 48 only applies to rental units owned by landlords who are individuals. A corporate landlord cannot serve a notice under section 48 or obtain an eviction order under this section. Earlier decisions permitting some corporations to serve this type of notice are no longer valid.
For notices under section 48 given to a tenant on or after September 1, 2017, the landlord must compensate the tenant in an amount equal to one month's rent or offer another rental unit acceptable to the tenant. This requirement must be met before the termination date on the notice of termination. The LTB will not issue an order ending the tenancy and evicting the tenant unless the landlord has satisfied this obligation. Under subsection 135(1.1) of the RTA, a landlord is deemed to have retained money in contravention of the RTA, if the landlord fails to pay the tenant the required compensation.
the purchaser, in good faith, requires possession of the complex or the unit for residential occupation by the purchaser, his or her spouse, or a child or parent of one of them.
Before a landlord may give a notice under section 49, there must be an agreement of purchase and sale for the residential complex or condominium unit. The LTB may refuse an application if it is not reasonably certain that a completed sale will result from the agreement. If a term or condition of the agreement makes it uncertain that the deal will be completed, it may be appropriate to delay the application until the sale becomes more certain.
The LTB may also dismiss the application if satisfied the purchase is a pretence created for the purpose of evicting the tenant. For example, a transfer to a family member or a sale for much less than market value may raise questions. Section 202 of the RTA directs the LTB to look at the real nature of any transactions. See for example: SOL-01897 (Re), 2007 CanLII 75946 (ON LTB); CEL-61051-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88110 (ON LTB).
A landlord applying based on a notice under section 49 is well advised to submit a copy of the agreement of purchase and sale with the application, together with an explanation of the circumstances of the intended sale.
There is also a good faith requirement similar to that related to section 48 (see above). The requirement relates to the genuine intention of the purchaser and the person who declares they intend to occupy the unit (see subsections 49(1) and 72(1) of the RTA). See for example: TSL-76546-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 71338 (ON LTB); TNL-27406-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 27936 (ON LTB).
As section 49(1) states that a notice to terminate a tenancy for use by a purchaser or family member can only be served if the residential complex has no more than three residential units, an application concerning a residential complex with more than three units will be dismissed: TSL-80642-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28814 (ON LTB).
Subsection 48(1)(d) and 49(1)(d) of the RTA permit a landlord to give notice of termination to a tenant if the landlord or purchaser, in good faith, requires the unit for residential occupation by a person who provides or will provide care services to the landlord or purchaser, or the landlord's or purchaser's spouse, parent, child, or spouse's parent or child. In the case of care services being provided to the landlord or the landlord's family, the caregiver must live in the rental unit for at least one year.
The person receiving the care must reside or intend to reside in the building, related group of buildings, mobile home park or land lease community in which the rental unit is located.
"Care services" are defined in s. 2 as "health care services, rehabilitative or therapeutic services or services that provide assistance with the activities of daily living". Care services are further defined in section 2 of Ontario Regulation 516/06.
Subsection 72(2) of the RTA contains special provisions that apply only to an unusual type of housing arrangement known as "co-ownership". This involves a number of individuals owning a building through a corporation or as tenants-in-common. Subsection 72(2) applies when such a building has been marketed as single units. This method of offering a building for sale on a unit basis avoids the rules of the Condominium Act. The co-owner has no rights to the unit they are apparently buying, except by agreement with the other co-owners. Their rights respecting the unit may include both the rent revenue from that unit and the right to occupy the unit.
Subsection 72(2) provides protection for tenants of units that have been sold in this way to co-owners. Even if the co-ownership agreement purports to give the "unit owner" the right to occupy the unit, they cannot do so unless: the building does not have more than four units, or; the landlord, the landlord's spouse, a child or a parent of either the landlord or the landlord's spouse, or a person who provided care services to the landlord, the landlord's spouse, or a child or parent of the landlord or the landlord's spouse previously lived in the unit.
This section of the RTA does not apply to other types of rental units and is not a general prohibition on landlords of complexes with more than four rental units relying upon sections 48 or 49 of the RTA. See Seibert v. Juhasz, 2012 ONSC 5447.
do repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit.
The termination date in the landlord's notice of termination must be at least 120 days after the notice is given and must be the last day of a fixed term tenancy, or if there is no fixed term, the last day of a rental period. This notice is often referred to as a "Form N13". Also see the above discussion about the consequence of an incorrect termination date on the notice.
After being given the notice, the tenant is allowed to terminate the tenancy at an earlier date by giving the landlord ten days written notice.
If a tenant is given a notice because the rental unit is being demolished and is located in a residential complex that contains at least five residential units, the landlord must give the tenant an amount equal to three months' rent or offer the tenant another rental unit that is acceptable to the tenant. This requirement does not apply if the landlord has been ordered to demolish the residential complex.
Whether or not the intended activity constitutes "demolition" is discussed in these LTB orders: TSL-51257-14-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 22344 (ON LTB); TSL-05299-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 76078 (ON LTB).
If a tenant is given a notice because the rental unit is being converted to a non-residential use and is located in a residential complex that contains at least five residential units, the landlord must give the tenant an amount equal to three months' rent or offer the tenant another rental unit that is acceptable to the tenant. See for example: NOL-07899 (Re), 2009 CanLII 77993 (ON LTB).
Whether or not the intended activity constitutes conversion to a non-residential use is discussed in these LTB orders: TSL-66897-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 99152 (ON LTB); TSL-12596 (Re), 2009 CanLII 51178 (ON LTB).
Whether the landlord intends in good faith to convert the rental unit to a non-residential use is discussed in these LTB orders: TSL-66668-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 94900 (ON LTB); SOL-14849-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 34688 (ON LTB).
If a tenant is given a notice because of extensive repairs or renovations, the tenant can choose to move back into the rental unit after the repairs or renovations are complete. The rent must be the same as the rent before the tenancy was terminated. Before the tenant moves out, the tenant must inform the landlord in writing of their intent to re-occupy the rental unit. The tenant also has to keep the landlord informed in writing of any change in their address.
If the rental unit is located in a residential complex that contains at least five residential units and the tenant does not give the landlord a written notice stating that they want to move back after the repairs are completed, the landlord must give the tenant an amount equal to three months' rent or offer another rental unit that is acceptable to the tenant.
This requirement does not apply if the landlord has been ordered to do the repair or renovation.
If the tenant lives in a residential complex that contains at least five residential units and gives written notice that they will be moving back into the rental unit once the repairs are complete, the landlord must give the tenant an amount equal to the rent for the lesser of three months and the period of time that the unit is undergoing repairs or renovations. This requirement does not apply if the landlord has been ordered to do the repair or renovation.
Whether vacant possession is necessary for the landlord to do the repairs or renovations is discussed in these LTB orders: TSL-81965-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28702 (ON LTB); SOL-14870-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 101419 (ON LTB).
If the landlord is giving the notice because the landlord will be converting, demolishing, repairing or renovating a site on which a tenant-owned mobile home or land lease community home is located, the landlord must give the tenant: (a) a minimum of one year's notice; and (b) compensation equal to one year's rent, or $3,000, whichever is less.
There are also special rules that apply to care homes, including a requirement that the landlord make reasonable efforts to find the tenant suitable alternate accommodation.
At the hearing the landlord must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she in good faith intends to carry out the activity specified in the notice of termination. That means that the LTB must decide whether it is more likely than not the landlord will carry out the activity within a reasonable time after the unit becomes vacant.
After holding a hearing, the LTB may issue an eviction order if the landlord has proven their case. The eviction enforcement date cannot be before the termination date in the notice.
Even where the LTB finds that the landlord or purchaser requires the unit in good faith or intends to carry out the activity described in the notice, under section 83 of the RTA the LTB must consider, having regard to all the circumstances, whether to refuse to grant the application or to postpone the eviction. In some cases, refusing or delaying the eviction is discretionary. See for example: NOL-15753-14-RV (Re), 2014 CanLII 57596 (ON LTB); TSL-71705-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 71624 (ON LTB); TSL-70781-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 39812 (ON LTB); TSL-12596 (Re), 2009 CanLII 51178 (ON LTB). In other cases, refusing the eviction is mandatory. See for example: SOL-53030-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 16020 (ON LTB); TSL-51257-14-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 22344 (ON LTB); TSL-60770-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 69062 (ON LTB).
If the landlord does not provide the tenant with the required compensation, as discussed above, the LTB must refuse the eviction. If the landlord pays the tenant the required compensation and the LTB dismisses the landlord's application, the tenant may be ordered to re-pay the landlord.
See also Caputo v. Newberg, 2009 CanLII 32908 (ON SCDC), and Guideline 7: Relief from Eviction: Refusing or Delaying an Eviction.
no person specified under the appropriate subsection has occupied the unit within a reasonable time after the tenant vacated the rental unit, or the landlord did not demolish, convert or repair or renovate the rental unit within a reasonable time after the tenant vacated the rental unit.
The LTB holds a hearing to consider the former tenant's application and all parties have an opportunity to attend and provide relevant evidence and submissions. It is the tenant, as the applicant, who must prove all three elements of the test set out above.
Examples of LTB orders finding that the tenant has satisfied the three parts of the test contained in section 57 include: SWT-95207-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 9457 (ON LTB); TST-77957-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88282 (ON LTB); TST-77144-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88292 (ON LTB); TST-72609-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 71210 (ON LTB); TST-63263-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 75856 (ON LTB); TST-68404-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 40119 (ON LTB).
Examples of LTB orders finding that the tenant has not satisfied the three parts of the test contained in section 57 include: TET-67474-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 52833 (ON LTB); TST-63837-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 39762 (ON LTB); TST-62541-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 59059 (ON LTB); TST-57328-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 93464 (ON LTB); CET-33575-13 (Re), 2014 CanLII 71654 (ON LTB).
takes any step to convert the rental unit, or the building containing the rental unit, to use for a purpose other than residential premises.
These provisions only apply during the period that begins on the date the landlord gave the tenant the notice and ends one year after the former tenant moves out of the unit.
any other order that the LTB considers appropriate.
In considering whether the tenant has satisfied the three parts of the test contained in section 57, the LTB must consider the conduct and knowledge of the landlord who served the notice of termination. If the tenancy was terminated as a result of a notice of termination for personal use of a unit by a purchaser, a family member of the purchaser, or a person who provides or will provide care services, it is the landlord who served the notice of termination who should be named as the respondent.
Where the landlord gave notice of termination of the tenancy to do extensive repairs or renovations to the rental unit, a former tenant can file a T5 application if the tenant gave written notice to the landlord that they intended to move back and the landlord has refused to allow the tenant to do this once the repairs or renovations are completed. The LTB can award the former tenant the same remedies as those described above.
The T5 application must be filed within one year after former tenant vacated the rental unit. If this one year limitation period is approaching and the landlord has not completed the repairs or renovations, the tenant may file the application, and the LTB will decide whether the hearing should be adjourned until after the work has been completed.


a British geneticist has identified actual Yeti DNA. But, it's not an actual yeti. The results are still pretty interesting--it comes from a bear that went extinct 40,000 years ago!
Whereas Bigfoot/yeti believers are disappointed with the results and disavowing them, the results are still incredible. I think the Bigfoot community should take heart in that their persistence in research has led to a phenomenal find, even though it isn't the one they were hoping for.


text:
10 Actors Who Got Paid for Films They Weren't In
10 Compelling Cases Of Children Who Claimed Reincarnation
10 Rogue Princes from British History
Top 10 Biggest Fitness Myths People Still Believe
Travel | October 29, 2021
10 Times Terrible Tourists Were Arrested
fact checked by Rachel Jones
Tourists can be truly obnoxious. From the moment they leave their houses for their destination, something changes. Their Hyde side comes out in the form of self-righteous, egotistical, and irrational behavior. Manners? What are those? They wreak havoc on drivers, airport crews, hotel staff, and locals.
Everyone who grew up in a tourist town has their own stories of rude, demanding, and entitled travelers who overstepped.
A select few tourists, however, step even farther and cross the line of the law. These ungracious guests damage property, steal, break boundaries, dishonor traditions, and disgrace their home countries. When that happens, you just love to see them get what's coming. This list features ten of the most terrible tourists ever, both their idiotic crimes and their (hopefully) satisfying punishments.
Related: 10 Popular Tourist Attractions Filled With Human Remains
10 Who Leaves a Baby?
Spain: 'Go home, drunk tourists!' demand thousands of Barcelona locals
In 2019, a British tourist staying in Tenerife, Canary Islands, was arrested after a drunken public fight ended with her abandoning her three-month-old baby on a public street. A baby at three months can't even sit up by themselves yet, okay? Details released by the police suggest a pretty trashy lead-up to the crime.
While eating at a local restaurant, the unnamed woman and the baby's father both became drunk and argued with each other loudly. The woman stormed off on foot with her baby, and the father, concerned, called local police to find her. They quickly found the mother in the street near the couple's hotel, but no baby. When asked, the mother simply said that she couldn't imagine where the baby might be. It took 40 minutes for a pair of good samaritans to find the kid. The tourist's drunken, foolish anger and neglect earned her six months in prison and hopefully some lasting shame.
9 Stop. Etching. The. Colosseum.
Tourists Who Vandalized Roman Colosseum Faces Jail Time And HUGE Fine
There really isn't one person to blame for this because everyone keeps doing it. Tourists from all over the world keep carving their initials into the Colosseum (as if anyone cares that JJ + AK have been there and are in love). Despite the landmark's impressive 2,000-year age, its status as one of the New Seven Wonders of the World, and its record as the largest-ever amphitheater, visitors don't seem to mind hacking away at its exterior. For example:
In 2020, an Irish tourist carved his initials into one of the Coliseum's pillars.
In 2017, an Ecuadorian tourist carved the names of his whole family on a wall.
In 2015, two Americans carved their initials on a wall and filmed it.
In 2014, a Russian tourist carved a single letter before they were caught.
The good news is that officials caught the etchers, and in Italy, the crime of damaging a historical landmark comes with a minimum fine of $2,400 and up to a year in prison. Of course, they could always earn their freedom through…gladiatorial combat (wya, Caligula?).
8 They Stole…the Beach?
World Is Running Out Of Sand — Why There's Now A Black Market For It
In 2019, a French couple vacationing on the Italian island of Sardinia was arrested for stealing sand from a beach. As absurd as that sounds, the pair didn't just fill a baggy or a pocket. They filled fourteen soda bottles to the brim, loaded them into the back of their SUV, and tried to take the SUV on a ferry ride back to the mainland. The haul weighed nearly 90 pounds.
The pair claimed that they had no idea that taking sand was illegal and that they just wanted a souvenir. While that would normally be believable, the 90-freaking-pounds of it all and the fact that sand from Sardinia is a valuable commodity often auctioned online makes them seem a bit suspicious. It's unknown what portion of their potential one- to six-year prison sentence the couple served.
7 The Easter Island Ear
Easter Island Tour Guide & Travel Tips
In 2008, 26-year-old Finnish tourist Marko Kulju chipped an ear off of one of the Easter Island heads. He was attempting to steal the monument fragment, but it fell to the ground and shattered after he chipped it off. So much for that…It was then that a nearby woman saw what happened and reported him.
The 1,000-year-old statues sit on a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and Kulju could have been sent to prison for seven years due to the attempted theft. After what must have been a phenomenal apology, Kulju was instead fined $17,000 and banned from the island for just three years.
6 When Swimming Is Its Own Punishment
Swimming Laws in Venice
It seems that several people are unaware, so let's put this in print: it's illegal to swim the canals of Venice. Not only is it illegal, but due to the canals' notorious filth, it's gross and even potentially dangerous.
Take the 2019 case of two Norwegian women caught swimming in a Venice canal in their underwear. When they were arrested, police informed them of the canal's disgusting history, including its current infestation with rats. Upon hearing this, one of the women threw up in the police station. It's unknown what penalties the women faced (aside from disgust), but that same year, two Czech men caught swimming in a canal were fined around $3,320.
5 "Ding Jinhao Was Here"
Chinese Tourist Defaces Egyptian Temple & Drunk Moped Guy
In 2013, Ding Jinhao became one of the most hated human beings on the planet overnight because of his actions while visiting Egypt. While touring the 3,500-year-old Luxor Temple, Ding carved the Chinese characters for "Ding Jinhao was here" into a hieroglyphic mural. Though he initially got away with the act, other Chinese tourists passing the mural later recognized the characters and uploaded pictures of the vandalism to social media.
Within days, the post had gone viral, Ding's personal information was shared publicly, and the computers at Ding's school were hacked. The Chinese government issued an apology, as did Ding and his parents, with Ding even crying during his apology. When all was said and done, the Egyptian government enacted a new, harsher law protecting cultural relics. Ding was doxxed, bullied, and targeted by internet trolls and hackers, leading many to question whether Ding, aged 15, got his just desserts or perhaps too much.
4 Chicken Cordon Yellow…stone
3 Men Banned from Yellowstone for Cooking Chicken in Geyser
The Guardian headline read in part, "men sentenced for cooking chicken in Yellowstone hot spring," and against all logic, that really is the whole story. In 2020, three men left the trails in Yellowstone's Shoshone Geyser Basin area, sat around one of the geothermal springs, and tried to cook a chicken.
Appearing before a judge for sentencing, one of the men said he intended to "make dinner." That was it. All in their 40s and 50s, the men were fined, placed on probation, and banned from the park.
3 The Holy Water Bidet
How Do The Balinese Truly Feel About Tourists? | ASIAN BOSS
Bali, Indonesia, has a reputation for attracting the worst tourists in history. For whatever reason, they flock to the beautiful island province, perpetually irritating locals. There were the five Australian men who ran naked through the Balinese streets. Drunk, they urinated and vomited freely as they ran. I would not want to be the guy behind him. Then there's the guy who got in a drunken fight and dropkicked a local off of his moving motorbike.
However, the worst tourists in Bali have to be Czech tourists Zdenek Slouka and his girlfriend, Sabina Dolesalova. Slouka reached into a holy fountain at the Sacred Monkey Forest Sanctuary and used its water to clean off his girlfriend's butt. They filmed it and posted it online. Somehow, the government completely forgave the two after performing a purification ritual.
2 Come Home, Dirk
Drunk friends steal penguin
In 2012, two Welsh tourists in Australia gained infamy for stealing a rare, valuable item: Dirk, a seven-year-old fairy penguin. The Welshmen had attended a beach party earlier in the night and ended up (apparently) absurdly drunk. For whatever reason, they then decided to break into Sea World and run amok.
While drunkenly trespassing, the pair jumped into the dolphin tank for a swim and even "let off a fire extinguisher in a shark enclosure." Of course, they then stole little Dirk but allegedly had no memory of the incident. They only learned of their crime when they woke up the following day, hungover, with a penguin in their apartment. When they tried to set Dirk free in a local canal, they were caught and arrested. The fine of 1,000 Australian dollars each seems low.
1 Of All the Places…
Theft at Nazi Death Camp
It really should go without saying, but stealing from the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp is not a cool thing to do. Yet, there are numerous cases in which tourists have stolen or attempted to steal items from the site for souvenirs, just begging any existing gods of justice to smite them.
In 2019, an American visitor attempted to steal, of all things, a piece of metal from the train tracks leading into the camp. In 2018, two Hungarian tourists tried to steal bricks from a crematorium. The most notorious theft in recent memory has to be the successful 2009 theft of the sign at the camp's main gate. Emblazoned with the Nazi slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei," meaning "Work Will Set You Free," the sign was a dark symbol, and its theft was a complicated problem. It was found in pieces and restored, but perhaps more important than the sign itself was the ability of tourists to be that terrible.
10 Times GPS Failed With Terrible Consequences
10 Times Firefighters Were Not Heroes
10 Times Musicians Were Banned From Playing In…
10 Times Nonhumans Were Called As Witnesses
10 Times Robots Were Brutally Assaulted By Humans
10 Surprising Ways To Get Fined Or Arrested Overseas
Top 10 Ironic Stories Of Cops Getting Themselves Arrested
10 Best Kings Followed By Terrible Sons
Top 10 Truly Terrible Television Series
Top 10 Safest Large Cities In The USA
Top 10 Fascinating Facts About The Golden Age Of Flying
Top 10 Holidays that will Kill You
10 Unusual Bridges from Around the World You Need to Visit
Top 10 Jaw-Dropping Hidden Spaces In London
10 Post-Apocalyptic Places Hidden In Major Cities

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
GHOST BOOKS
Haunted America Conference
AMERICAN HAUNTINGS SHIRTS
American Hauntings
THE DEATH OF VIRGINIA RAPPE
THE LONG FALL OF ROSCOE "FATTY" ARBUCKLE
On September 9, 1921, the death of a young movie actress named Virginia Rappe would make newspaper headlines around the world. The scandal that followed her death had nothing to do with the fame, or lack of it, of the pretty actress – it was her link to the man who was known as "America's Funnyman," Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. Virginia's death destroyed the career of the man who was then America's best-known comedic actor and created one of Hollywood's first lingering ghosts.
Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle
Fatty Arbuckle was among the first celebrities to be swallowed by the bright lights of Hollywood. There are few actors who have crashed and burned in the way that Arbuckle did. The rotund comedian, nicknamed "Fatty" by his fans because of his 300-pound girth, achieved his original success in the 1910s. He was more popular than even Charlie Chaplin and at the time of his downfall in 1921, he was earning over $1 million a year. But it all came to a crashing halt because of a scandal. Arbuckle had it worse than most. It was bad enough to fall from grace because of one's mistakes and the scandal that might follow, but it was another thing entirely to be used by an ambitious district attorney for his own political gains, and to be savaged by the Hearst newspapers, which sensationalized Fatty's plight and made a bundle in circulation sales. Making things even worse, Arbuckle's own studio led the behind-the-scenes intrigue that sabotaged his career, some say as revenge against a star who had become too big to control.
Roscoe Arbuckle was born (weighing in at a whopping 16 pounds) on a small farm in Smith Center, Kansas, on March 24, 1887. The following year, his family relocated to Santa Ana, California, and opened a small hotel. In the summer of 1895, Roscoe made his stage debut with a traveling theater troupe. The shy and overweight youngster immediately felt at home on the spotlight. Four years later, his mother died and the boy was sent to live with his father, who was then residing in Watsonville, California. When his father vanished a short time later, a local hotel owner took Roscoe in. When not working at odd jobs, he was tutored by a teacher who lived in the hotel. However, he preferred appearing on amateur night at the town's vaudeville theater to reading and writing. In 1902, he was reunited with his remarried father in Santa Clara and helped out the family by waiting tables in his father's restaurant.
Roscoe got into show business a few years later, working in vaudeville and burlesque shows in California and the Pacific Northwest. During a 1908 summer stock engagement in Long Beach, California, he met a singer and dancer named Armanta "Minta" Durfee. The two of them were married and toured the Southern California vaudeville circuit. At some point, Arbuckle decided to try his luck in the fledgling movie industry.
Legend had it that Arbuckle was an overweight plumber when Mack Sennett discovered him. The story goes that he had come to unclog the film producer's drain, but Sennett had other plans for him. He took one look at Roscoe's hefty frame and offered him a job. It never happened this way – but it made a great story. Arbuckle's large frame and bouncing agility made him the perfect target for Sennett's brand of film comedy, which included mayhem, pratfalls, and pies in the face. He became a member of Mack Sennett's Keystone Film Company in April 1913. He was soon making dozens of two-reelers as a film buffoon and audiences loved him. He made one film after another, all of them wildly successful, and managed to earn a fortune.
In the summer of 1916, Arbuckle joined the East Coast-based Comique Film Corporation as a star and director with an annual income of more than $1 million. The following March, he attended a banquet in Boston hosted by his studio for regional theater exhibitors and this became Fatty's first brush with scandal. After the dinner, Arbuckle retired to his hotel room, however, company executives (including founder Adolph Zukor) and others continued partying at Brownie Kennedy's Roadhouse, a tavern and brothel in nearby Woburn, Massachsetts. Almost immediately, news circulated in Boston about the orgy, and the gossip claimed that Arbuckle had been present. In fact, some stories had him dancing on tables with prostitutes in the roadhouse's backroom. Because of the publicity, the city's mayor raided the brothel. After paying a fine, the madam was released. However, the stories about what went on that night were too racy to simply fade away. Zukor was informed that unless money changed hands, the bawdy activities were sure to make national news. Zukor paid $100,00 to keep the matter quiet and in the process, did nothing to clarify that Arbuckle had not been present that night.
By October 1917, Arbuckle (along with most of the rest of the movie industry) was back in Hollywood. By now, his marriage to Minta had fallen apart and she remained in New York to pursue her acting career. Although separated, their divorce was not finalized until 1925.
With 1920's "The Round Up," Arbuckle began making full-length movies. In January 1921, he signed a lucrative new contract with Paramount Pictures, which led to Adolph Zukor pushing him into an exhausting schedule that ended with him filming three movies at the same time in the summer of 1921. By Labor Day weekend, Fatty was worn out and planned to go to San Francisco to relax over the holiday. Zukor asked him to remain in town to take part in an exhibitors' convention that weekend and when Roscoe refused, Zukor was enraged. Arbuckle didn't let this bother him and he went on the trip anyway.
Fatty was joined on his trip up the coast by actor friend Lowell Sherman. Then, director Fred Fischbach, whom Arbuckle had known for years, invited himself along. The three men set out on early Saturday morning, September 3, and arrived in San Francisco later that evening. Fatty was driving his flashy new Pierce-Arrow automobile and took his friends to the luxurious St. Francis Hotel. Fatty took three adjoining suites on the 12th floor.
On Sunday, the trio did some sightseeing and visited friends and on Monday, Labor Day, the party got under way. Fischbach got in touch with a bootlegger connection and soon, the guests and the liquor began to arrive. Among the guests was Fred's friend, film talent manager Al Semnacher, who was in San Francisco for the weekend, trying to concoct evidence for his pending divorce. He had brought along Bambina Maude Delmont, a woman with an extensive police record involving blackmail, prostitution, and swindling, to help him out. A friend of Bambina's also came along -- a little-known actress named Virginia Rappe.
Virginia Rappe
Virginia came to Hollywood in 1919. She was a lovely brunette whose unfortunate reputation preceded her. It was no secret in Hollywood that she was a girl with "loose morals," which was saying a lot for the film colony in those days. Rumor had it that she had already had several abortions by the time that she was 16, before giving birth to a child that that she had given away. She caught the eye of Mack Sennett and wrangled some movie roles on the Keystone lot, where she met Arbuckle. It was also rumored that Virginia had worked her way through the cast and crew of the company and at one point, she passed around a rather sensitive infestation of body lice that was so severe that Sennett had to close the studio and have it fumigated. In spite of her drunken escapades and reports of unprovoked nudity, she did earn some film roles, including "Fantasy," "Paradise Garden," and "Joey Loses a Sweetheart," in which she appeared with Arbuckle. Virginia was noticed by William Fox, shortly after winning an award for the "Best-Dressed Girl in Pictures," and he took her under contract. There was talk of her starring in a new Fox feature and Virginia certainly seemed to be on her way up.
In 1920, Virginia began dating director Jack White. When he left Hollywood for New York, she was left with an unwanted pregnancy to deal with. Her manager, Al Semnacher, suggested that she have an abortion in San Francisco, where there was less chance of the Hollywood gossips finding out about it. Since she was going up north and Semnacher had plans with Bambina Delmont that weekend, he arranged for her to drive there with him on September 3.
Salesman Ira Fortlois arrived at Roscoe's suite at noon on Monday to find the party already in full swing. Arbuckle was reportedly not happy to discover that Fred Fischbach had invited Semnacher, Delmont, and Rappe to the party, thanks to their questionable reputations, but he was enjoying himself too much to press the issue. At one point during the party, Fischbach suddenly left, claiming that he had business elsewhere. The crowd grew to a couple of dozen people. The young women were downing gin-laced Orange Blossoms, some of the guests had shed their tops to do the "shimmy," guests were vanishing into the back bedrooms for sweaty love sessions, and the empty bottles of booze were piling up.
Meanwhile, Delmont, who was well-liquored, disappeared into Lowell Sherman's suite with him and locked the door. Virginia, roaring drunk, began tearing off her clothes and screaming hysterically. Because Delmont and Sherman were locked in room 1221, and room 1220 had no bathroom, Virginia was rushed into room 1219, Fatty's suite, to use the facilities there. Soon, unaware of what was happening, Roscoe tried to enter his bathroom, only to find Virginia vomiting into the toilet. He helped her up and convinced her to lie down and rest on his bed. Next, he went in search of some ice. He hoped that the ice would quiet the woman down as well as determine, by holding a piece of ice against her thigh to see if she reacted to the chill, whether she was suffering from hysterics.
By now, Fischbach had returned. As Roscoe applied the ice to the wailing woman's leg, Maude Delmont walked into the room. Rappe yelled that she was dying – words heard by several other female party guests. Next, the bathtub in room 1219 was filled with cold water to cool off the distraught young woman. But Virginia suddenly awoke and began screaming at Arbuckle. "Stay away from me!" she cried and then turned to Delmont, "What did he do to me, Maudie?" Virginia was bodily placed in the cold water tub and she seemed to settle down. A short time later, she was taken to another room down the hall where Delmont could take care of her. The hotel doctor was summoned to the room a little while later, but he determined that Virginia was merely drunk.
The party continued, with Arbuckle leaving the hotel for a time to arrange to have his car shipped back to Los Angeles. He planned to return by boat. By the time Fatty returned, another doctor was administering morphine to Virginia. When the physician asked Delmont what had transpired, she calculatedly created a fabricated tale that she later told the police – but never swore to in court.
According to her version of events, Fatty, wearing only pajamas and a bathrobe, had steered a drunken Virginia into his suite at around 3:00 p.m. on Monday afternoon. Delmont stated that the festivities in the adjoining suites came to a halt when screams were heard in the bedroom. She also said that weird moans were heard from behind the door. A short time later, Fatty emerged with ripped pajamas and he told the girls, "Go in and get her dressed. She makes too much noise." When Virginia continued to scream, he yelled for her to shut up, or "I'll throw you out the window." Delmont and another showgirl, Alice Blake, found Virginia nearly nude and lying on the unmade bed. She was moaning and told them that she was dying. Bambina later reported that they tried to dress her, but found that all of her clothing, including her stockings and undergarments were so ripped and torn, "that one could hardly recognize what garments they were."
Arbuckle knew nothing of the story that Delmont was spreading and on Tuesday, September 6, he checked out of the St. Francis, generously covering everyone's expenses. By now, Virginia, at Delmont's direction, was being treated by another doctor, this one associated with the private Wakefield Sanitarium. Having been assured that Virginia was in no danger, Arbuckle and his friends returned by ferry to Los Angeles.
On September 8, the still-stricken Virginia was transferred from the hotel to the Wakefield Sanitarium, where she died the next afternoon. An illegal postmortem exam was conducted on her body and her ruptured bladder and other organs were placed in specimen jars, which would prevent a proper autopsy by the legal authorities. Convinced that she could turn the entire incident into something she could profit from, Delmont swore out a complaint against Arbuckle with the police. Back in Hollywood, Roscoe's new film, "Gasoline Gus," had just opened successfully and at the same time, he learned of Virginia's death. Shocked, he volunteered to return to San Francisco. Paramount, meanwhile, panicked at the possible repercussions of the weekend, hired attorneys to represent their high-priced star.
From the start, the newspapers were filled with lurid headlines ("Fatty Arbuckle Sought in Orgy Death") and graphic, false details supplied by Delmont. Newspapers around the country were revealing shocking "truths" about the alleged events in the death of the virtuous Virginia Rappe at the hands of the lust-crazed Fatty Arbuckle. Everything from Arbuckle's past was raked up, including the false story that he had been party of the 1917 orgy in Massachusetts and new stories claimed that he had killed Virginia because she had rebuffed his advances. They also claimed that he had killed her because his immense weight pressed down on her too hard during sex. And it was no longer just sex, the newspapers told a nation of stunned fans, but "strange and unnatural sex." According to reports, Arbuckle became enraged over the fact that his drunkenness had led to impotence, so he ravaged Virginia with everything from a Coca-Cola Bottle, to a champagne bottle, to an over-sized piece of ice. Other stories claimed that Fatty was so well-endowed that he had injured the girl, while others stated that the injury had come when Fatty had landed on the slight actress during a sexual frolic.
Soon, churches and women's groups were crusading against the "lustful" Arbuckle. In Hartford, Connecticut., a group of angry women ripped down a screen in a theater showing an Arbuckle comedy, while in Wyoming, a group of men opened fire in a movie house where another Arbuckle short was being shown. Thanks to the newspapers, Arbuckle had been found guilty in the public's eyes before charges have ever been filed against him. Angry, and increasingly boisterous, voices were calling for Hollywood to clean up its act. Finally, Arbuckle's films were pulled from general release. Arbuckle had been placed on suspension by Paramount, invoking the morals clause in his contract.
San Francisco District Attorney Matthew Brady hoped the Arbuckle case would be his ticket to the governor's office. The coroner's inquest met on September 12 with Brady demanding that Arbuckle be charged with murder. By then, he knew that most of what had been printed in the newspapers were lies but since his vow to prosecute the movie star to the fullest extent of the law had already been featured in the press, he proceeded with the case. Over the next few days, with Arbuckle jailed without bail, a special grand jury voted to indict the actor on a manslaughter charge. It was their belief, based on the evidence, that Arbuckle had used "some force" that led to Virginia's death. On September 28, a judge ruled that the defendant could be charged with manslaughter, but the rape charge was dismissed. Arbuckle was released on his own recognizance and returned to Los Angeles. He was accompanied by his estranged wife, Minta, who had arrived to offer moral support.
The trial began on November 14, 1921, with Roscoe taking the stand and denying any wrongdoing. The defense introduced evidence of Virginia's past medical problems (including chronic cystitis) and her recurrent bouts of abdominal pain that often led to her yanking off her clothing. The key witness, Maude Delmont, never took the stand to continue her fanciful claims against Arbuckle – something that the defense pointed out several times to the jury. After much conflicting testimony, the jury remained deadlocked after 43 hours of deliberation. One juror was adamant that Fatty was guilty "until hell freezes over." The judge declared a mistrial.
Unwilling to give up, D.A. Brady pushed for another trial. One of the tactical errors this time around was made by the defense. Overly confident that Arbuckle would be acquitted, they did not have him testify again and simply read his prior testimony into the record. This made Arbuckle look cold and uncaring about the young woman's death and made the wrong impression on the jury. In addition, his attorney, assured of victory, never bothered to make a closing statement. After many more hours of deliberating, the jury was deadlocked again, although this time they had almost voted in favor of conviction. Fatty had not been convicted, but he was paying for his "crime." He had been forced to sell his home in Los Angeles, along with his luxury automobiles, to pay lawyer's fees that the studio was no longer footing the bill for.
Unbelievably, Brady took Arbuckle to trial a third time. This time, Fatty took the stand and patiently answered questions about the fateful party for three hours. The defense introduced evidence about Virginia's questionable past, the prosecution's intimidation of witnesses, as well as the fact that the prosecution still had never produced Maude Delmont to testify. This time, the jury adjourned for only five minutes and returned with a vote of acquittal and a written apology:
"Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel a grave injustice has been done him and there was not the slightest proof to connect him in any way with the commission of any crime. We wish him success, and hope that the American people will take the judgment of fourteen men and women that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free of all blame."
Fatty may have been free, and cleared by a well-meaning jury, but he was hardly forgiven by Hollywood. Paramount canceled his $3 million contract and his unreleased films were scrapped, costing the studio over $1 million. Fatty's career was finished after he was banned from the movies by Will Hays and his Hollywood Production Code. Hays wanted to show that he meant business when it came to cleaning up the movies and decided to make Arbuckle an example. Strangely, Hays acted at the urging of Adolph Zukor and Paramount Pictures. Years later, it was also discovered that Zukor had made a mysterious payment to D.A. Matthew Brady on November 14, 1921. It was assumed to be a possible bribe to control the case's outcome – although not in Arbuckle's favor. Some have also theorized that Zukor, eager to regain control over Arbuckle, had masterminded the St. Francis Hotel party through Fred Fischbach (who mysteriously vanished for a time), but that the situation, which was simply to make Arbuckle look bad, got wildly out of control.
By Christmas, Hays had rescinded his ban on Arbuckle in Hollywood productions, but civic groups and the press remained opposed to his return to film. Because of this, the studios just couldn't afford to have his name connected to their pictures. Only a few friends, like Buster Keaton, remained by his side. In fact, it was Keaton who suggested that Arbuckle change his name to "Will B. Good." Actually, Arbuckle did adopt the name William Goodrich in later years and he was able to gain employment as a gag man and as a comedy director. Friends helped him as best they could, but the next few years were difficult ones. He tried stage and vaudeville work and opened a club and a hotel, which closed down during the Depression. He married and divorced a second time, and then found happiness with his third wife, actress Addie McPhail. In 1931, Roscoe appeared in a fan magazine article, begging to be allowed to return to the screen. Hal Roach offered him a contract, but pressure from several women's groups caused the deal to fall through.
After again turning to vaudeville, Arbuckle was given a contract by New York's Vitaphone Studios head, Sam Sax, to star in a 1932 film short. The "comeback" Vitaphone two-reeler was so successful that Sax gave Fatty a contract to make five more, in preparation for a feature film with Warner Brothers. Unfortunately, Arbuckle died on the night following the completion of his last Vitaphone short "Tomalio" on June 29, 1934.
Even in death, Fatty Arbuckle could not find peace. The slanderous stories about him still exist today and despite evidence presented to the contrary, he continues to be perceived as the "lustful rapist" portrayed in newspapers of the day.
At the Hollywood Forever Cemetery, a lonely stone marks the grave of Virginia Rappe and the site is said to be home to her ghost. Little explanation needs to be offered as to why Virginia's spirit might be a restless one. She lost not only her life over the course of the Labor Day Weekend of 1921, but she lost a promising career and her tattered reputation, as well. Was it a fate that she brought on herself? Perhaps, but the press was nearly as savage to the sickly and misguided young actress as it was to Fatty Arbuckle.
While most newspapers painted Virginia as an "innocent" victim of Arbuckle's lust-crazed advances, the Hearst newspapers were especially cruel to the actress and managed to turn the affair into a national scandal. While Heart's papers were always known for their yellow journalism and lurid headlines, the Arbuckle case received even more coverage than normal. As it happened, Heart's affair with a starlet named Marion Davies became big news at the same time that details began to emerge about Fatty Arbuckle and Virginia Rappe. Marion Davies' career began to suffer and rumor had it that Hearst gave the go-ahead to his papers to exploit every Hollywood scandal of the time, including Fatty's, to take the focus off of himself and Davies. This made the unlucky Virginia Rappe an easy target.
For this reason, it's not surprising to hear reports that her spirit still lingers behind. Visitors who come to Hollywood Forever Cemetery have reported hearing a ghostly voice that weeps and cries out near Virginia's simple grave. It is believed by many to be her ghost, still attached to this world, and still in anguish over her promising career, which was, like her life, cut short before it could really begin.
SPECIAL EVENT: AN EVENING WITH THE LEMP FAMILY 2
SPECIAL EVENT: AN EVENING WITH THE ST. LOUIS EXORCISM
SPECIAL EVENT: AN EVENING WITH THE LEMP FAMILY
AMERICAN HAUNTINGS TEAS
THE CURSE OF DUDLEYTOWN
"BLACK AGGIE"
WHO KILLED THE BLACK DAHLIA?
A SONG OF DANCE AND DEATH
SPECIAL EVENT: AN EVENING WITH THE AXMAN (2)
SPECIAL EVENT: AN EVENING WITH THE DEAD
SPECIAL EVENT: AN EVENING WITH THE BLACK DAHLIA
"I HEARD OF THAT SOMEWHERE"
SPECIAL EVENT: EVENING OF SEX AND THE SUPERNATURAL
SPECIAL EVENT: AN EVENING WITH LIZZIE BORDEN
THE POSSESSED: TRUE STORY OF THE WATSEKA WONDER
HAUNTED CARLINVILLE BOOK
JUJU PARANORMAL PURSUIT BOARDS
THE REAL GHOST HUNTERS SHIRT
SUFFER THE CHILDREN BY TROY TAYLOR
HAUNTED ST. LOUIS BOOKS
GHOSTS OF GETTYSBURG
MOTHMAN!
THE HAUNTED WHITE HOUSE
DEAD WOMEN DO TELL TALES
TESTIMONY FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE
"I HAD TO LEAVE MY LITTLE CHILD TO DIE"
THE STARVED ROCK MURDERS
GHOST OF THE PINK PALACE
MARY JANE REED
BILLIE HOLIDAY AND THE GLOOMY SUNDAY CURSE
"STRANGE LOVE"
WAVERLY HILLS SANATORIUM
THE MAD GASSER OF MATTOON
THE WINCHESTER MANSION
THE HAUNTED MUSEUM
A MAGICIAN AMONG THE SPIRITS
HARRY PRICE: ORIGINAL GHOST HUNTER
SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHY
MY 13 FAVORITE GHOST FILMS
THE "HEX HOUSE" MURDER
THE LAKE CLUB GHOST
THE STRANGE TALE OF THE "ITALIAN BRIDE"
"TAKEN BY GYPSIES"
MYRTLES PLANTATION" LEGENDS, LORE AND LIES
WHERE THE DEAD STILL LINGER: OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY
THE HOUSE ON RIDGE AVENUE
WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOUR HOUSE IS HAUNTED?
GHOST OF THE KANSAS CITY MASSACRE
MURDER ON SAXTOWN ROAD
AMERICA'S OTHER HAUNTED HOUSE
MOST HAUNTED PRISONS & JAILS
AMERICA'S MOST HAUNTED
American Hauntings Ink, 228 South Mauvaisterre Street, Jacksonville, IL, 62650, United States2177917859ghosts@americanhauntings.net


Jazz is always prominent when the Savannah Music Festival cranks up its eclectic assortment, with diehard jazz fans dropping anchor during Jazz Week, culminating in the epic Swing Central Finale concert at Lucas Theatre of the Arts. Three high-school big bands perform, finalists of the Swing Central workshops and competition, followed by a concert where the mentoring musicians strut their stuff. This year those mentors included Marcus Roberts, Ted Nash, Terell Stafford, Jason Marsalis and Marcus Printup.
Celebrating the centenaries of both Thelonious Monk and Dizzy Gillespie, Swing Central 2017 was particularly splendid.
The Charles H. Morris Center was the workhorse venue for jazz concerts. On successive nights, the festival treated us to pairings of organ and trumpet aces. Ike Stubblefield and Joey DeFrancesco presided over the rare sight of two vintage Hammond B-3 organs on the same stage. The next night, on the eve of the Swing Central Finale, Rodney Whitaker and MSU Professors of Jazz showcased the estimable Etienne Charles blowing his horn after Printup teamed up with a quintet of Youngbloods.
Armed with a media pass, I was able to negotiate a 6 p.m. classical piano recital on organ night, step out for dinner, and arrive at the Morris Center just before intermission so I could ease into empty seats when Joey DeFrancisco & The People took over the stage. I first heard how DeFrancesco swings in live performance shortly after his first Columbia recording, at the tender age of 17 in 1989, so I thought I knew what to expect. But Joey now piles an electronic keyboard atop his B-3 console, and he carries a trumpet with him.
Electronics bubbled up immediately in DeFrancesco's percolating intro to "So Near, So Far," nodding to both the straight-ahead and later electric periods of Miles Davis. That track remains fairly mellow on the new Project Freedom recording, but here Troy Roberts signaled on tenor sax that it was time to fasten our seatbelts as he finished playing the lead—DeFrancesco turning up the heat and Roberts keeping the flame high. Roberts is not your generic sideman, and both of his most recent recordings as a leader are well worth checking out. Dan Wilson was also a treat on guitar taking his choruses, never distorting his silky tone.
Joey and The People then reverted to the trad grooves usually heard at the Morris. "Bluz 'n' 3" suggested the funky flavoring Cannonball Adderley brought to hard bop— until Wilson's crystalline work conjured up Kenny Burrell. Roberts took us into turbulence with his solo, though there was a calm eye at its center. DeFrancesco seemed to relish the challenge of following in the wake of this bravura, prudently dialing back the intensity as he began. Reaching what seemed to be full throttle, Joey snuck in a sustained bass chord to play over, taking his two-fisted attack to an even greater sizzle. Jason Brown quieted things down at the start of his drum solo, ably shuttling from sticks to brushes amid the ebb and flow.
Compared to this eruption, the next two selections were relatively light. "Better Than Yesterday" added a "Parisian Thoroughfare" élan to the Project Freedom version, with more rim work from Brown at the kit, more intense crosstalk between Joey and Troy and more quirky rhythms all around. Then a DeFrancesco spot like none I'd seen live before: he sang "Around the World" in a surprisingly effective hipster style and, after the choruses by Wilson and Roberts, returned with a trumpet solo, muted for the first half and then open. More outré still, Joey D scatted his final vocal, trading fours with Troy.
Intro and outro on the righteous "Lift Every Voice and Sing" closely matched the studio recording, Wilson and Roberts splitting the opening chorus. But the sidemen added a little extra lift to the release into the solos and there was more real blowing in the middle. Enough funk was added to the live version of "Karma" for DeFrancesco to solicit audience hand claps behind his own solo and those by Wilson and Roberts.
Instead of a predictable finale, DeFrancesco surprised us by calling Stubblefield back onstage to join in on the second B-3. Two organ giants then paid tribute to a third as the ensemble dug into Jimmy Smith's "The Sermon." Things became joyous and jam-session loose when Stubblefield's drummer, Herlin Riley, slid into Brown's chair midway through the tune. Yet there was additional polish to the backup behind Ike, as Joey picked up his trumpet for a second time and formed a horn section with Roberts, playing harmonized riffs.
In his gig at the Morris the following afternoon, Stubblefield, equally comfortable in backup or take-charge modes, broke loose most memorably on Richard "Groove" Holmes's "Groove's Groove," a tune very much in the vein of "The Sermon" with perhaps a little more hop in its step. Guitarist Detroit Brooks worked the tune from a relaxed groove into such a lather that, for the only time in the entire set, he felt compelled to stand up while he played. Stubblefield also stirred the line upwards from a simmer, until he was howling at the skies before an abrupt halt, giving way to Riley.
Like Holmes and Jimmy Smith, Stubblefield has a winning way with pop tunes whose tempos might seem set in stone. Back in 2011 at Savannah, he put some extra jump in "Misty," as Holmes was fond of doing, but this time he took on Little Willie John's "Fever," which has resisted loudness, speed and even instrumentation since Peggy Lee waxed her chart-topping cover in 1959. After the organist grooved on it, Detroit showed there's plenty to be done with this line at a peppy pace.
For the trumpet summit, Morris Center was packed with an influx of Swing Central high schoolers on the eve of finals. Serving two sextets crammed with instruments you actually find teens playing (no B-3's here), the festival was definitely catering to its audience. Featuring arrangements with heads that always blended two or three horns, Marcus Printup & Youngbloods dished out music the young crowd could savor.
"Peace in the Abstract" kicked off jubilantly—Printup roaring into his opening solo as if this were the first time he was playing the tune—this time featuring entirely different bandmates than on the 2006 CD with that title, and with no holdovers from Printup's 2015 Young Bloods recording either. Young trombonist Corey Wilcox burned brightly in his follow-up, with alto saxophonist Mercedes Beckman dialing it back a little before rapidly ramping up. Pianist Michael King aimed unerringly for a change of pace, almost Monkish in his terseness. Henry Conerway III implacably picked up the intensity on drums underneath King's action, along with bassist Eric Wheeler, and the pianist's solo soon swelled to rhapsodic density.
"Soul Vamp" was another trip back to 2006, but Printup gave the catchy tune a choppier, more energetic arrangement and added some vocal call-and-response to the out-chorus. With Printup's own "The Bishop" and Dave Brubeck's "In Your Own Sweet Way," the leader finally plucked a couple of tracks from the Young Bloods disc. "The Bishop" showed off the whole group best, with Beckman blowing her finest solo and King unveiling a tasty Basie quality, again acting as a mellowing agent. Yet King was most distinctive, pointedly not Brubeck, in his freaky solo on the latter.
"The New Boogaloo" became something of a family heirloom as Wilcox had one last chance to shine. Wilcox's father, Wycliffe Gordon, was the trombone sideman on the 2002 CD named for this Printup composition. Hidden in plain view for the last two years among the Swing Central mentors, Wilcox announced he was a force to contend with at the 2016 late-night jam, dueling with his dad and other greats, and he reaffirmed it here.
Printup and Beckham revisited the 2002 arrangement, soloing over a shuffle pattern laid down by Conerway until he provided a stop-time break for them to blow on. It was Wilcox—with King's spikier accompaniment— who actually cooked up something new for "New Boogaloo." After the horns, King took a modest but tasty solo, revving up his momentum with the first stop-time break and yielding gracefully on the second to Wheeler. The bassist grooved so compellingly that the audience joined in clapping out the beat.
I loved how bassist Rodney Whitaker and his drummer, Dana Hall, casually took the stage for the MSU (Michigan State) Professors set, jamming quietly together as if they were doing a soundcheck. Before we knew it, trumpeter Charles and tenor saxophonist Diego Rivera were in place, looping into "In Walked Bud." Twenty-four hours ahead of schedule, the Monk celebration had begun with an all-Thelonious song list.
Unlike most of the Monk selections announced for the following evening, none of these were rarities. Randy Napoleon broke out on guitar with the first solo, pianist Bruce Barth demonstrated that "Bud" could turn in a barrelhouse direction, and Hall returned with a series of explosions from the drum set before the horns took the out-chorus.
Charles was the most powerful of the frontliners, but he held fire until the ensuing "Monk's Dream." Rivera charged hard in his solo, yet Charles' had more arc and build, ending with an elegant handover to Napoleon. Solos by Whitaker and Hall established a consistent mold, regularly marking each measure—until Hall broke that mold, mixing things up and splattering them like a textbook Max Roach fireworks display.
You couldn't ignore Charles on the final three tunes, each of his stints halved in a different fashion. Quieting things down after a Rivera roar on "Evidence," Charles meandered softly for a while before abruptly turning up the burners. On "Ask Me Now," he took two pieces of the opening chorus, one muted after Rivera kicked things off and another wide open after Barth handled the bridge. Not only did Charles play quite tenderly in his solo, but Rivera also proved to have an affecting soft side to complement his hard-charging mode, underscored later in a mellow coda.
Both sides of Charles in the "Blue Monk" chaser were irresistibly ebullient. The trumpet master started off with a plunger, expostulating the line in tandem with Rivera. Napoleon delivered his most fiery work of the set, and Rivera reverted to his leonine mode before Charles cooled down, fanning the low flame with his mute. The plunger work became progressively louder and more playful until the time was ripe for Charles to discard the rubber and go all-exclamatory in Dizzy Gillespie style.
The Monk-Diz centennial celebration lifted the evening even higher. Music directors Marcus Roberts and Ted Nash split emceeing chores while their set list took a singular approach to each of the honorees. Long acknowledged as a bandleader, showman and innovative instrumentalist, Gillespie hasn't gotten nearly as much recognition as a composer. A greatest hits compendium can correct that oversight in a hurry.
On the other hand, albums by younger artists devoted completely to Monk's works are easy to find. It makes sense, then, to reprise Monk pieces we hear too rarely or to unearth new gems. While shuttling between familiar and unfamiliar tunes, the audience was zigzagged between big band charts and tight combo presentations, always with plenty of space for band members to blow.
Signaling that this would all be fun, the band launched into Diz's "Oop Bop Sh' Bam," a pretty grand display of the composer's exuberance and the musicians' firepower. Initially, pianist Bill Peterson, bassist Whitaker and drummer Bryan Carter were the rhythm section. When the setting shifted to small combo mode for Gillespie's "Groovin' High," the Marcus Roberts Trio took over the rhythm, Rodney Jordan on bass and Marsalis on drums, while David L. Harris on trombone, Ricardo Pascal on tenor and Terell Stafford on trumpet stepped forward to form an impromptu horn section. With the flare and assurance of his solo, Stafford gave us our first indication that he would be the designated torchbearer for Diz.
Nash returned, alto in hand, with trumpeter Alphonso Horne and the Peterson rhythm for "Con Alma." From this third iconic Gillespie title, the big band format returned as the Roberts Trio took its first turn with the full ensemble on "Blues Five Spot." While it isn't Monk's most familiar work, "Five Spot" is obviously a Roberts fave, for he has now played it three years in a row in Savannah. The piece certainly distills Monk's essence and lent itself to a nice round of blowing, with Roberts, Stafford and trombonist Ron Westray standing out.
Both of the bassists played on Monk's "Light Blue" and Marsalis was deployed to vibes for "Ugly Beauty," a pretty ballad that served nicely to clear the way for a rousing finish. That one-two-three punch began with "Two Bass Hit," Gillespie's collaboration with John Lewis, with Printup and his plunger mute making a punchy cameo.
Monk's "We See," and "A Night in Tunisia," Diz's most famous piece, closed things out. "Tunisia" was particularly potent on this night. One by one, the solos poured forth from the band members, an effervescent anthology of bebop. And after all the glorious blowing, after the whole band had repeated the anthemic theme, Stafford launched into a lonely cadenza, working it until he ended on a long, jubilant high note that could make a grown man weep.
It was emblematic of all that jazz can say and do.


Pics-Connections look easy and simple to comprehend. Component arrangement looks cool and nice. The design of circuits and cords is well maintained with electrical wiring. With a nice composition all can be linked to these devices.


Rubber Plantation for sale at Kongad,Palakkad.
30 Acres of well planted rubber, near highway for sale at Kongad,Palakkad.
10 Acre Rubber Estate with Double storied house for sale at Kallur Junction, Palakkad.
10 Acres of rubber plantation with 2000 sqft Double storied house for sale at Kallur Junction,Ottappalam road, Palakkad.
25 Acres of land for sale at Mannarkkad,Palakkad.
30 Acres of land for sale at Mannarkkad,Palakkad.
50 Acres of land for sale at Mannarkkad,Palakkad.
40 Acres of Land for sale at Mannarkkad,Palakkad.
20 Acres of Plain land for sale at Mannarkkad,Palakkad.
29 Acres of Plain land for sale at Mannarkkad,Palakkad.


text:
HS-FOOTBALL
Little Rock McClellan honor memory of football program in wake of school closing
In their final year of high school football, the Little Rock McClellan Crimson Lions look to honor the program's history and tradition.
Author: Dorian Craft, THV11 Digital
Updated: 10:59 PM CDT September 24, 2019
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — If a football field has memories, what do they look like? Does it remember the wins and losses? The struggle and the sacrifice?
Little Rock McClellan head football coach, Maurice Moody, hopes it does.
"We talk about it from time to time," he said. "We're playing for something more than just us."
Moody has spent seven seasons rebuilding the Crimson Lions at Little Rock McClellan, building a specific brand of football that proceeds the program throughout the state.
"Everybody knows when they play McClellan, it's going to be physical," said Moody. "We're coming downhill at you. Fly around on defense. And we're going to play extremely hard."
Four of his last seven seasons have seen the success that rivals the McClellan teams of the early 1990s. Three 10-win seasons, two state championship game appearances. 38 total wins.
The revival of the program is something that former linebacker Tavaris Patrick, now a resource officer with the Little Rock School District, is proud to see.
"One thing I actually told Coach Moody," said Patrick, "is if he started winning, they'll come. We'll get the players we need to continue to win. Especially if he can get the kids to buy into it." He added, "he did and they have. It's been awesome."
But after the 2019 season, the Crimson Lions will be just a memory. The high school is being re-purposed and its students moved to the new Southwest Little Rock High School along with those students from J.A. Fair.
"It's been difficult to swallow," said Moody, who said he is unsure of his job status at the end of the year. "To find out that McClellan would be closing down and we'd be combining with Fair, it was kind of tough."
But there is hope there too. "It was kind of bittersweet," he said. "Sweet in the fact that these kids deserve a new school, they deserve to play on a turf field. And they're going to get an opportunity to do away with the stigma that surrounds McClellan."
The Crimson Lions want to win this year more than ever. For themselves. For their school. And for all the others that came before them.
"We said last year that we were going to dedicate this football season to every football player that's ever laced it up for McClellan," Moody said. "We just hope that at the end of the day, that our hands are raised as number one instead of number two."
Patrick played on the team that made it to the state championship game in 1994. He would love to see the Crimson Lions return there one more time.
"It would be a great way to honor us," he said. "But if they can go out there and give it their all, leave it all on the field, that's the best way to honor the '94 team. Because we gave it our all. In practice and in games. We fought for each other on the field."
MORE TACKLING TRADITIONS:
What 115 years of high school football in one small Arkansas town means
Tackling Traditions: Jacksonville Titans. Like father, like son.
What is the North Little Rock spirit truck and who runs it? | Tackling Traditions


Having team members with corporate backgrounds really helps us understand just how important it is to ensure your event and food reflects and aligns with your company mission and vision.
From on-locations setup to black tie fundraisers, entertaining diplomats and holiday staff parties, we will work with you to ensure your event has just the right balance of professionalism and fun.
© 2017 Taylo.PR. Rights Reserved.


text:
Q: SQL pull values from "last month" when dates have already been declared i'm using oracle 11 and i need to display the "orders" from last month, where the date of each order has already been set.
tables are:
name: Store order
OrderNo  OrderDate
-------  ----------
ST1      03-MAY-12
ST2      03-APR-13
ST3      15-APR-13

so ideally, what it should return is both ST2 and ST3, as they're both april 2013 however now we're 3 days into june and there's no values entered for may 2013. so let's just ignore that.
how would i write a code that would get the "last month" from the user-inputted dates?

A: using @Grisha's answer
select *
from orders
where to_char(OrderDate,'MM') = to_char(add_months(sysdate,-1),'MM')

A: This should be able to use indexes well since it does no per row calculations on the rows in orders;
WITH cte AS ( SELECT MAX(OrderDate) orderdate FROM orders )
SELECT * FROM orders o, cte
WHERE o.OrderDate >= TRUNC(cte.orderdate,'MM')
  AND o.OrderDate < LAST_DAY(cte.orderdate)+1

An SQLfiddle to test with

A: This allows you to use indexes on orderdate.
select *
from   orders
where  orderdate >= add_months(trunc(sysdate,'MM')-1) and
       orderdate <  trunc(sysdate,'MM')

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Menu California Agriculture
Share Print Site Map Give
Share Print Site Map
University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources
California Agriculture
IPM: Monitoring tomato fruitworm eggs in processing tomatoes
California Agriculture > Volume 44 > Number 5 > research article
< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >
Frank G. Zalom , Statewide IPM Project, UC Davis
Craig V. Weakley, Sun Tomo Group
Michael P. Hoffmann, Cornell University
L. T. Wilson, Texas ABM University
James I. Grieshop, Community Education Specialist, UC Davis
Gene Miyao, California Tomato Research Institute.
California Agriculture 44(5):12-15.
PDF | Citation | Permissions
Author Affiliations show
Frank G. Zalom is Extension Entomologist and Director, Statewide IPM Project, UC Davis; Craig V. Weakley was Area IPM Advisor, Cooperative Extension, Sutter-Yuba counties, and is Director of IPM, Sun Tomo Group; Michael P. Hoffmann was Staff Research Associate at Davis, and is Assistant Professor of Entomology, Cornell University; L. T. Wilson is Professor and Entomologist at UC Davis, presently on leave, and Professor of Entomology, Texas ABM University; James I. Grieshop is Lecturer in Applied Behavioral Sciences and Community Education Specialist, UC Davis; Gene Miyao was Farm Advisor, Cooperative Extension, Yolo County, and is Research Director, California Tomato Research Institute.
Research on egg distribution and treatment levels for the tomato fruitworm led to a set of monitoring guidelines, which were demonstrated in parts of the Sacramento Valley. Evaluation of this program documents grower adoption and an impact on insecticide use.
Tomato fruitworm (Heliothis zea) larvae attack the fruit of tomatoes and several other California crops, and can render them unmarketable.
The tomato fruitworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie), is among a group of Lepidoptera insects associated with processing tomato production in California. Heliothis zea is the most destructive insect pest in the Sacramento Valley. Historically, it has been the target of most of the insecticides applied to the crop. Growers who took no action to control the pest when it was present in large numbers risked exceeding state standards for damage, or more strict standards imposed by processors. Before this study, some Pest Control Advisers (PCAs) attempted to quantify their field monitoring by using damage estimates from randomly collected fruit. Less commonly, they shook plants over sheets to catch the larvae. Pesticide treatment was considered necessary when the damaged fruit in random fruit counts exceeded 0.25%.
A series of studies was begun in 1981 to develop an easy-to-use monitoring program with research-based damage thresholds. The 8-year process, which involved multiple actors, illustrates a valuable model for development, adoption, education, and evaluation to ensure the use of important agricultural innovations.
Initial research
In 1981, 36 small research plots were established in each of three growers' fields to compare four potential sampling methods. Two plants per plot were removed each week, and the number and location of all fruit, damaged fruit, fruitworm eggs, and larvae were recorded. This study revealed large differences in the average times required to perform each method and in their relative efficiencies. For example, picking 500 fruit from consecutive plants in a row and recording the number of fruit damaged took a worker 80 minutes. Shaking 20 plants onto sheets placed under each plant and counting the dislodged larvae took 80 minutes. Selecting 100 fruit at random and recording the number of damaged fruit took 15 minutes. Picking 30 leaves and counting tomato fruitworm eggs took 8 minutes.
One limitation of the fruit sampling methods is that damage occurs before a treatment decision can be made. Through egg sampling, you can predict damage before the larvae feed upon the fruit. Egg distribution data obtained in 1981 revealed that tomato fruitworm eggs, as well as those of beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua), cabbage looper (Trichoplusia ni) and hornworms (Manduca spp.), were most frequently laid on leaves that are near flower clusters.
Further egg sampling was conducted in five commercial fields in 1983. Once a week in each field, the leaf below each flower cluster on 12 to 18 plants was selected and the spatial locations of leaves with Lepidoptera eggs were recorded. Eggs of each species were summed over the season by vertical leaf location on the plant, and the percentage of total eggs was determined for each leaf location. Means were separated by Duncan's multiple range test following arcsin transformation.
Results indicated that tomato fruitworm eggs were most frequently found on the leaf below the highest or second highest flower cluster on the plant (table 1). A monitoring plan based upon this knowledge requires fewer samples, since it increases the likelihood of finding eggs. Cabbage looper eggs are similar in color and size to those of tomato fruitworm, but have a somewhat different spatial distribution, with proportionally fewer eggs located on leaves below the higher flower clusters.
Damage potential was estimated by artificially infesting tomato plants every week, beginning after first bloom. In 1982 and 1983, infestation treatments consisted of three levels of first-instar larvae (one, three, and seven per plant) or third-instar larvae (one, three, and five per plant), respectively. A fourth, uninfested treatment served as a control for damage caused by native tomato fruitworms.
Each treatment was replicated six times in 1982 and eight times in 1983. Plots were 0.66 and 2.00 meters long and contained 12 and 20 plants in 1982 and 1983, respectively. All plots were separated by 0.66- to 1.00-meter buffer zones. Plots representing each infestation level were established in a completely randomized block design. Plots infested on different weeks were randomized across field rows.
At weekly intervals for 4 weeks after infestation in 1982 and 2 weeks after infestation in 1983, half of the replicates of each infestation level were thoroughly-examined, and the numbers of larvae and damaged fruit were recorded by age class to provide an indication of the amount of damage observed during the season. The rest of the replicates were left undisturbed. At harvest, the remaining plants were cut off at the base and fruits were shaken onto a drop cloth.
Collectively, project workers (above) spent thousands of hours in this field over the course of the growing season, thoroughly checking tomato plants for fruitworm eggs and larvae. Their observations led to a simplified monitoring program: growers need only check for fruitworm eggs on the first leaves growing beneath the top-most flower cluster on the tomato plant.
Damage recorded at harvest from the undisturbed plots tended to increase as the infestation date approached the harvest date (fig. 1). Before the initiation of pink fruit, the observed damage levels were far in excess of what was recorded in the harvest samples. This, combined with the positive seasonal increase in damage 5 weeks before harvest, indicates that fruit damaged earlier in the season would probably be shed by the plant and so would not be present at harvest, when fruit is inspected. Ultimately, treatment thresholds were selected so that most fields would be graded no higher than "trace" damage (less than 0.5%) by state graders.
By 1984, the program was ready for implementation on a pilot basis. Our 1984 guidelines for tomato fruitworm egg monitoring consisted of randomly sampling the leaf below the highest flower cluster on 30 plants per field or field unit (about 40 acres). Sampling was to be conducted at least once per week, beginning when fruit were 1 or more inches in diameter. If the number of eggs exceeded three per 30 leaves, an additional 30 leaves were sampled. Treatment was indicated when four or more eggs were found in the second 30-leaf sample.
Although research on egg sampling and limited validation of the monitoring program were conducted on growers' fields from 1981 through 1983, and results presented at meetings for growers, the first intensive demonstration effort was begun in 1984. The demonstration effort targeted growers and their PCAs in Yolo, Sutter, and Colusa counties. The growers or PCAs were asked to monitor one or two fields. In return, they received training, technical support, and a small stipend, principally for the extra labor involved in recordkeeping.
TABLE 1. Percentage of total eggs in each of five processing tomato fields found on the leaf below the highest, second highest, or lowest flower clusters
Fig. 1. Mean percentage damage, measured during the 1982 season and at harvest on previously unsampled plots, resulting from weekly infestations of seven first-instar tomato fruitworm larvae per plant.
Fig. 2. Comparison of percentage red fruit damaged at harvest, recorded in bulk bins following mechanical harvest and from state graders in 1983 and 1984.
Fig. 3. Number of treatments per processing tomato acre during the period 1980 through 1987 in Sutter, Yolo, and Colusa counties, and in Solano and Sacramento counties. Data are for six pesticides frequently used for control of tomato fruitworm.
Forty-seven fields were monitored as part of the demonstration project, and pesticides were applied as indicated if the number of eggs sampled exceeded the action threshold. Of 1,714 loads delivered to canners from these fields, 1,289 had no damage, 374 were graded as trace damage, and 51 were graded at 0.5% damage. No loads exceeded 0.5% damage. Comparative pesticide use on 35 fields not using the tomato fruitworm egg monitoring program was 12% higher on mid-season fields, and 40% higher on late-season fields. Furthermore, damage was somewhat higher in these fields.
An extensive economic evaluation by UC Davis Agricultural Economists John Antle and Seong Park was conducted along with the 1984 demonstration (see California Agriculture, March-April, 1986). Results of that study, which compared program fields to nonprogram fields, indicated that use of the monitoring program significantly reduced the risk of damage and had a net positive benefit of $7.10 per acre or more depending on the grower's degree of risk aversion.
As part of the 1983 validation efforts and the 1984 demonstration program, researchers assessed tomato fruitworm damage at harvest in many of the monitored fields (8 fields in 1983 and 23 fields in 1984). Three estimates of damage were obtained: (1) 500 fruit taken from 15 consecutive plants in a row being harvested were evaluated for tomato fruitworm damage; (2) once the mechanical harvester had finished picking the row, 500 fruit were randomly selected from the bulk bin and evaluated for damage; and (3) state grade sheets were obtained for the loads.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between fruit damage recorded by hand harvest in the field, from the bins following mechanical harvest, and on the state inspection grade sheets. Field estimates of damage tend to overestimate actual damage in bulk bins and the evaluation of graders. Most damaged fruit probably do not survive the harvesting and transport processes intact. Additionally, some are removed by hand sorters on the harvester. Because our egg-treatment guidelines are based upon estimates of damage in the field, our guidelines are undoubtedly conservative.
Despite its positive attributes, researchers found that the monitoring program was not always adopted. They designed a study to investigate the process and rate of adoption, and possible constraints to adoption.
The study was conducted over 3 months in 1986 in Yolo and Sutter counties and in parts of Colusa and extreme northern Solano counties. Researchers interviewed representatives of 84 of the 100 farming enterprises that grew processing tomatoes in the area. The interview design was pre-tested with four growers who had participated in the original tomato IPM program, but who lived outside the interview area. Growers interviewed were either the owners, working relatives of the owners, or managers of the enterprises.
The question, "Have you heard of Integrated Pest Management or IPM?" was answered "yes" by 70%, "no" by 23%, and "not sure" by 7% of the growers. Eighty-one percent indicated they had heard of the "UC Worm Sampling Method."
Of the 82 growers who could be classified as adopters or nonadopters (2 could not be categorized), 26% had fully adopted the method and 31% had adopted the program in theory but had modified it for their use. Of the remaining growers who had not adopted the monitoring program, 31% were considering adoption, 6% had rejected the program, and 6% had no intention of using IPM methods.
The most frequent reasons given for adopting the monitoring program were the possibility of financial gain (63%) and the possibility of reducing damage (52%). Of all background and demographic questions related to type of enterprise, farm size, educational level, and computer ownership, significant differences based on t tests were found between adopters and nonadopters only in terms of land ownership (P <0.03), with owners more likely to adopt than nonowners, and a grower's IPM use for other crops (P <0.001).
Pesticide use reports for 1980 through 1987 (the most recent date individual county data were available at the time of writing) in Colusa, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, and Yolo counties were obtained for the seven pesticides commonly applied to control tomato fruitworm during this period. Six of the materialsNdashmethomyl, methamidophos, azinphosmethyl, carbaryl, fenvalerate, and methyl parathionNdashare restricted, or are typically applied by commercial applicators. Therefore, their reporting should be accurate. However, the other material, Bacillus thuringiensis, is neither restricted nor typically applied by commercial applicators.
Some of the materials are often applied for other pests as well, a factor that would tend to result in an overestimate of actual use for tomato fruitworm. For example, carbaryl is often applied for seedling pests like flea beetles, and methamidophos and methyl parathion are often applied for stinkbugs. For these materials, we assume that treatment for other pests was constant during this period. Figure 3 indicates that the use of these materials, as indicated by the number of treatments per acre, declined significantly during the period in Sutter, Yolo, and Colusa counties, where the extensive implementation program was conducted, whereas little change was observed in neighboring Solano and Sacramento counties, where implementation was not actively pursued.
An additional benefit of egg sampling has been the observation that several naturally occurring Trichogramma wasp species, which are egg parasites of the tomato fruitworm, are very important in the Sacramento Valley. Eggs parasitized by these tiny wasps turn black and can easily be identified. Parasitism by Trichogramma spp. reached 80% or more in mid-August and September (see California Agriculture, January-February, 1990). Demonstration efforts are now being conducted to incorporate the occurrence of these parasites into treatment guidelines. This could result in further reductions in pesticide use for tomato fruitworm.
Development and diffusion of the egg-monitoring program represents the combined efforts of both campus- and county-based research and extension staff, and included both agricultural and social scientists. We believe that this approach provides a model for the process of development, adaptation, evaluation, and education, which is essential in bringing any agricultural innovation into use. This is especially true of this IPM strategy, which substituted information for a routine agronomic practice, preventative pesticide treatment.
Mike Murray, UC Farm Advisor, provided much guidance in the parts of this study conducted in Colusa County. Many growers and Pest Control Advisers participated in this study, and we are grateful for their assistance and support. This study was sponsored by the Statm.de IPM Project.
Zalom F, Weakley C, Hoffmann M, Wilson L, Grieshop J, Miyao G. 1990. IPM: Monitoring tomato fruitworm eggs in processing tomatoes. Calif Agr 44(5):12-15.
Download citation as .RIS
Frank G. Zalom, Craig V. Weakley, Michael P. Hoffmann, L. T. Wilson, James I. Grieshop, Gene Miyao
Site Information Get PDF Reader
sbnum=9680 | pagenum=52363
© 2023 Regents of the University of California Nondiscrimination Statement Accessibility
Webmaster Email: sjosterman@ucanr.edu
University of California, 2801 Second Street, Room 184, Davis, CA, 95618
Email: calag@ucanr.edu | Phone: (530) 750-1223 | Fax: (510) 665-3427
Website: https://calag.ucanr.edu


Is the air too dry inside your home? Do you constantly have a dry throat or dry cough in the mornings? If so, it might be time to consider investing in a humidifier. See if the Honeywell HE100A1000 Humidifier is right for you!
The Honeywell HE100A1000 humidifier uses water and air through the unit whenever humidity is needed. This allows for less water to be used and less energy to be consumed. This unit utilizes a newly patented design by TrueEASE, which has multiple snap-into-place configuration options. This allows for a flawless fit regardless of how compact the installation space is.


Partner with us as a sponsor, vendor or exhibitor! The Pistahan is a two-day celebration of Filipino arts, dance, music, culture and cuisine, attracting over 75,000 guests from the San Francisco Bay area and beyond. It's FREE to the public and is conveniently located in the heart of downtown San Francisco.
Let us help you connect with the Filipino American community and tap into one of the most sought-after consumer groups.
Limited booth spaces available. First come, first served. We are particularly interested in artists and exhibitors who sell Philippine-made and Philippine-inspired merchandise. Fill out the Pistahan Participation form.
For sponsorship opportunities, contact Al Perez by sending us a message.


LAHORE: Pakistan Peoples Social gathering (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari will meet former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on the Kot Lakhpat Jail right this moment (Monday).
Bilawal will meet Nawaz round 2-3pm to inquire about his well being, PPP sources mentioned. Senior celebration leaders, together with Qamar Zaman Kaira, Mustafa Khokhar, Hassan Murtaza and Jameel Soomro will accompany Bilawal throughout his go to, the sources added.
PPP chief Kaira had submitted a request to the Punjab house division on behalf of Bilawal to satisfy the incarcerated former premier on Saturday.
Within the request, the PPP chairman sought permission to satisfy Nawaz in jail to inquire about his well being. "It could be appreciated should you might kindly handle this go to for right this moment," it learn.
Prime Minister Imran Khan on Saturday requested Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar to make sure that each well being facility within the nation is made out there for Nawaz to get the remedy of his alternative.
Nawaz has been imprisoned at Kot Lakhpat jail since December 2018 following his conviction in a corruption reference according to the Supreme Court docket's July 2017 verdict.


The J&K CM said that the vital sectors of the state's economy, especially tourism, were the worst hit.
Hoping that separatists and the Hurriyat Conference will understand the importance of resolving issues through dialogue, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad has said the government was willing to talk to any person who shuns violence.
Dialogue is the only route to solve all complex problems and separatists and other groups are expected to participate in future talks, Azad told reporters at Bhaderwah in Doda district on Sunday.
He said that due to terrorism, the state has heavily suffered on all fronts and the vital sectors of our economy, especially tourism was the worst hit.
Thousands of innocents lost their lives and more than a lakh were rendered orphans and widows besides infrastructure worth hundreds of crores of rupees being razed to the ground, he said.
Azad said that he has already issued strict instructions to the security forces for avoiding any collateral loss to property or life while combating terrorism but at the same time he emphasised that human rights violations being resorted to by terrorists are to be condemned by one and all, so that no innocent is killed or harmed by the terrorists in the state.
About the five working groups announced by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the second round-table conference at Srinagar, Azad said that three of them have already met and the remaining two groups will also be meeting very soon.
"After completion of the first round of meetings at Srinagar, these groups would hold the second round at Jammu and the third at New Delhi," he said.