# Pricing, Unions, and Other Related Topics



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

What are your thoughts on price fixing frogs in the hobby?


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

Hi Zac,

The only effort I have seen moving toward this has been RF's Dart Frog Union. I guess the idea is that we put a lot of time and effort into producing quality frogs and we shouldn't be undercut by the "unscrupulous" (I'm not sure who they are or how to define them exactly).

I take a very different view personally. I believe in producing larger quantities of the more "common" frogs that beginners might be interested in and providing those frogs at a very good price (usually be wholesaling the frogs through larger retailers). As some here might be aware, I think wild-collecting of frogs is a very cruel business. By offering captive-bred frogs at reaonable prices, I think we can make a real difference in the wc market, which (while the frogs are cheaper) has the very serious downside of bringing potential catastrophic diseases into our collections.

Take care, Richard.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I think that dropping prices is one of the biggest problems w/ genetics and bottlenecks that we'll have to overcome for long term survival. I think that, if the quality and fun hobby end are ever going to both continue in the hobby there should be 2 classes of frogs.

1 that tries to keep as close filial generation to the top as possible and has a tracking system for they're line 
and one that breeds frogs strictly to sell to pet shops and wholesalers where they should stay and not become breeders except for the outlets which probably won't give you info or even worse incorrect info(morph names, lineage, etc.).
This way the people who are hobbyists business' and just want to crank out frogs for a buck and don't care about lineage, etc. can take a nip out of the people who just want to have pets and maybe breed but don't really care about the hobby (and won't be here in a couple years) will have a place and the people who are serious about helping the hobby along could also feel they aren't getting tread on by people who really don't care about anything and just want to have fun and make money. Phewww, huh ha huh ha huh ha(out of breath)

Obviously, the breeders closer to the original import's frogs should be worth more and the people who are going to breed them to make money shouldn't feel bad about paying more.

Can you think of another way to solve the problem of bottlenecked genes or do you not see it as a problem, that is don't care if the hobby becomes sustainable?

The local store that I sold a bunch of wholesale azureus to kept them to breed and isn't selling them. Just shows you that he'll try and sell them cheaper and won't have lineage and probably won't have as healthy froglets, let alone they'll be a generation inbred. If we go to the Buffalo reptile show and he sells them $5 ea cheaper than me and someone who buys from him breeds them and sells at the next years show we'll have gone down 2 inbred generations in 2 years and I'll probably stop breeding them if the next kid sells them $10 cheaper at the next show.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

yes, we all need to spend alot of money at the big breeders or this hobby is surly doomed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Considering some of the "big breeders" still have the original genetics that everyone else is now inbreeding(or has been to f?), maybe yes?
Unless, of course, you have no problem w/ buying inbred frogs.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*

has anyone considered using a two tier system similar to what is done with AKC show dogs. That way people who want to pay more for "pure bred, lineage assured animals" can do so and the rest can purchase lower cost animals even if they don't have all "the right papers"


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

People who get generic frogs soon or later end up here or another forum where they are educated about the bottlenecks etc.. 

The main place bottlenecks occur are here with people who are established in the hobby as soon as frogs get "too common" and the price drops (usually below $15 a frog to other hobbyists) below the threshold or some hot new frogs come into the country at a reasonable cost... (look at the massive pumilio imports). 

As I've said elsewhere it is a classic supply and demand scenario. If people want to stabilize the price in the hobby then the surplus has to go somewhere.. sell it to some reputable jobbers who will spread them across the country thus reducing the glut in the hobby. Or you are going to have to have an agreement amoung a lot of people that they are not going to raise frogs so they can try and manipulate demand.. but that is risky as this is at risk from new imports or those not part of the group.... 

With the exception of a few species that are in the hands of very few breeders.. any attempt at price fixing is going to be doomed to failure in the long run.. Someone else is going to breed the frogs so holding onto the frogs to try and get your price is going to be difficult in the long run (keep in mind.. every day those frogs sit there they cost money in terms of electricity, time for care etc...).. 

In the broadest sense people care about the type of frog and maybe line.. so what is to stop someone who is not part of the price fixing group from being able to sell at will? They would have a greater cliental as they could sell without having to worry about staying with the group price... 

On a different note.. any group that tries to price fix usually has one fatal flaw.. what happens when people aren't selling at the agreed upon price.. who gets to decide to lower it and by how much?? Or are the breeders expected to sit and hold onto the frogs forever? 

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

*Re: Price fixing*

I haven't developed a full opinion on price fixing frogs.

However, my half opinion is that in some cases it should be done. I'm thinking specifically of cases where a new frog is imported by someone who is doing conservation and hobby work by doing breeding projects to provide a sustainable import of new species. I'm thinking _more_ specifically of benedicta (it's the first example to come to mind) and how there was a huge outcry by some folks when a few people said that they would try to support Mark by keeping their prices more or less in line with his. Compare this to the Veradero imitator that was imported to Mark and how in nine months hobbyists undercut Mark by almost half of what he was originally charging. I think that at _least_ in these situations it benefits the hobby to have a loose form of price fixing so we're not undercutting other people's hard work and so we're supporting those who have the best chance of bringing (sustainably) in new species.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

In my opinion things have a price, and then they have a realistic price that people will pay. There is no need to gouge people on price, by the same token people should not always expect to beat up a seller on price, it works both ways.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Jake, 

Your example sort of fits the "two tier" example mentioned earlier.

I've been out of frogs for approximately six months (it's been driving me nuts). I received my tanks (TODAY!) and I'll be receiving frogs from Mark on March 1st.

I could have gotten frogs more cheaply elsewhere (ok, some of them at least ... ) - but I chose to do two things that are important to me: 1) Get frogs with known locality data - no mystery frogs here and ... 2) Support someone/something that I feel *good* about. I'll pay a premium to help with UE's effort to protect more land in more localities.

Regarding #2 - I've got a little of bit of money to recoup (the investment getting back in to the hobby ... ) - but if I am lucky enough to reach that goal, I do believe I will be following the example of a few others here (I'm looking at you Mr. Heath, among others) and sending a portion of each sale to UE to help further their efforts.

I don't need a Union to tell me what's a fair price. I'm an intelligent human being who knows the different between the different frogs available in the hobby. I'm *choosing* the premium frogs - I'd be much less likely to make that choice if someone was trying to force it on me.

s


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

*Re: Price fixing*

Scott,

I applaud people like you, and acknowledge that people like you do exist. But I know a _lot_ more people that don't share our sentiment. In that case it's not so much that I want to force people to go buy at UE, nor do I want to force people to pay a load of money for a particular frog. I _do_, however, want to dissuade those people who are not like you from buying frogs just because they're cheaper. If you want to buy from me because I have a good reputation, I produce healthy frogs, I have excellent customer service, I have frogs available when you want them (instead of having to wait for the next UE shipment to come in, or wait for your name on the waiting list) whatever... then great! Purchase your frogs from me. Otherwise, you should purchase from someone else, not because they have lower prices, but because they provide something you're not getting elsewhere.

I just think that by lowering prices on new frogs too quickly siphons a lot of business that could be going to organizations that are better than my own "Poor Future-Grad-Student Frog Breeder Fund" (not that I don't want contributions to said fund, I just want them for the right reasons).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Hi Jake



SmackoftheGods said:


> Scott,
> 
> I _do_, however, want to dissuade those people who are not like you from buying frogs just because they're cheaper.
> If you want to buy from me because I have a good reputation, I produce healthy frogs, I have excellent customer service, I have frogs available when you want them (instead of having to wait for the next UE shipment to come in, or wait for your name on the waiting list) whatever... then great! Purchase your frogs from me. Otherwise, you should purchase from someone else, not because they have lower prices, but because they provide something you're not getting elsewhere.


I am absolutely not saying you are an example of this.. you are simply providing a reference for a talking point. 

What this is really talking about is creating a brand.. And that people are willing to pay the extra cost for the brand... Sometimes this is true and sometimes it isn't... (as anyone who goes compares products via consumer reports testing and thier best buys is an example..)... 

The AKC is a brand.. and thier brand claim is that they can demonstrate that the dogs are pure bred.. is pure bred the same as a healthy dog? No.. as can be seen by dogs with AKC registration produced by puppy mills or produced with genetic defects... And the AKC does paper dogs with known genetic defects both as carriers and phenotypically evident. 



SmackoftheGods said:


> I just think that by lowering prices on new frogs too quickly siphons a lot of business that could be going to organizations that are better than my own "Poor Future-Grad-Student Frog Breeder Fund" (not that I don't want contributions to said fund, I just want them for the right reasons).


Again this is a brand example... people are often willing to spend money for objects that support conservation issues.. in those cases it helps if there is an indication of what percent goes to the conservation issues. I have not problems with UE getting top dollar.... Does that mean I should be able to get the same price as UE?.. Even if I'm selling the exact same species, am I offering the same product?.. Do I have the costs and outlays?.. 

As with any other marketing project.. what is the customer base? If the customer base is small then sooner or later the customer base is going to saturate (law of supply and demand) and surpluses have to go somewhere or prices drop etc.. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

Any attempt at price fixing should go specifically towards species which are critically endangered and will be going into experienced hands. Generally, folks wanting a pet will go for species whose price is more variable, and the market will always favor fluctuation. The only prices that stay relative static in a retail market are things which are indispensable, cheap to produce and easy to sell---e.g., toothpaste and diapers. 
Luxury items such as custom motorcycles, high-end golf-club sets, are generally subject to exhorbitant prices and short-term high gains, followed by massive price reduction and market fallout---i.e., 'clearance sale'---if supply exceeds demand. This can happen in an economy where 1 out of 11 people doesn't have a job, and if that margin narrows, people will choose gasoline over high-priced frogs. 

So as a general principle to the hobby as a whole, no go. To a small, specific, specialized group interested in conservation among themselves and not marketing to the general public...why not. 

But I never would ask to be a part of the latter unless it was managed in an objective, mature fashion---that is simply asking for mismanagement down the road, and if you want out, what happens to your reputation then? A bit risky...but could work with the proper leadership.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



earthfrog said:


> So as a general principle to the hobby as a whole, no go. To a small, specific, specialized group interested in conservation among themselves and not marketing to the general public...why not.


What are you using as a definition of conservation? 

I just recieved the following tome in the mail.. Conservation of Exploited Species, Cambridge Press... I'm interested in seeing what is has in it that may apply to the goals of long term sustainable husbandry of amphibians... 

Ed


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> What are you using as a definition of conservation?
> 
> I just recieved the following tome in the mail.. Conservation of Exploited Species, Cambridge Press... I'm interested in seeing what is has in it that may apply to the goals of long term sustainable husbandry of amphibians...
> 
> Ed


I think my definition of conservation would include an organization that would distribute the rarer species at cost or below cost to members of conservation groups willing to breed the animals for the sake of the animals' survival (such a one is already in place), and in places where the locales of said animals are protected by the government those species could be studied and compared to the morphology of the native population to assess evolutionary changes over time. 

Member fees of a conservation group could go towards items such as DNA testing of native populations compared to captive-bred ones to determine the rate of DNA change. Those which seem faster to adapt to captive care might be more suitable to captive care as a permanent solution, those with protected habitats and a slower evolutionary rate might be considered for reintroduction to the wild (if that were possible). 

A more thorough screening process, background check and accountability to the care of said animals with a reliable, up-and-running system is vital to such a program. Additionally, these 'middleman caretakers' would reroute the animals to what I would call 'indigenous conservation facilities' that could assist in their reintroduction to a protected habitat and determine if that can in fact be done and continued on an ongoing basis.

Again, if the goal is truly to conserve the species, selling the rarer animals at high prices to the general public would only ensure profit margins, not conservation, and also exclude others from business who are disreputable or irresponsible as a pattern (which seems to be a large part of the goal of some). That, to me, is not good husbandry---rather, it will ensure the possible loss or downfall in the hands of a few keepers whose collections may be decimated by chytrid or other pathogen at any given moment. The animals need to be bred and distributed widely to ensure their survival, not kept private and exclusive to the highest bidder, and given a brand name.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



earthfrog said:


> I think my definition of conservation would include an organization that would distribute the rarer species at cost or below cost to members of conservation groups willing to breed the animals for the sake of the animals' survival (such a one is already in place), and in places where the locales of said animals are protected by the government those species could be studied and compared to the morphology of the native population to assess evolutionary changes over time.
> 
> Member fees of a conservation group could go towards items such as DNA testing of native populations compared to captive-bred ones to determine the rate of DNA change. Those which seem faster to adapt to captive care might be more suitable to captive care as a permanent solution, those with protected habitats and a slower evolutionary rate might be considered for reintroduction to the wild (if that were possible).


Hi Susan,

Rate of DNA change can be very slow or not apparent as the initial adaptations to captivity are within the spectrum seen in the wild populations or are due to what are known as enviromental caused phenotypical changes (or epigenetics). For example, one of the first things seen in captive populations that significantly changes the ability of captive bred animals are changes in not only sensitivity to adrenaline but the amount secreted..(less nervous animals do better in captivity)... There is a fairly extensive body of literature on these "minor" changes which play a large impact on wild populations if released... 

Instead often those funds are better utilized in providing grants to applicants (for example, TWI awarded thier first grant this year (News from Tree Walkers International ). 



earthfrog said:


> A more thorough screening process, background check and accountability to the care of said animals with a reliable, up-and-running system is vital to such a program. Additionally, these 'middleman caretakers' would reroute the animals to what I would call 'indigenous conservation facilities' that could assist in their reintroduction to a protected habitat and determine if that can in fact be done and continued on an ongoing basis.


Qualifications for release programs is a evolving criteria as there are a lot of historical programs (fish stocking for example) that have widespread support even though the impact on the wild populations can be very negative.. Newer programs are being exposed to increasing criteria to determine those that are suitable but this is being greatly complicated by the current poor understanding of the various pathogens that may not be a problem for thier natal population but extremely lethal to novel populations only a few miles away... In addition the release of "clean" animals that have not been infected by or even exposed to thier native pathogens usually results in massive mortalities when those animals are released. This means that those animals have to be kept away from animals that are exotic to those localities to minimize the risk that pathogens may adapt or even evolve (look at the reasons we have issues with different strains of influenzaa each year as an example)... (some of that is discussed here SpringerLink - Researches on Population Ecology, Volume 40, Number 3 ) 



earthfrog said:


> Again, if the goal is truly to conserve the species, selling the rarer animals at high prices to the general public would only ensure profit margins, not conservation, and also exclude others from business who are disreputable or irresponsible as a pattern (which seems to be a large part of the goal of some). That, to me, is not good husbandry---rather, it will ensure the possible loss or downfall in the hands of a few keepers whose collections may be decimated by chytrid or other pathogen at any given moment. The animals need to be bred and distributed widely to ensure their survival, not kept private and exclusive to the highest bidder, and given a brand name.


Actually if one looks at a paper I have linked to these discussions several times.. (PLoS Biology: Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect ) all this does is ensure that they have the desirability of rarity..which encourages smuggling and increases demand regardless of the source of the animals... This is another economical side effect of attempting to monopolize the market.... 

They need to bred and maintained in a manner that ensures thier persistence in the hobby beyond a few generations...

Ed


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

The subject here has seemed to split. 

"Price Fixing" 
I added this to the other forum. Price fixing is really not correct, term. I can see why it is used, but anti-trust is what has been described. Competitors can not come together to create prices/retail prices. The exchange of pricing information in order to "price fix" or to change/maintain a price, or design a price by sellers is an anti-trust found in the Sherman Act.

Designing an agreed upon price by competitors, would include sales between hobbyist to hobbyist even if the price was designed by hobbyist.

There is no case to small for Dept. of Justice and they are not the only federal department that can bring an anti-trust case. You find cases large and small here: USDOJ: Antitrust Division Antitrust Division Case Filings Index

Don’t think that state and federal groups are not forum trolling hobbyist. I know for a fact that State of Illinois does, I worked for them. (Be advised Illinois residents.) 

"Breeders Union" 

If membership requires adhesion to bylaws, rules, standards, or whatever the group may choose to call it, and one regulation is to follow pricing strategy an anti-trust is formed. Bylaws and other documentation not be held secret as they can be found thru discovery, in a subpoena in a civil suit or just through a court ordered warrant. 

I believe some good could come from this idea of a breeders union. I really don't care for the name, but I am not the one trying to get things going. Groups have set high standard that have effected the their market. A small sample of examples can be seen in the American Kennel Club, American Cichlid Association, and yes even the Association of Zoos and Aquariums that was once a big joke until they buckled down. 

I think the benefit is a set of standards that sellers/breeders agree upon such as quarantine procedures, selling standards, not pricing (age, ect), shipping methods, guarantees/warranties that noobs and others can see as a hobby standard. We currently have a patch work of sellers and forums and nothing concrete. 

I recall a post that states 10 gallon tanks are no longer accepted by the hobby. Well I guess I missed that phone call from the dart frogs hobby. My poor D. auratus pair in my classroom.

*Edit: The market will dictate the price. It will be hobbyist responsibility to keep the "non-popular" frogs continuing to exist. If we can not do this the hobby has more serious issues. *


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> Hi Susan,
> 
> Rate of DNA change can be very slow or not apparent as the initial adaptations to captivity are within the spectrum seen in the wild populations or are due to what are known as enviromental caused phenotypical changes (or epigenetics). For example, one of the first things seen in captive populations that significantly changes the ability of captive bred animals are changes in not only sensitivity to adrenaline but the amount secreted..(less nervous animals do better in captivity)... There is a fairly extensive body of literature on these "minor" changes which play a large impact on wild populations if released...
> 
> Instead often those funds are better utilized in providing grants to applicants (for example, TWI awarded thier first grant this year (News from Tree Walkers International ).


I'm sure they would have to do a lot more work in the area of noting when the adaptation reverts. Is there any such pattern of adaptation reversing in such an animal as a dart, as there is in antibiotic-resistant staphyllococcus aureus?
If not, I could see the potential for massive die-off there. 



> Qualifications for release programs is a evolving criteria as there are a lot of historical programs (fish stocking for example) that have widespread support even though the impact on the wild populations can be very negative.. Newer programs are being exposed to increasing criteria to determine those that are suitable but this is being greatly complicated by the current poor understanding of the various pathogens that may not be a problem for thier natal population but extremely lethal to novel populations only a few miles away... In addition the release of "clean" animals that have not been infected by or even exposed to thier native pathogens usually results in massive mortalities when those animals are released. This means that those animals have to be kept away from animals that are exotic to those localities to minimize the risk that pathogens may adapt or even evolve (look at the reasons we have issues with different strains of influenzaa each year as an example)... (some of that is discussed here SpringerLink - Researches on Population Ecology, Volume 40, Number 3 )


I have noted the die-off effect before---I was thinking more along the lines of slowly getting the frogs reacclimated via breeding programs on site within the native facility, in the hopes that would not overwhelm their immune systems. Merely releasing them into the wild with a happy wave-goodbye was not what I was thinking...thoughts on the former?



> Actually if one looks at a paper I have linked to these discussions several times.. (PLoS Biology: Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect ) all this does is ensure that they have the desirability of rarity..which encourages smuggling and increases demand regardless of the source of the animals... This is another economical side effect of attempting to monopolize the market....
> 
> They need to bred and maintained in a manner that ensures thier persistence in the hobby beyond a few generations...
> 
> Ed


Agreed.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> The subject here has seemed to split.
> 
> "Price Fixing"
> I added this to the other forum. Price fixing is really not correct, term. I can see why it is used, but anti-trust is what has been described. Competitors can not come together to create prices/retail prices. The exchange of pricing information in order to "price fix" or to change/maintain a price, or design a price by sellers is an anti-trust found in the Sherman Act.
> ...


Yes, I believe the greater need is the regulation of shipping/husbandry standards, and even a 'pedigree', similary to what the AKC offers. They, realistically, know that they cannot exclude a dog with a pedigree from registration, but they do have the means for oversight and can debunk someone from their AKC certification if they are found to be outside their guidelines. I think that sort of organization is one I would join. 

Thanks for the info on the legality of price fixing, I'm sure it would be very useful to all involved or thinking of getting involved. 

Sorry I forgot to email you the memo of condemnation on the frog tank size. I'm only running on salary pay here and I did 95 hours on DB last week  j/k


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



earthfrog said:


> I'm sure they would have to do a lot more work in the area of noting when the adaptation reverts. Is there any such pattern of adaptation reversing in such an animal as a dart, as there is in antibiotic-resistant staphyllococcus aureus?
> If not, I could see the potential for massive die-off there. .


The problem is that the genetic change can be part of the variation seen in the wild population and the release of captive animals changes the breeding population reducing its fitness overall... There isn't a reversion as it is part of the normal spectrum, it is just that the change in the ratio of the wild population, results in major issues. 
These sorts of effects have actually been best studied in hatchery raised fish as you can see changes in as little as one generation (for example, the attempt to captive rear Devil's Hole Pupfish as an assurance population resulted in one generation fish that could not survive the conditions in the wild. If they had tried to release them, there would have been 100% mortality. One of the things often seen in hatchery raised fish is that they genetically adapt to produce smaller eggs as this is a positive trait in hatcheries as artificial rearing allows for increased hatched rates therefore more fish that produce small eggs survive but this is a negative survivial trait in the wild populations... and the introduction of hatchery raised fish actually causes problems with the native population's survivial by changing the gene ratios.... There is a lot of literature on this.... 

Here is a good example of a subtle change that would result in massive mortality if released... http://www.une.edu.au/esnrm/pdf/fritz geiser/AcrobatesJCP01.pdf 

This is also a good example of why in the absence of wild populations, captive populations cannot be used as an equivalent study group...and one of the reasons genetic diversity must be maintained. 



earthfrog said:


> I have noted the die-off effect before---I was thinking more along the lines of slowly getting the frogs reacclimated via breeding programs on site within the native facility, in the hopes that would not overwhelm their immune systems. Merely releasing them into the wild with a happy wave-goodbye was not what I was thinking...thoughts on the former? .


You are not readapting them to the wild... you are adapting them to a captive system that is not totally closed to the wild.. they will still have the altered genetic patterns that can wreck a wild populations. There are actually papers coming out now with suggestions on how frequently a wild population should be supplemented with captive bred animals and it is based on the size of the wild population. The smaller the population the less frequent you can supplement it as each new animal has a greater impact on the genetics..


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> I recall a post that states 10 gallon tanks are no longer accepted by the hobby. Well I guess I missed that phone call from the dart frogs hobby. My poor D. auratus pair in my classroom.


That is in part my fault and a result of my deconstructing the dogma of 5 gallons/frog actually results in less room per frog as the size of the enclosure grows... I thought you had read that thread.... 



JJuchems said:


> *Edit: The market will dictate the price. It will be hobbyist responsibility to keep the "non-popular" frogs continuing to exist. If we can not do this the hobby has more serious issues. *


Correct.. and we shouldn't ignore the idea that attempts to control supply will probably fuel demand for smuggled frogs... 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*

Setting aside the genetic diversity focus, some thoughts and opinions regarding price fixing and unions…(sorry kinda long)

Organized price fixing could be good for the group doing the fixing and is definitely bad for the hobby as a whole. It could also be bad for the group and still bad for the hobby. The economics of the hobby must be driven by free market forces in order for it to grow and be accessible. That said, price fixing has been going on for a long time and is present at every show out there. That doesn’t make it right though. Easy to spot, hard to control.

Along the same lines, setting a price specific to an individual buyer, for whatever reason, is dirty and down right unethical. I’d never buy from anyone stating to PM or email me for “your” price. Charging someone more because you don’t know them is abusive and absurd. 

I prefer to sell lower priced, higher quantity, CB animals. You’re not alone Woodsman. That’s how I help to grow the hobby. Profit is not as important to me and takes away from the joy of it. I’ll happily sell my frogs for whatever price it takes to make the deal and get someone involved and started in this hobby. (And besides we all know, it’s just like eating one potato chip.) People who suggest any form of price control, min suggested retail, or other related BS, are far to concerned about profit to be considered hobbyists. There are no overriding objectives, regardless of how noble, to offset this. 

That said, businesses who are dependant on profit, can maximize it by regulating their slice of supply and influencing demand. If UE brings in the next big thing, I’m completely fine with them holding them back and breeding to establish a significant private supply, so they can capture a good initial market. Same with demand, provided they play fair and stick with positive marketing, advertising, salesmanship, ect. But requesting someone only charge “x” for the same frog, I’m not OK with. If they want to establish someone as a “business partner” the line is fuzzier but probably OK, given certain provisos.

Unions, consortiums, ect. I’m all for unions, provided they are 100% open to all and set up to directly benefit each and every hobbyist. DIRECTLY. For example, establishing and maintaining husbandary standards, ect. are all very good things. I’m also OK with unions deciding to regulate their supply by not breeding certain species. Further I’m OK with hobbyists influencing demand by branding themselves this or that. However, if it’s a private, invite only thing, then they can all go scratch, and amounts to nothing more than elitist dribble, bent too much on personal gain. Regardless of how its framed. Closed, invite only groups lack diversity, are slow to react, and suffer from bureaucratic bottlenecks and controls, mandated by a consensus driven decision making process. They also can easily lead to nepotism, cronyism, which is not good for the hobby.

Given these things, openness, equal and direct benefit to all, diversity of thought, freedom to act, and in spite of all the drama, I far and away prefer to be a part of entire community as a whole. I get these things here, other forums, and regional clubs. I get husbandary standards, ect. from TWI. I have no use for unions.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Unions, consortiums, ect. I’m all for unions, provided they are 100% open to all and set up to directly benefit each and every hobbyist. DIRECTLY. For example, establishing and maintaining husbandary standards, ect. are all very good things. I’m also OK with unions deciding to regulate their supply by not breeding certain species. Further I’m OK with hobbyists influencing demand by branding themselves this or that. However, if it’s a private, invite only thing, then they can all go scratch, and amounts to nothing more than elitist dribble, bent too much on personal gain. Regardless of how its framed. Closed, invite only groups lack diversity, are slow to react, and suffer from bureaucratic bottlenecks and controls, mandated by a consensus driven decision making process. They also can easily lead to nepotism, cronyism, which is not good for the hobby.
> 
> Given these things, openness, equal and direct benefit to all, diversity of thought, freedom to act, and in spite of all the drama, I far and away prefer to be a part of entire community as a whole. I get these things here, other forums, and regional clubs. I get husbandary standards, ect. from TWI. I have no use for unions.


Just some food for thought, groups like the AKC and AZA are not open to all. Groups/Institutions/Individuals must fit requirements and undergo a vetting process. So membership is not open.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> Just some food for thought, groups like the AKC and AZA are not open to all. Groups/Institutions/Individuals must fit requirements and undergo a vetting process. So membership is not open.


Hi Jason,

Actually as I understand it virtually anyone can become a member of AZA.. if they were not a institution seeking accreditation or a Zoo professional working at a accredited institution, they can join as a Associate... These are the only requirements... 

quote "*
Associate: ​*​​​​Zoo and aquarium professionals and other interested parties
without a commercial interest in zoos or aquariums. Employees of commercial entities that provide products or services to the zoological industry may not hold individual membership unless the commercial entity is also a member.​
*Professional Affiliate:​*​​Individuals working at an AZA member organization,either part- or full-time. Employment must be verified by CEO.​
*Professional Fellow:​*​​Individuals working at an AZA Institution, Related Facility,or Conservation Partner member in a management capacity. Employment and management capacity must be verified by the CEO.​
_Management positions are those that participate_
_in the decision-making processes that influence_
_and direct the operations, planning, purposes_​_and goals of the organization."endquote.._ "END QUOTE 
see Association of Zoos and Aquariums Individual Member Benefits 

So there really isn't any vetting to be an associate member as long as there isn't a conflict of interest... you only need to be vetted if you are applying for professional membership.. and that is only to prove you are a working for a AZA institution... 

With respect to the AKC.. as I understand it.. there are hoops to jump through to join some of the breed clubs but pretty much anyone who owns a AKC registered dog can join the AKC... they are a very inclusive club.... I could be wrong but even looking at thier site, I couldn't find anything that showed that one had to be vetted to be a general member. 


Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*

Interesting examples. Isn't the AKC more about registering the animals themselves as specific breeds though? Like Frogtracks? Is the AZA the zoo/aquarium something? They aren't directly associated with breeding for profit. A "Breeders Union" certainly would be. Not sure that's a fair comparison.

And while there are standards to be met for those memberships, isn't it open to all that meet those standards? Aren't those standards made public? Don't know, just asking.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Interesting examples. Isn't the AKC more about registering the animals themselves as specific breeds though? Like Frogtracks? Is the AZA the zoo/aquarium something? They aren't directly associated with breeding for profit. A "Breeders Union" certainly would be. Not sure that's a fair comparison.
> 
> And while there are standards to be met for those membership, isn't it open to all that meet those standards? Aren't those standards made public? Don't know, just asking.


 
You posted while I was typing.. see what I posted about AZA and AKC.. 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*

Yup, got it. Thanks for the specifics. Depending how a PDF Union was set up, it sounds like an apples/oranges comparison. 

I worked with a guy that bred and showed toy poodles. He was an AKC member because he had to be, but couldn't stand them. He complained all the time about how politcal, biased and self serving they were. Those picked Best of Show, ect., had nothing to do with who had the best dog and everything to do with who liked who, and whose turn it was.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Ed,
I am talking about institutional level, not individuals. Institutions have to adhere to the policies and standards of the AZA.

Institutions must follow guidelines and go before a committee. 
http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation Standards.pdf


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Yup, got it. Thanks for the specifics. Depending how a PDF Union was set up, it sounds like an apples/oranges comparison.
> 
> I worked with a guy that bred and showed toy poodles. He was an AKC member because he had to be, but couldn't stand them. He complained all the time about how politcal, biased and self serving they were. Those picked Best of Show, ect., had nothing to do with who had the best dog and everything to do with who liked who, and whose turn it was.


Any group is political: AKC, Herp socities, this and other forums. 

Your dog can be registered as AKC, but you as an individual can not breed your two AKC dogs and then sell AKC dogs. You have to be a member of the AKC as a kennel breeder and once again adhere to their policy's.

EDIT: AKC info to register a name, you still have to be a member in good standing with a local affiliated club: http://www.akc.org/pdfs/regprefix.pdf


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

The AKC article is not the breeder guide I thought it was, I am tring to find it. 

There is something similar brewing the gecko world.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> Any group is political: AKC, Herp socities, this and other forums.


Not sure what your point is. Are you saying I should expect a PDF Breeders Union to be political too? I'd choose to limit my participation in groups like that.



JJuchems said:


> Your dog can be registered as AKC, but you as an individual can not breed your two AKC dogs and then sell AKC dogs. You have to be a member of the AKC as a kennel breeder and once again adhere to their policy's.


Is AKC membership open? Are their policies public?


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Not sure what your point is. Are you saying I should expect a PDF Breeders Union to be political too? I'd choose to limit my participation in groups like that.


My point is any group turns political. Parent/Teacher Association, church choirs, your kids baseball team, forms, clubs, ect. Things get political around here, even if you don't want them to or if it is the intention. 



pl259 said:


> Is AKC membership open? Are their policies public?


The policies are including their bylaws. 

Membership is open, but you must fit requirements, and then you may not be accepted as a breeder. That was my understanding, I may be wrong. Like I said, I believe to be considered you have to be in good standing on the local level.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

One should also consider the reasons one would want to create such a "union". Is it truly about progressing the hobby or more about control?


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> The AKC article is not the breeder guide I thought it was, I am tring to find it.
> 
> There is something similar brewing the gecko world.


I know there has been talk about a support group for Uroplatus for a while. But I believe that is more about trying to develop proper husbandry and breeding protocols for a group that is in danger of being lost to the hobby and possibly go extinct in the wild, and not about trying to control the market and drive up prices,


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Very true, but they still get together and sell at NARBC. There is another one I am not thinking of with snakes. I know their a group forming on geckos (mainly day geckos) which should be just as interesting.

I thought the Uroplatus guys have formed a group.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



kyle1745 said:


> One should also consider the reasons one would want to create such a "union". Is it truly about progressing the hobby or more about control?


I am wanting and hoping to see progress, not domination. 

If "suggested price" or "pricing" becomes involved. I see many people walking away. It is not worth the legal risk. But the group has not come together, so it may not even be a topic.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> Very true, but they still get together and sell at NARBC. There is another one I am not thinking of with snakes. I know their a group forming on geckos (mainly day geckos) which should be just as interesting.
> 
> I thought the Uroplatus guys have formed a group.


They are trying but as always there are some issues with egos and control. I work with both Phelsuma and Uroplatus so woud love to join both, but am not sure they have their act together and my tolerance level for drama just isn't what it used to be. Funny though how many gecko guys do you see trying to grill people about locality data and threatening to call USFWS


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> Ed,
> I am talking about institutional level, not individuals. Institutions have to adhere to the policies and standards of the AZA.
> 
> Institutions must follow guidelines and go before a committee.
> http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation Standards.pdf


An institution has to choose to want that standard.. they can choose the associate level and be a member of AZA. One of the reasons that institutions choose to be accredited is so they can 
1) participate in stud books (although AZA has almost done away with them several times in the last couple of decades)
2) get more money.. for example, the license plates sold in many states (for example Pennsylvania), direct funds only to AZA institutions. 

AZA also has competition.. see About ZAA for example... this one allows private facilities to become accredited... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> I know there has been talk about a support group for Uroplatus for a while. But I believe that is more about trying to develop proper husbandry and breeding protocols for a group that is in danger of being lost to the hobby and possibly go extinct in the wild, and not about trying to control the market and drive up prices,


This is actually the difference.. a group that is really advocating progress should be reaching out and working to disseminate different experiences.. otherwise they are also attempting to control success by withholding information which is another method of controling access etc.. 

Ed


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> An institution has to choose to want that standard.. they can choose the associate level and be a member of AZA. One of the reasons that institutions choose to be accredited is so they can
> 1) participate in stud books (although AZA has almost done away with them several times in the last couple of decades)
> 2) get more money.. for example, the license plates sold in many states (for example Pennsylvania), direct funds only to AZA institutions.
> 
> ...


That was not my understanding when the facility I worked at formed a committee to look at accreditation. I guess I am wrong. I was under the belief we had to go before committee and show we meet requirements such as quarantine facility/area, level of animals care, record keeping (ISIS), ect Without those part we would not be accepted.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

It is possible that was the case at that time but in the late 1990s.. AZA discovered it was also legislating itself out of usefulness and becoming very unpopular.. that is one of the things that is driving the formation of the competing body which accepts private individuals who are willing to meet thier requirements and be accredited as a institution.. 

Ed


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Yup, got it. Thanks for the specifics. Depending how a PDF Union was set up, it sounds like an apples/oranges comparison.
> 
> I worked with a guy that bred and showed toy poodles. He was an AKC member because he had to be, but couldn't stand them. He complained all the time about how politcal, biased and self serving they were. Those picked Best of Show, ect., had nothing to do with who had the best dog and everything to do with who liked who, and whose turn it was.





Ed said:


> This is actually the difference.. a group that is really advocating progress should be reaching out and working to disseminate different experiences.. otherwise they are also attempting to control success by withholding information which is another method of controling access etc..
> 
> Ed


This is what I want to steer clear of---something that is more of a frog cult or scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours political arrangement. Perhaps the drive to exclude those who are frog flippers, hybridizers, etc., is a good motive, but when/if it stifles the trade of those whose frogs are not involved---that will interfere with conservation. Not only that, but folks might be tempted not to be cull inferior specimens b/c of the higher price they fetch within such an organization. We'll see what happens, I guess...not worth it to me at this rate based on the few obscure facts I know (again, the information brokering is not rubbing me the right way here). The better thing for the hobby would be for _someone_ to write a compilation on locale info so the info can be shared with _everyone_ in the hobby instead of those personally preferred to hear it...


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Setting aside the genetic diversity focus, some thoughts and opinions regarding price fixing and unions…(sorry kinda long)
> 
> Organized price fixing could be good for the group doing the fixing and is definitely bad for the hobby as a whole. It could also be bad for the group and still bad for the hobby. The economics of the hobby must be driven by free market forces in order for it to grow and be accessible. That said, price fixing has been going on for a long time and is present at every show out there. That doesn’t make it right though. Easy to spot, hard to control.
> 
> ...


Agreed, agreed....agreed. It must be open-invite for the sake of the frogs' well-being. Cutting off the bloodlines of some frogs from others for years will have an effect on both groups genetic diversity, or more likely prevent some frogs from having mates. While I agree with the idea of not selling to known criminals, the general notion of an exclusive union does not seem like a good idea at all. 

Now---if they had a 'group selling forum' where all the union members sold to the dart community regardless of personal bias, and screened buyers for ability and preparedness---that would be something.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



kyle1745 said:


> One should also consider the reasons one would want to create such a "union". Is it truly about progressing the hobby or more about control?


It seems more geared towards excluding those who might harm the hobby, who have personally offended someone else or who are not viewed as only the most advanced, hand-picked hobbyists. 

Question for you...what if cattle ranchers only sold the cattle who were perfect to the elite with the money? The 8% of the best beef (certified angus, for instance) went to the elite ones who were approved by the cattle ranchers?

That leaves *most people, who are the lifeblood of the cattle business*, with the rest of the inferior beef. These people keep the cattle business alive...but they are excluded from the best beef...

If that's control, you tell me.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> My point is any group turns political. Parent/Teacher Association, church choirs, your kids baseball team, forms, clubs, ect. Things get political around here, even if you don't want them to or if it is the intention.


So why would I want to join a union that will eventually turn political? Claiming it's just as bad as other things is not a very convincing argument. 



JJuchems said:


> (AKC) policies are including their bylaws.
> 
> (AKC)Membership is open, but you must fit requirements, and then you may not be accepted as a breeder. That was my understanding, I may be wrong. Like I said, I believe to be considered you have to be in good standing on the local level.


Looking over the AKC website, registration of dogs and litters seems pretty easy. Everything is basically online, open, and of course it's all for a fee. It seems very open and easy. I'm not convinced that the AKC is a valid comparative to a PDF Breeders Union. And its especially not when the proposed Union I've heard about is invite only, before you get your secret decoder ring.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Looking over the AKC website, registration of dogs and litters seems pretty easy. Everything is basically online, open, and of course it's all for a fee. It seems very open and easy. I'm not convinced that the AKC is a valid comparative to a PDF Breeders Union. And its especially not when the proposed Union I've heard about is invite only, before you get your secret decoder ring.


You have to be careful when you read through the bylaws etc of the AKC, as they use some words in a confusing manner.. for example if you read through membership sections of the bylaws, and see the word candidate.. it doesn't mean a single person but a breed club. 

To be a AKC member in good standing you have to 
1) register all of your litters and breedings 
2) not be convicted of any animal cruelty charges 
3) if running a kennel not fail an inspection (definition of kennel changes on a state by state basis). 

The reason the regulations are so open is in part because you could be the only breeder of a rare breed dog in a very large area.... 

I didn't think it was a good fit either.. 

Ed


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Well I guess it maybe time for some froggers to pull out those 1980's Member's Only jackets. 

Like I said earlier and maybe the organizations I mentioned are not the best, but they do have requirements (AKC at least). Froggers will have to wait and see what happens. Discussions start next week. We will see what comes from the group, or whether it even happens.

"Put only bulls in a room your only going to get sh*t." Success will come with open conversation and not the silencing of people. It will be interesting to see how the talks go, if only like minded people are involved, or if the democracy approach works in the group. 

Love it , hate it, indifferent. Let the cards play out and see what happens.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*

I hope I haven't been to critical here. If done properly I think there could some good value in more organization and concensus across the hobby. I really am interested in hearing the good and bad, then weighing them over. 

There are people who seem committed to the idea, but I have yet to hear any goals, objectives, or even a mission statement. Seems to me like that would be good place to start. It's all private and behind closed doors though. That seems odd to me and makes me think any stated benefit to the hobby as a whole, is just window dressing.

Should be interesting to see what comes out of this. If nothing else, it'll identify which hobbyists want to play on their own seperate team. I try to be a little more gestalt about things.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*

Back to price fixing for a moment. What do you all think about this quote...



> I do not believe in price fixing but do agree on a group of hobbiests getting together and deciding what they would personally sell their darts for.


I'm having a hard time understanding this to be OK. What am I missing?


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*

This is a GOOD thread....

Every notice how the "Big Boy topics provoke the best thought ?

That's a good thing with even the very mention of the word "Union". It is going to cause people to think, align, research, talk...

in essence.....move forward.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



Philsuma said:


> This is a GOOD thread....
> 
> Every notice how the "Big Boy topics provoke the best thought ?
> 
> ...


No one objects to forward progress. It's the direction that's in question. "Big Boy" topics like "Price fixing" are discussions I would have hoped we wouldn't need to have. I've read the union thread on DF and completely see why we're discussing pricing here. I frankly find it disappointing we're talking about it at all.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> No one objects to forward progress. It's the direction that's in question. "Big Boy" topics like "Price fixing" are discussions I would have hoped we wouldn't need to have. I've read the union thread on DF and completely see why we're discussing pricing here. I frankly find it disappointing we're talking about it at all.


 
One can always discuss or form a cooperative to market and sell people's frogs more effectively without any form of price fixing.. 

I doubt anyone here remembers "community bred herps" and why it collapsed? 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> One can always discuss or form a cooperative to market and sell people's frogs more effectively without any form of price fixing..
> 
> I doubt anyone here remembers "community bred herps" and why it collapsed?
> 
> Ed


If I remember correctly wasn't it a Philadelphia based group that worked with all types of reptiles and amphibians back in the late 80's and early 90's and advertised in "Reptiles and Amphibians" magazine. I would imagine they collapsed because too many felt what they were breeding was more important than what everyone else had.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I think people think that price fixing means across the whole of the hobby and they are fine w/ a couple hobbyists writing up standards and setting a price if the cost of seperating according to bloodline, testing and treating and keeping records, not mixing juvis, etc. costs more that a standard should be set for those practices since most people subsidize their frog business and don't really have any clue what it would it would cost to set up a real business w/ phone line, web site, taxes, rental facility, etc.etc.etc. although I could be wrong. My thought is that this is what creates a puppy mill mentality w/ breeding projects and drives bad conditions for animals, that is real business' competing w/ subsidized business'.

Since lo prices drive out bloodlines and create bottlenecks, I'd like to know what people think would reduce this problem in the hobby, if you think it's a problem, and what people think of price stabilization.



pl259 said:


> Back to price fixing for a moment. What do you all think about this quote...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding this to be OK. What am I missing?


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> I think people think that price fixing means across the whole of the hobby and they are fine w/ a couple hobbyists writing up standards and setting a price if the cost of seperating according to bloodline, testing and treating and keeping records, not mixing juvis, etc. costs more that a standard should be set for those practices since most people subsidize their frog business and don't really have any clue what it would it would cost to set up a real business w/ phone line, web site, taxes, rental facility, etc.etc.etc. although I could be wrong. My thought is that this is what creates a puppy mill mentality w/ breeding projects and drives bad conditions for animals, that is real business' competing w/ subsidized business'.
> 
> Since lo prices drive out bloodlines and create bottlenecks, I'd like to know what people think would reduce this problem in the hobby, if you think it's a problem, and what people think of price stabilization.


Its certainly a problem but people need to recognize that there are two distinct markets here as in any other animal based hobby:

1) The people who want certified animals with lineage data since entry into the country.

2) And people who just want nice looking, healthy animals regardless of blood lines.

group 1 will pay a premium, group 2 won't. If I had to guess I would say that 90% plus of our hobby falls into group 2. The friction comes from the fact that many people have a hard time recognizing what a small percentage of the hobby actually falls into the first group and get frustrated and angry when they see people buying what they feel are inferior frogs for less money from others(Failing to recognize that what they feel are inferior frogs may actually be perfectly fine based on the aims and requirements of the actual purchaser)

Just some thoughts.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> I think people think that price fixing means across the whole of the hobby and they are fine w/ a couple hobbyists writing up standards and setting a price if the cost of seperating according to bloodline, testing and treating and keeping records, not mixing juvis, etc. costs more that a standard should be set for those practices since most people subsidize their frog business and don't really have any clue what it would it would cost to set up a real business w/ phone line, web site, taxes, rental facility, etc.etc.etc. although I could be wrong. My thought is that this is what creates a puppy mill mentality w/ breeding projects and drives bad conditions for animals, that is real business' competing w/ subsidized business'.
> 
> Since lo prices drive out bloodlines and create bottlenecks, I'd like to know what people think would reduce this problem in the hobby, if you think it's a problem, and what people think of price stabilization.


I have a hard time with why people do not see this as an Anti-Trust. Any time competitors come together to develop pricing to effect a market or industry you you have formed an Anti-Trust. My earlier post I provided information from the Dept. of Justice and said they are not the only governmental agency that over sees Anti-Trust. You need to read the links provided on the left hand had on the Federal Trade Commission website: Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition - Resource Guide to Business Competition

They also have a nice PDF guide, please read page 4. Creating prices is an issue. 
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/edu/pubs/consumer/general/zgen01.pdf

Competition drives down price and that is the point of a free market economy. Coming together to create standards to improve the care and quality of the animals is open and should occur.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I think you mean they have formed a trust and the law is the anti-trust law(sherman anti- trust act?).



JJuchems said:


> I have a hard time with why people do not see this as an Anti-Trust. Any time competitors come together to develop pricing to effect a market or industry you you have formed an Anti-Trust. My earlier post I provided information from the Dept. of Justice and said they are not the only governmental agency that over sees Anti-Trust. You need to read the links provided on the left hand had on the Federal Trade Commission website: Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition - Resource Guide to Business Competition
> 
> They also have a nice PDF guide, please read page 4. Creating prices is an issue.
> http://www.ftc.gov/bc/edu/pubs/consumer/general/zgen01.pdf
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I don't think they fail to see it I think they want to set them apart as signing on to the standards. I don't see there being a problem between the 2 groups as each has its own market. Just because one wants to put forth and promote it's standards, people like you try to cast it in an arrogant light because you can't be a part because you don't have the same standards?



mantisdragon91 said:


> Its certainly a problem but people need to recognize that there are two distinct markets here as in any other animal based hobby:
> 
> 1) The people who want certified animals with lineage data since entry into the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> I think you mean they have formed a trust and the law is the anti-trust law(sherman anti- trust act?).


Thank you. I started typing with one thing on my mind, anti-trust, and did not clarify myself. 

Yes, a group meeting to set a price is a trust. Which violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> If I remember correctly wasn't it a Philadelphia based group that worked with all types of reptiles and amphibians back in the late 80's and early 90's and advertised in "Reptiles and Amphibians" magazine. I would imagine they collapsed because too many felt what they were breeding was more important than what everyone else had.


Actually no that wasn't the case.. it was originally a group of local people who were grouping together to get better prices on advertisments and selling at some of the early shows. It fell apart because some of the members started including people outside of the local community as a method of getting an in with them to see if they could get better deals.. that is how the Barker's were invited to join..(and it wasn't like the Barker's needed help in advertising or getting a better deal on a sales table). The group then ran into arguments over price setting etc and dissolved as those who were doing it for money had different opinions than those who were doing it because they liked it... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> . Do I ever complain about people selling frogs wholesale for cheap prices if they are healthy frogs? No, I encourage it. If thats all wholesaler will spend and they'll get them anyway from the wild, then so be it..


This is actually a major point. It is when the price falls below a certain point in the hobby (like those here on D-Board), that we see massive population declines as people divest themselves of those frogs. Selling surpluses to the pet trade and wholesalers helps to keep that price stable. 




frogfarm said:


> I do however have a problem w/ disposable pets and lost bloodlines. It's a complicated issue and as I don't like price fixing I also don't like to see disposable darts and lost lines and unsustainability. Capitalism and live animals causes an uncomfortable dilemma w/ me. These are not books you can store on a shelf w/ no feelings or needs.


I'm not too fond of disposable pets either but I accept that is a likely the fate of many of the animal I've sent into the pet trade over the decades. However I also accept it as having its own value as it helps to keep the populations from declining in those working with them in the hobby itself. Those animals are considered lost to the population (unless a reseller keeps the lineage information and the frog makes it back..).. it is the same as if they were eaten by a predator in the wild.

It is much better to have a captive bred frog kick the bucket in captivity than virtually any wild caught frog kick the bucket in captivity... 


,


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

As a hypothetical point.. .. 

which frogs do people think would benefit the most from an attmept to control price/demand and which would not? 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> As a hypothetical point.. ..
> 
> which frogs do people think would benefit the most from an attmept to control price/demand and which would not?
> 
> Ed


For me, it's a CB vs WC distinction.

I don't think any CB frogs benefit from that, nor would any suffer without it. CB breeders maintain, or should maintain, a closed loop managment of the overall CB populations. Of course its the CB breeders themselves that benefit or not. 

However there are some important relationships between CB price/demand and the resulting pressure placed on WC populations. WC price/demand obviously affects WC populations as well. It's the open loop reality of WC population control that I worry about. I respect the official management attempts to control it, but they fall way too short at the hands of smugglers, payoffs, loopholes.

IMHO, the biggest benefits that we as breeders can affect, come as a result of treating this hobby more as a hobby, and less as a business. The business side exists and will always exist. It's hard to see declining habitats and WC populations with dollar signs in our eyes.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Unfortunately wc can always be cheaper then cb. People have to make the decision to buy cb only from manageable programs which cost more to maintain. 



pl259 said:


> For me, it's a CB vs WC distinction.
> 
> I don't think any CB frogs benefit from that, nor would any suffer without it. CB breeders maintain, or should maintain, a closed loop managment of the overall CB populations. Of course its the CB breeders themselves that benefit or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> Unfortunately wc can always be cheaper then cb. People have to make the decision to buy cb only from manageable programs which cost more to maintain.


True but there is little incentive to smuggle a $40 Vent as oppossed to $400 Benedicta. By artificially raising prices on more species we make more of the attractive to smuggling from the wild. And smugglers have been know to lie about the WC nature of their animals so even people with good intentions have contributed to the diminishing of wild populations unknowingly.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Then why are auratus the most smuggled frog?
And who says it is an artificially raised price? Do you know what it costs to go out to find them, conservation costs, project costs, permit costs, facility costs in 2 countries, cites fees, etc. etc. etc. ******

And if we could speak freely and openly on forums we'd be able to out other people bringing in frogs like benedicta before tehy legally hit the states!


mantisdragon91 said:


> True but there is little incentive to smuggle a $40 Vent as opposed to $400 Benedicta. By artificially raising prices on more species we make more of the attractive to smuggling from the wild. And smugglers have been know to lie about the WC nature of their animals so even people with good intentions have contributed to the diminishing of wild populations unknowingly.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> Then why are auratus the most smuggled frog?
> And who says it is an artificially raised price? Do you know what it costs to go out to find them, conservation costs, project costs, permit costs, facility costs in 2 countries, cites fees, etc. etc. etc. *****
> And if we could speak freely and openly on forums we'd be able to out other people bringing in frogs like benedicta before tehy legally hit the states!


***** I personally think that $400 is a fair price for Benedicta considering how few are currently being bred and the effort ***** put into bringing them in to the country. Auratus are not a smuggled frog for the simple reason that it is not illegal to bring them out of Panama. When I gave my example with the $40 Vent and the $400 Benedicta it was done on purpose as far as I know there are no countries where Vents occur that allow importation, but because they are a frequently bred frog and affordably priced there is no incentive to illegally grab them from the wild. There is a strong incentive with Benedicta. Hope that clarifies my point.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Auratus are the MOST smuggled frog.
And I'd bet more vents than benedicta are smuggled into Eu every year.


mantisdragon91 said:


> ***** I personally think that $400 is a fair price for Benedicta considering how few are currently being bred and the effort ***** put into bringing them in to the country. Auratus are not a smuggled frog for the simple reason that it is not illegal to bring them out of Panama. When I gave my example with the $40 Vent and the $400 Benedicta it was done on purpose as far as I know there are no countries where Vents occur that allow importation, but because they are a frequently bred frog and affordably priced there is no incentive to illegally grab them from the wild. There is a strong incentive with Benedicta. Hope that clarifies my point.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> Auratus are the MOST smuggled frog.


Smuggling implies taking something illegally. Panama allows full importation


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> Smuggling implies taking something illegally. Panama allows full importation


Hi Roman,

Did through the confiscation records for the last 20 years and look at the number and types of dendrobatid confiscated... I brought this up awhile (as there was an argument that only high end frogs get smuggled) ago, as the information I was able to find showed it was auratus... 

Keep in mind that you can still have smuggling from a country that allows legal export as people attempt to circumvent the paperwork process or quotas (although Panama has not set a quota..) 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Edited my last post late, I bet more vents are smuggled into Eu every year than benedicta.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> Hi Roman,
> 
> Did through the confiscation records for the last 20 years and look at the number and types of dendrobatid confiscated... I brought this up awhile (as there was an argument that only high end frogs get smuggled) ago, as the information I was able to find showed it was auratus...
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. However would you agree that my basic argument still stands? The best way to protect a species in the wild is to reduce its cost to aquire as a Cb.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> Back to price fixing for a moment. What do you all think about this quote...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're not missing anything. What was left out was the part where some of the species are likely exclusive to the group and not yet distributed to the hobby at large. The group will likely have access to certain species that others cannot without invitation by the group (a monopoly), and therefore this is an attempt at price-fixing. There is no difference between the explanation provided and the term 'price-fixing'. Unless, (and this is unclear), they are simply having a meeting to decide, each person for themselves, what they will sell their dart frogs for---but to me, this still smacks of an anti-trust---a meeting to set prices, whose definition follows:



> The Sherman Antitrust Act
> This Act outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers, which are punishable as criminal felonies.
> 
> The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.
> ...


Definition from http://www.justice.gov/atr/about/antitrust-laws.html. Hopefully it can be found that this effort is not an illegal one. 

From http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/glossary:

*



Price Fixing – When companies conspire to set prices and thus control or interfere with free market competition, they have violated antitrust laws. Price fixing is considered a criminal offense.

Click to expand...

*It seems that the Union is being created to control the market to some degree--that is, there has been a public declaration that it is 'by invite only', which seems to imply that this is not a free-market situation, but instead a 'frog brokerage' institution. This casts a bad light on the dart hobby. If executed, I believe this will affect everyone involved, and is a risky venture for the hobby at large as there is a legality issue with it.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

No, these people do it as long as people will support them no matter what the cost. Unless we are shown who it is and people stop supporting them it will always be done. As long as Eu can send over fogs they will. As long as people can sneak a couple dozen thru on vaca to america they will. Unless people do the research and don't support them it will ALWAYS happen.

And if 2 people buy a couple benedicta from UE and the rest come from EU(smuggled direct or progeny of smuggled) and the price drops before UE can make what it cost to import them LEGALLY then we go back to getting all our morphs from smuggled wc animals again. Either people make sure they support projects that do it the right way or it'll all get done the wrong way. There is no other way.




mantisdragon91 said:


> I stand corrected. However would you agree that my basic argument still stands? The best way to protect a species in the wild is to reduce its cost to aquire as a Cb.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



pl259 said:


> For me, it's a CB vs WC distinction.
> 
> I don't think any CB frogs benefit from that, nor would any suffer without it. CB breeders maintain, or should maintain, a closed loop managment of the overall CB populations. Of course its the CB breeders themselves that benefit or not.
> 
> ...


Good points Eric.. 

WC animals are always going to be worth smuggling as long as it is worth it to the person collecting them to gather them up.. there is a threshold where it is no longer worthwhile and the captive costs play a role in this dynamic. (I'm not going to cite the Anthropogenic Allee effect paper again..) This can be hard to change as it requires the ability to sell captive bred animals below the cost of the wild caught imports. This could easily be in the price range where the breeder is actually losing money on the sale (or as we've seen in this hobby below the threshold where people divest and captive populations collapse). In this hobby, other drivers on the desirability of wild caught frogs is both how recent they are descended from wild ("poor quality frog effect") collected frogs and/or locality specifics. 
It is more than just convincing people to purchase captive bred as there are a lot of drivers including peer pressure and "prestige" effects for people to keep wanting wild caught frogs.. 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> I stand corrected. However would you agree that my basic argument still stands? The best way to protect a species in the wild is to reduce its cost to aquire as a Cb.


Yes but depending on demand this can be very difficult to impossible.. look at ball pythons as an example.. the ball python producing countries have not had a significant reduction in imports since they began collecting gravid females and females sitting on eggs and hatching the offspring and exporting them. The price of "bush babies" imported into the US is effectively the same as it was back in the early 1990s...
Another example is that despite records of captive breeding in both the hobby and institutions going back into the early 1980s in the US (and into the 1970s in Europe).. auratus continue to be regularly imported.... 
You may want to read through http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/11105.pdf 
PLoS Biology: Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect

Ed 


Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> Yes but depending on demand this can be very difficult to impossible.. look at ball pythons as an example.. the ball python producing countries have not had a significant reduction in imports since they began collecting gravid females and females sitting on eggs and hatching the offspring and exporting them. The price of "bush babies" imported into the US is effectively the same as it was back in the early 1990s...
> Another example is that despite records of captive breeding in both the hobby and institutions going back into the early 1980s in the US (and into the 1970s in Europe).. auratus continue to be regularly imported....
> You may want to read through http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/11105.pdf
> PLoS Biology: Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect
> ...


Ed,

These are valid points, but I do see a flaw in your argument. Both Auratus and Ball Pythons originate in countries that allow importation. Thus there is no risk to be had by taking them from the wild from a legal stand point. I am talking more about countries such as Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc that no longer allow or severely restrict animal exports. A more relevant example to the general hobby would be crested or leopard geckos. Is anyone still going to Pakistan or New Caledonia to aquire WCs? To the frog hobby it would be Leucs or Terribs. Anyone risking prison time in Colombia or Venezuela to grab these from the wild?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

or death, terribilis is a very bad example. how would you know as importers lie and would sell them as cb if they could get in trouble. Maybe that's why so many morphs are attributed to people who don't even breed them by importers/jobbers/etc.



mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> These are valid points, but I do see a flaw in your argument. Both Auratus and Ball Pythons originate in countries that allow importation. Thus there is no risk to be had by taking them from the wild from a legal stand point. I am talking more about countries such as Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc that no longer allow or severely restrict animal exports. A more relevant example to the general hobby would be crested or leopard geckos. Is anyone still going to Pakistan or New Caledonia to aquire WCs? To the frog hobby it would be Leucs or Terribs. Anyone risking prison time in Colombia or Venezuela to grab these from the wild?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> These are valid points, but I do see a flaw in your argument. Both Auratus and Ball Pythons originate in countries that allow importation. Thus there is no risk to be had by taking them from the wild from a legal stand point. I am talking more about countries such as Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc that no longer allow or severely restrict animal exports. A more relevant example to the general hobby would be crested or leopard geckos. Is anyone still going to Pakistan or New Caledonia to aquire WCs? To the frog hobby it would be Leucs or Terribs. Anyone risking prison time in Colombia or Venezuela to grab these from the wild?


Shipments of auratus and pumilo have been siezed during periods of closure of Panama.... and even with Panama open, there have been seizures of smuggled auratus.. 

If you talk to the hard core leopard gecko breeders.. wild caught imports are coming in at a high dollar value..even though those countries are supposedly closed... the reason is that 
1) the common leopard gecko is a mixture of multiple subspecies and a demand for locality specifics is starting to grow... 
2) there are significant genetic abnormalities showing up in different lines due to the massive inbreeding

It all depends on the dollar value... Trade in rhino horn has been banned internationally for how long? yet it still occurs.. Read those articles I linked above.. it exlains the economics very well. 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> Shipments of auratus and pumilo have been siezed during periods of closure of Panama.... and even with Panama open, there have been seizures of smuggled auratus..
> 
> If you talk to the hard core leopard gecko breeders.. wild caught imports are coming in at a high dollar value..even though those countries are supposedly closed... the reason is that
> 1) the common leopard gecko is a mixture of multiple subspecies and a demand for locality specifics is starting to grow...
> ...


But that is my argument in a nutshell. If a frog is $40 people are less likely to take these risks than if it is $400. Thus less pressure on an already potentialy vulnerable population.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> But that is my argument in a nutshell. If a frog is $40 people are less likely to take these risks than if it is $400. Thus less pressure on an already potentialy vulnerable population.


It isn't necessarily based on the end price but the net profit versus the risk.. if it is cheaper and easier to aquire 200 auratus that provide a lower price each but a better risk of return versus higher costs and risk.. then the lower price frogs are smuggled.. 

All kinds of things get smuggled regardless of cost.. for example a seizure in 1997 got the following animals 

On 23 August 1997, Customs officers at Jorge Chávez International Airport, Lima, seized some 1000 animals concealed in a shipment of ornamental fish. The consignment, which was found in an airport
shop, included 3 Common Iguanas​​​​_Iguana iguana_, 30 Yellow-footed Tortoises _Geochelone denticulata_,
24 Matamata Turtles _Chulus fimbriatus_, 13 Giant South American Turtles _Podocnemis expansa_, 8 Guyana Caiman _Lizards Dracaena guianensis_, 6 Anacondas _Eunectes murinus_, 6 Rainbow Boas _Epicrates
cenchria_, 6 Boa Constrictors _Boa constrictor _(all App. II), 18 dwarf caimans _Paleosuchus _sp., 310 Jungle runners [skinks] _Ameiva _sp., 117 seasnakes, 242 tree frogs including 150 Hylidae spp. Some 200 of the
skinks had perished.
The specimens were being shipped without the necessary permits by an aquarium firm and were
bound for the USA. They are now being cared for by Las Leyendas Park, the State zoo. The CITES
Management Authority—the National Institute of Natural Resources (INRENA)—fined the company​
the equivalent of USD5400.

Note that in the above confiscation.. there were 310 amievas which in the late 1990s may have been worth $12 on the retail market... The total shipment was valued at $5,400 and the potential thread was hundreds of thousands of dollars in Lacy act charges.... As they were being shipped by a fish company.. they were obviously familar with the permit requirments...


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> It isn't necessarily based on the end price but the net profit versus the risk.. if it is cheaper and easier to aquire 200 auratus that provide a lower price each but a better risk of return versus higher costs and risk.. then the lower price frogs are smuggled..
> 
> All kinds of things get smuggled regardless of cost.. for example a seizure in 1997 got the following animals
> 
> ...


Sounds like the Ameivas may have been filler to round out the shipment. Care to speculate what the retail value of the following may have been:

Mata Matas
Caiman Lizards
Yellow foot tortoises
Giant River Tortoises
Dwarf Caiman
Sea Snakes

Based on those animals alone there is no way that the total value of the shipment was only worth $5,400 the math just doesn't add up. Even using the low cost animals( amievas and tree frogs at $12 retail) almost a 1000 animals would have been worth $12,000 and if memory serves me correctly some of the animals mentioned above were retailing for $1,000 or more each at the time.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> Sounds like the Ameivas may have been filler to round out the shipment. Care to speculate what the retail value of the following may have been:
> 
> Mata Matas
> Caiman Lizards
> ...


If one was looking to maximize profit then why even include the "filler" animals.. as the bulking out of the animals would increase the risk of detection... 

Boy, people complain when a bust is announced that the agencies always overinflate the prices..I think this here s the first time we have a complaint about them underinflating the price... 
As it was seized in Peru and reported in Peru, the value is based on what the animals would cost in Peru and not in the US.. This is based on the country's value not the US's value. 

How about the following 


In December 2008, UK Border Agency officers at Manchester Airport seized a shipment of live reptiles imported from the USA which were not accompanied by CITES import permits. Forty-four specimens were seized including African Spurred Tortoises 
_Geochelone sulcata_, Common Iguanas
​​_Iguana iguana_​_
_​_
_, Royal Python _Python regius _and East African Spiny-tailed Lizards _Cordylus tropidosternum_
​(all CITES II).​

I'm guessing the iguana, ball pythons and sulcatas were fillers?

Have you read through the papers I cited above discussing the actual economics of it? It only becomes unprofitable when it isn't worth paying the hunters to gather them anymore.... 


Ed ​


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I just want to add this and I didn't feel like editing my last post... 

It is a fact that inexpensive animals and plants are smuggled.. they are not "fillers".. they are smuggled as they can be quickly and easily turned over with little risk of triggering a investigation by law enforcement... it is much easier to move several hundred uromastyx into the pet trade than a handful of angulated tortoises... just as it is easier to move a thousand auratus than it would be to move even a couple of hundred high end animals... 

Ed

like 
On 25 October 2009, authorities in Kristiansand arrested a Norwegian national when he was stopped
for a spot check after leaving a passenger ferry arriving from Denmark. Suspicions were aroused
when a tarantula was found loose in his bag. A body search revealed that the man was carrying 14
non-venomous young Royal Pythons​​​​_Python regius _(CITES II) that had been rolled up and placed in
several layers of socks taped to his chest and legs. Ten cans taped to his legs each contained an albino
Leopard Gecko _Eublepharis macularius._​_
_The man was fined NOK12 500 (USD2220). While the fate of the reptiles was being decided by​the authorities, the animals were handed into the care of a security firm.

On 17 March 1999, Customs officials at Chiang Kai-shek International Airport discovered 156
amphibians and reptiles concealed in luggage belonging to a man arriving from Bangkok, Thailand. The
animals included 18 milk snakes​​​​_Lampropeltis triangulum annulata_, 6 Boa Constrictors _Boa constrictor_​_
_(App. I/II) and 132 Veiled Chameleons​​​​_Chamaeleo calyptratus _(App. II); 32 of the chameleons, all of​
which had been placed in plastic boxes, had perished. Taipei Zoo is caring for the remaining animals.
 
On 19 March 2009, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced
that 18 individuals had been charged following an extensive undercover investigation into the
poaching, smuggling and illegal sale of protected reptiles and amphibians. Operation Shellshock
uncovered a lucrative, international black market for poaching and selling native, protected New York
species through the internet and at herpetological shows. Investigators found thousands of turtles
being laundered through middlemen in other States, and shipped overseas for meat and other uses.
The species—some 2400 specimens—included: Wood Turtles​​​​​​​​​_Glyptemys insculpta _(classified as
Vulnerable by IUCN), Common Snapping Turtles _Chelydra serpentina_, box turtles _Terrapene _spp.
(CITES I/II); Blanding's Turtles _Eumenides blandingii_, and two Yellow-spotted Sideneck Turtles​
_Podocnemis unifilis​_​​​​​​(CITES II and classified as Vulnerable by IUCN); Timber Rattlesnakes _Crotalus
horridus_, Massasauga Rattlesnakes _Sistrurus catenatus_, Northern Copperheads _Agkistrodon contortrix_, and
Eastern Hognose Snakes _Heterodon platyrhinos_.​
The investigation, which began in 2007 and was co-ordinated through DEC's Bureau of
Environmental Crimes Investigation (BECI), was one of the most extensive undercover operations
DEC has ever undertaken. Investigators worked closely with officials from Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Florida, the USFWS, the US Immigration and Customs Service, the New York State Attorney
General's Office, EnvironmentnCanada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
The investigation found that New York's Timber Rattlesnakes and Wood Turtles were shipped
out of State and out of the country to support high-end collectors. *Thousands of Common Snapping*​*Turtles laundered through a Louisiana turtle farm were illegally shipped to China and poachers were*
*stealing turtle eggs as soon as they were laid.* Investigators were able to recover some 33 Massasauga
Rattlesnakes from a smuggler from Canada. As a result of Operation Shellshock, the USFWS and the US Attorney's Office for the Western
District of New York are also pursuing​​​​_Lacy Act _charges against a Maryland meat processor for the
knowing purchase of illegally trapped Common Snapping Turtles, *and against a Louisiana turtle farm*
*operator for the knowing purchase of illegally taken Common Snapping Turtle hatchlings and the*
*export of such hatchlings to China.*
Pennsylvania authorities have charged six individuals and are continuing their investigation. Canadian
officials have charged one individual.
New York prohibits the illegal trade in wildlife; a law enacted in 2006 gives protection to all​
reptiles and amphibians. The State also bans unlawful possession of protected species.
*If anyone wants to read the investigation starting with the sale of a red salamander collected illegally and illegally offered for sale.. shoot me a e-mail and I'll send it to you. 
*
So what is the value of an individual hatchling snapping turtle? 

Ed


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> I just want to add this and I didn't feel like editing my last post...
> 
> It is a fact that inexpensive animals and plants are smuggled.. they are not "fillers".. they are smuggled as they can be quickly and easily turned over with little risk of triggering a investigation by law enforcement... it is much easier to move several hundred uromastyx into the pet trade than a handful of angulated tortoises... just as it is easier to move a thousand auratus than it would be to move even a couple of hundred high end animals...
> 
> Ed


Ed is correct. You can see it even in poaching. Here in Illinois we have guys harvesting turtle nest. Red-eared slider bring big money, a big $5 each. It way easier post a Russian Tortoise than a Ploughshare Tortoise: Thais Bust Man With 'Suitcase Zoo' - Smuggler tried to board plane with hundreds of creatures in luggage


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*

Unscrupulous people will always take stuff that is convenient and at hand. However there is an entirely separate market for high end animals that is entirely diffrent from the low end criminals dealing in the stuff you described.

Take for example Anson Wong in Thailand with his motto of " If its endangered it will take me a week to get it for you, if it's extinct it may take a little longer" It's these type of guys who's attention we don't want the hobby attracting with our efforts to artificially raise the value(and thus profit margin) of our animals.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> Unscrupulous people will always take stuff that is convenient and at hand. However there is an entirely separate market for high end animals that is entirely diffrent from the low end criminals dealing in the stuff you described.
> 
> Take for example Anson Wong in Thailand with his motto of " If its endangered it will take me a week to get it for you, if it's extinct it may take a little longer" It's these type of guys who's attention we don't want the hobby attracting with our efforts to artificially raise the value(and thus profit margin) of our animals.


You mean the same Anson Wong who was recently busted for smuggling boas? see M'sian "Lizard King" Anson Wong jailed for smuggling 95 boa constrictors - What's On Xiamen 

A snake that on a retail level can cost less than $30 each? 

Actually if you look through my last post and read through the operation shell shocked bust.. you can see it ended up being international in scope.. that requires a lot of connection and collaboration on a international scale... In the end it took down some well known people in the USA... and that is well above the so called "low" end criminal...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> Ed is correct. You can see it even in poaching. Here in Illinois we have guys harvesting turtle nest. Red-eared slider bring big money, a big $5 each. It way easier post a Russian Tortoise than a Ploughshare Tortoise: Thais Bust Man With 'Suitcase Zoo' - Smuggler tried to board plane with hundreds of creatures in luggage


Jason,

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was able to purchase the following at wholesale rates; RES hatchlings for 25 cents apiece in lots of 400 or more.. assorted sliders/cooters (mostly yellowbelly and hieroglyphic) were 30-40 cents apiece.. and snapping turtles ran around 95 cents. Alligator snappers once they became farmed were available for $12.50 (or less depending on quantity purchased). 

With appropriate paperwork (which made the signee agree that they were not purchasing the turtle for a pet but for bonafide research or exhibition use), the RES sold for $9.99 each or 2 for $14.99 and the sliders sold for $12.99 each or 2 for $19.99.. the snappers were $14.99 and the alligator snappers usually sold for between 24.99 and 29.99 each. The store sold hundreds of them a year... 

So the price of $5 a hatchling is still well within the prices being obtained back in that time frame... 

The store where I was working was investigated by the USDA for potentially violating the law.. (and somewhere in an archive somewhere are pictures of a much skinnier me happily assisting the investigating agents by holding a ruler to the turtle, showing them the form and how it is filled out... "conducting a sale" and other activities.... but no actions were ever taken as we had reciepts that correlated to the turtles (and documented any deaths..)..


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Ed,
My point is they are illegally collect turtles. No matter how they are received, Illinois law limited ownership to 16 native specimens. You can't make a lot if you follow the law, but they are an easy to funnel/launder species for others.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



JJuchems said:


> Ed,
> My point is they are illegally collect turtles. No matter how they are received, Illinois law limited ownership to 16 native specimens. You can't make a lot if you follow the law, but they are an easy to funnel/launder species for others.


Hi Jason,

I got side tracked but the point I was working towards is that the price of the illegal animals is still very competitive when compared to that of legal animals.. It is a good example of how the money recieved isn't low enough to deter the poaching so poaching continues... 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Price fixing*

Poaching continues for low hanging fruit. The questions is will people go deep into the jungle(which is where some of the more desirable species of thumbnails occur) unless there is a substantial financial incentive, such as that offered by an artificially high price caused by the "Union idea" which is what first trigerred this discussion


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I doubt it will change. Those species are currently rare and valuable in the hobby. As Ed described and I added too, the majority of smuggled/pouched wildlife is still common species.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



mantisdragon91 said:


> Poaching continues for low hanging fruit. The questions is will people go deep into the jungle(which is where some of the more desirable species of thumbnails occur) unless there is a substantial financial incentive, such as that offered by an artificially high price caused by the "Union idea" which is what first trigerred this discussion


Read the papers on the economics of it I cited earlier..


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

It seems this topic keeps coming up all over the place. Whats concerning is that many in the hobby continue to create more diversity than unity. Rather than contribute to the sites, and organizations that already exist they progress with creating more and more diversity which in the end creates separation and conflict. The concepts behind some of these discussions seem much more personal than any intent to improve the hobby. As mentioned in some of the posts the existing groups are looking for volunteers.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



kyle1745 said:


> It seems this topic keeps coming up all over the place. Whats concerning is that many in the hobby continue to create more diversity than unity. Rather than contribute to the sites, and organizations that already exist they progress with creating more and more diversity which in the end creates separation and conflict. The concepts behind some of these discussions seem much more personal than any intent to improve the hobby. As mentioned in some of the posts the existing groups are looking for volunteers.


Indeed. Support the efforts of TWI at Home | Tree Walkers International. I am going to add that this is not a personal issue for me. I forgive and forget and I do not ally myself with individuals in order to bring someone down. Surprisingly to some, I admit that I would like for this to succeed, but I do not think with the current administration that it will, and I would recommend that any board members appoint alternative management which is not hypersensitive and personally atttacking towards those of opposing views.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

Apparently the issue of price fixing is off the table until legal counsel can be sought, so breathe easy. For these inquiries, necessary for lack of being directly involved with guarded proceedings, please continue with civil discussion if at all possible. There is only cause for concern on a social level, and such points garner more respect if communicated in a civil fashion IMO.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*

Speculation is half the fun and should be expected given the approach that's being taken...so lets keep it going...

If a concensus is reached within that group, I'd expect the initial constitution to be relatively innocuous, in order to boost acceptance. 

Stuff like...

Thou shall not crossbreed or produce, sell, buy hybrids. 
Thou shall not mix species within the same enclosure.
Thou shall have locality data.
Thou shall have "x" gallons or sqft per frog per enclosure
Thou shall perform fecals once every...
Thou shall follow these procedures and protocols for WC QT, sick QT...
Thou shall not put ketchup on a hotdog
Thou shall, when necessary, use either of the following euthanasia methods.
Thou shall have a live arrival guarantee
Thou shall ship this way or that
Bla-Bla-Bla

Stuff that the great majority of us already do, but still nice to see spelled out. 

I'll be interested to see how things get ratified afterwards and the structure in place that does it. Assuming those details are ever released. I still feel its divisive as heck though and worry about the unwritten stuff.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

What happens to Union member 'caught' in violation of a commandment?



pl259 said:


> Speculation is half the fun and should be expected given the approach that's being taken...so lets keep it going...
> 
> If a consensus is reached within that group, I'd expect the initial constitution to be relatively innocuous, in order to boost acceptance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

It is true that a good bit of this is pure speculation for the fun of speculating..and that a lot of this went on with TWI as it was formed (and still occurs by a number of people (including things that are blatently incorrect)) so any speculations should be considered exactly that speculation.. 

Ed


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

A lot of us in the hobby have discussed for years how a captive breeder's group could help to work toward the conservation goals of the hobby. We all know (whether we're willing to admit it or not) that wild-collected frogs have a great number of problems associated with them. If hobbyist will work to produce large numbers of frogs, especially those that are most popular with new hobbiests (such as D. azureus and leucomelas), we can really compete with cheap imports of wild-collected animals. perhaps hobbyists could be working together to help bring an end to the cruel practice of wild-collections entirely.

*****
I have been part of many groups over time and I find the groups that turn-out to be most successful are those that are formed collaboratively, not dogmatically. A group that endeavors to listen to the concerns of the members, not establishes a rigid constitution which will be adhered to or result in dismissal. A group that is not "invitation only" (which is clearly intended to eliminate competing thoughts from being expressed in the group).

These are just some thoughts during the commercial breaks in the Academy Awards!

Richard.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I am all for the betterment of the hobby and if a union can do that so be it.
Selling larger more stable froglets.
Selling as diverse and keeping as diverse a genetic pool for species as possible.
Eliminate Chytrid from the hobby.
Selling surplus offspring to jobbers in effort to minimize WC imports (will never happen w/Pums).
Qualifying prosepective buyers with the basics of dart frog keeping.
Morph mixing and the like one would assume need not even be stated.

I try to do most of the above except for jobber part as I don't produce enough for that. I may be guilty of selling 2 month old froglets sometimes but most do well. 
I think most long term hobbyists live by most of the basic rules, if a union can better it or offer advancement more power to them.
I have never been much on joining things that take any more time than I have now..no facebook, no Link'ed In (hey Shawn that's Y) but I certainly will observe and comment. Good luck to them, they are quite a mix of strong personalities and some great frog breeders involved. It certainly makes for interesting and sadly very polarizing stances.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Ur writting their Mission Statements for them Mark?  That will take all the 'learning' out of the work they have to do for themselves....

[and sorry about the Link'ed in thing....it 'spammed' my address book ]

Personally, I dont think the hobby is 'broke' really. A code of ethics does exists like any community, and yes it needs reinforcing from time to time for sure.

Perhaps it needs to be more 'visible' for new members of the community....

I just dont think an exclusive club was needed though [ re Aaron] do you?

I fear the club is hiding behind a 'business' model agenda but claiming a more moral stand. Not sure it is true, just a worry. I'll wait for more information to shape up.



markpulawski said:


> I am all for the betterment of the hobby and if a union can do that so be it.
> Selling larger more stable froglets.
> Selling as diverse and keeping as diverse a genetic pool for species as possible.
> Eliminate Chytrid from the hobby.
> ...


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



markpulawski said:


> I am all for the betterment of the hobby and if a union can do that so be it.
> Selling larger more stable froglets.
> Selling as diverse and keeping as diverse a genetic pool for species as possible.
> Eliminate Chytrid from the hobby.
> ...



Well said Mark! 

I applaud those froggers who are willing to share their opinions and state these things up front. To me it shows they're more driven by their principals and less willing to sacrifice those principals. 

This thread has been viewed by several Union supporters, defenders, whateverers, and yet none have come out and stated anything concrete about what they personally hope to achieve through it. 

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid their opinions may not line up with the final "constitution"? The silence is deafening and sounds like some are hedging their bets.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> Off the bat, for price fixing, I'd hope it brings to light the idea of disposable pets and shows that the cheapest price model, so prevelant in marketing, makes for puppy mill mentalities and doesn't work, IMO for living animals. I have no problem w/ capitalism elsewhere, even in energy and health insurance scams(all health insurance is a scam), etc. I just don't like the idea that it leads to cutting corners for most business and leads to the person who spend the most on care for the animals is the first one to go out of business.
> 
> Umm, bringing to light that mixing does no good for the animals when breeding and leads to cross contamination(parasites/disease/bacteria/etc), not to say people who don't breed their frogs are at fault for mixing, as what stays at home doesn't hurt the hobby.
> 
> ...


Those are all good comments and not wasted at all. Thanks for sharing. I have a little different perspective on price models, but we can discuss that some other time.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> Off the bat, for price fixing, I'd hope it brings to light the idea of disposable pets and shows that the cheapest price model, so prevelant in marketing, makes for puppy mill mentalities and doesn't work, IMO for living animals. I have no problem w/ capitalism elsewhere, even in energy and health insurance scams(all health insurance is a scam), etc. I just don't like the idea that it leads to cutting corners for most business and leads to the person who spend the most on care for the animals is the first one to go out of business.


Whille the idea of disposable pets and cheapest price model while related are not always the same thing... and we can look at dogs for the model.. there is a lot of status in owning a high end dog that comes with papers (some breeds more than others..). Yet these high end dogs routinely end up in shelters and rescues... 

And congratulations. 


Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

well, this is the price fixing thread. and it hasn't stopped raining yet, grrrr.....

I think it works in the sense that, when price gets too low people stop(generally) breeding them. Unfortunately this leads to lost bloodlines and a market that runs like a pyramid scheme. The only ones hurt is the small froglets some people dump because they don't want to do the work and the adult spent breeders people sell and then the next owner tries to keep on breeding them. Although price is no deterrent to the person who is just lazy and greedy and we have no stats saying what percentage do it because of dropping price and who would just normally be a shmuck anyway.
I've also seen firsthand, as a living, at a shop and at shows 4 times a month, the #'s of people who want to put them into a 2 gal penpal w/ just water and feed them frogbites. People like this have left a BIG impression on me throughout my time in sales. I've noticed this detered by the price of the frogs early on in my business and saw it more and more towards the end w/ all sorts of people showing me cheap frogs from other booths that were mislabled, sickly, should've been at a vets office not for sale type stuff. All while my sales diminished and more and more people coming to me for the correct information on their purchases. Shows got busier, but I sold less. Although I wouldn't sell frogs for a penpal cage w/ a little water on the bottom, I saw other vendors actually do this! So as I saw more and more problems and less and less money from shows I eventually had to stop going and know what's now won out. So I'm DEFINATELY biased in that sense. I don't know how much that would deter these impulse purchases but I did just read about a cit that got out and may not make it and they said I hope she makes it because she wasn't exactly cheap and or plus she's a beautiful frog. It seems to me the higher the value the more people care for (or at least try and prioritize care even if it doesn't ACTUALLY lead to better care). Plus I dedicated my life to these animals. I only have gone on 3 vacations in the last 6 years, all 3 weddings of Michelle's best friends and her sister. Other than that I have had something to do w/ animals every single day other than (10+7+3) 20 days in over 2000I personally think that there SHOULD be room for someone to dedicate their life to these animals and not breed them to burn out and be able to run fecals and treat if needed once a year and that's expensive and the person who does that deserves a lot more than I made doing it. But that's just me I'm a dreamer and not grounded as well in reality as to what's practical as opposed to what's right. I'll always try to defend what SHOULD be out of life and not what's practical w/ modern values. I put the value of a good frog breeder above ceo's of a major corporation since they just play w/ people's lives and products and cause environmental degradation instead of nurturing life. I also think farmers of real food should be paid better than ceo's etc. See dreamer These are the real jobs, backbone of society. A job that's green(breeding frogs: no driving to work, very little waste, Shipped overnite air on a plane that was going there anyway, recycled shipping boxes,basically leaves, coco chips, bark mulch, all byproduct of an industry or can be found around the yard, etc.) and produces a product w/ no processing and a job where you could spend time w/ your family, quality time.



pl259 said:


> Those are all good comments and not wasted at all. Thanks for sharing. I have a little different perspective on price models, but we can discuss that some other time.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

With respect to disposable.... tying into a different thread.. 

Many people tell new comers to start with x, y or z frogs so they can learn before they graduate to other frogs.. there is an unintended lesson with this advice.. the lesson is that if the beginner kills those frogs it isn't that big of a deal as those are frogs where people can learn how to do take care of other frogs.... this is a strong indication that those are disposable (because it is okay if they die..). 
This has been a message that has been repeated over and over for years or even decades. 
Perhaps this message needs to be looked at in a objective manner as we are teaching new people in the hobby that some frogs are more disposable than others...and they are perpetuating the lesson.................


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

The thing I'm realizing is...
and this is getting back to the social aspect of things here, for everyone involved...

Despite all the advancements, stores of knowledge, controversy and the like...

Isn't the crux of the issue a lack of civility to others and a lack of fair treatment to one another as another fellow human being? Wouldn't everyone be able to work these issues out if they didn't see fit to destroy each other's credibility, and instead respectfully disagree? Isn't the larger success of this hobby going to be more related to working out our differences instead of fighting tooth and nail?

People hit their heads on the wall all day long on issues that mean a lot to them personally...and where does it get them? It doesn't have to be a fight all the time.
What if we tried civil discussion and stopped just hating each other as persons? Hating the ideals/values of someone is different than hating their person in my view. I don't hate people, just values I don't agree with. Personal vendettas happen when we start taking it personally.

That might actually unify the hobby or long-time 'enemies', so-called (which is often for petty enough reasons IMO).


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Thank you.

Ya, but w/ dogs you have to look at whether it's because the breed is hi strung, health problems, gets too big, prone to aggression and a kid is born into the family and theres a million others. I see what your saying though. There will always be shmucks but would higher prices make anything better? I've seen that it would w/ darts but they probably just go and buy a firebelly toad. Is that better? thay are hardier but it just means it may suffer longer. I just don't know as some of this stuff is just really hard to wrap your head around as now your dealing more w/ psychology and the reason people do what they do and probability of death and quality of life.

Sun just came out, gotta go to work.





Ed said:


> Whille the idea of disposable pets and cheapest price model while related are not always the same thing... and we can look at dogs for the model.. there is a lot of status in owning a high end dog that comes with papers (some breeds more than others..). Yet these high end dogs routinely end up in shelters and rescues...
> 
> And congratulations.
> 
> ...


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> With respect to disposable.... tying into a different thread..
> 
> Many people tell new comers to start with x, y or z frogs so they can learn before they graduate to other frogs.. there is an unintended lesson with this advice.. the lesson is that if the beginner kills those frogs it isn't that big of a deal as those are frogs where people can learn how to do take care of other frogs.... this is a strong indication that those are disposable (because it is okay if they die..).
> This has been a message that has been repeated over and over for years or even decades.
> Perhaps this message needs to be looked at in a objective manner as we are teaching new people in the hobby that some frogs are more disposable than others...and they are perpetuating the lesson.................


Do you believe this advice is leading new hobbyists to a lax standard of care, and creating bias over different dart frogs? Is this another aspect that is causing a burden on our hobby and hurting the frogs at large? Are those frogs with locale info better than those without?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

See i always said to start w/ those frogs because they are hardier, not that they are disposable. If a frog has to possibly die though for people to learn IF they are good caregivers for darts it'd be better it a common auratus and the possibility of death would be possibly less.



Ed said:


> With respect to disposable.... tying into a different thread..
> 
> Many people tell new comers to start with x, y or z frogs so they can learn before they graduate to other frogs.. there is an unintended lesson with this advice.. the lesson is that if the beginner kills those frogs it isn't that big of a deal as those are frogs where people can learn how to do take care of other frogs.... this is a strong indication that those are disposable (because it is okay if they die..).
> This has been a message that has been repeated over and over for years or even decades.
> Perhaps this message needs to be looked at in a objective manner as we are teaching new people in the hobby that some frogs are more disposable than others...and they are perpetuating the lesson.................


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



earthfrog said:


> Do you believe this advice is leading new hobbyists to a lax standard of care, and creating bias over different dart frogs? Is this another aspect that is causing a burden on our hobby and hurting the frogs at large? Are those frogs with locale info better than those without?


I think it does create a bias as frogs are elevated... and there is more status in having them (as it indicates you have "advanced" or crossed a threshold) than in having other frogs. There is status in not only no longer being considered a beginner (and be extension, no longer subject to peer pressure to only keep beginner frogs) but in making it to to the point where they have "expert" frogs..


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> well, this is the price fixing thread. .....


Of course! I didn't want to engage further because of your comment...



> I'm sure there's a lot more if I thought about it but I've wasted all my free time on this thread and have no more. I'm getting married in under 5 months, here, at my house, and have tons to do and the weather is NOT cooperating.


I've also got to get back to work, and will read through you last comments and reply later on.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> See i always said to start w/ those frogs because they are hardier, not that they are disposable. If a frog has to possibly die though for people to learn IF they are good caregivers for darts it'd be better it a common auratus and the possibility of death would be possibly less.


The statement and the message it carries can be very different. Telling beginners to only start with a certain subset of frogs, also indicates that those frog don't matter as much if they kick the bucket.. and that those are low status animals. This is where the message indicates those are disposable whether or not that is the intended message.. and it places a value that some frogs are worth less than others. 

Given that we have popularity cycles and populations crash, can the hobby in the long run continue to place that it is better to kill some frogs than others?


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> I think it does create a bias as frogs are elevated... and there is more status in having them (as it indicates you have "advanced" or crossed a threshold) than in having other frogs. There is status in not only no longer being considered a beginner (and be extension, no longer subject to peer pressure to only keep beginner frogs) but in making it to to the point where they have "expert" frogs..


Yes, and so eventually you have a huge rift in the hobby where the higher-end frogs are only gathered and sold/traded to those applauded as advanced, with increasing genetic issues over a longer period of time. Granted, the issues relating to genetic viability in a strain of frogs is a complex issue, but I'm talking more than 20 years down the road...

Are you saying this particular philosopy of exclusionary selection/management of the frogs may actually contribute to the demise or loss of species eventually, or at least harm their long-term viability, in a similar way which has been done with 'purebred dogs' vs. 'mutts'? I'm not saying this is even an issue with the current organization at all, but just wondering about this issue on a general level, just something else of which to be wary.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*

Hi Ed,

So sadly true. Niko was set for euthanasia when I rescued him from the local kill shelter. When I was leaving, they handed me his AKC papers indicating that he is a champion-line dog (I'm sure someone paid a lot of money for him). I wanted to send the papers back to the AKC with blood on them, as these "clubs" can and do lead to making these "high end" dogs desirable to many people who have no business trying to raise them.

I have been attacked *** for selling large quantities of sought after frogs at a discount (by wholesaling them to other larger retailers). I know that you and I agree that it is better to sell captive-born frogs to people that may or may not kill them, rather than support the endless supply of wild-collected frogs that is allowed into the country. Perhaps the argument on price is tryint to address two differing issues.

I also don't see how high-priced F1,F2...Fn frogs supports conservation efforts like UE. *****
Just some thoughts, Richard.



Ed said:


> Whille the idea of disposable pets and cheapest price model while related are not always the same thing... and we can look at dogs for the model.. there is a lot of status in owning a high end dog that comes with papers (some breeds more than others..). Yet these high end dogs routinely end up in shelters and rescues...
> 
> And congratulations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



earthfrog said:


> Yes, and so eventually you have a huge rift in the hobby where the higher-end frogs are only gathered and sold/traded to those applauded as advanced, with increasing genetic issues over a longer period of time. Granted, the issues relating to genetic viability in a strain of frogs is a complex issue, but I'm talking more than 20 years down the road...
> 
> Are you saying this particular philosopy of exclusionary selection/management of the frogs may actually contribute to the demise or loss of species eventually, or at least harm their long-term viability, in a similar way which has been done with 'purebred dogs' vs. 'mutts'? I'm not saying this is even an issue with the current organization at all, but just wondering about this issue on a general level, just something else of which to be wary.


It isn't a philosophy.. it is an artifact of how the hobby has evolved. This is an unintended byproduct of how things have been done in the hobby and in part reflects the origin of the hobby when there weren't a lot of captive frogs available and successful reproductions were much fewer and farther between.... it has become a badge of pride to own/work with frogs that have been labled more difficult.. 

The hobby has been undergoing a fairly rapid period of sophistication as new methodolgies, techniques and materials improve the ability to keep the frogs not only alive but well. 

Ed


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> It isn't a philosophy.. it is an artifact of how the hobby has evolved. This is an unintended byproduct of how things have been done in the hobby and in part reflects the origin of the hobby when there weren't a lot of captive frogs available and successful reproductions were much fewer and farther between.... it has become a badge of pride to own/work with frogs that have been labled more difficult..
> 
> The hobby has been undergoing a fairly rapid period of sophistication as new methodolgies, techniques and materials improve the ability to keep the frogs not only alive but well.
> 
> Ed


It sounds like then, in terms of the unintended consequence of recommending some frogs be purchased and some not (namely larger frogs for beginners instead of thumbs, for starters) that this is something that needs to stop for the long-term well-being of the frogs. This is market-steering advice, not husbandry advice.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



Woodsman said:


> Hi Ed,
> 
> So sadly true. Niko was set for euthanasia when I rescued him from the local kill shelter. When I was leaving, they handed me his AKC papers indicating that he is a champion-line dog (I'm sure someone paid a lot of money for him). I wanted to send the papers back to the AKC with blood on them, as these "clubs" can and do lead to making these "high end" dogs desirable to many people who have no business trying to raise them.


Again, this was an unintended side effect as the original goals of the breed standards were to maintain a breed for its characteristics and value for those characteristics... 

History... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



earthfrog said:


> It sounds like then, in terms of the unintended consequence of recommending some frogs be purchased and some not (namely larger frogs for beginners instead of thumbs, for starters) that this is something that needs to stop for the long-term well-being of the frogs. This is market-steering advice, not husbandry advice.


I'm not sure it has to stop as when applied flexibly, it can give the newer people a better chance of success.. 

Ed


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> I'm not sure it has to stop as when applied flexibly, it can give the newer people a better chance of success..
> 
> Ed


Yeah, I guess it has to be dealt with case-by-case.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I did see where the price fixing issue was off the table, nice that that was addressed. I would suggest that this being the largest DF forum in the US someone involved in the Union discussions would address concerns or even questions here. I am sure it is very early in what they what their end product to look like but there should be no fear in answering basic questions. I know there has to be several members or invitees to the union involved in this forum, perhaps a basic understanding of goals or mandates would create support here as well.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

Aren't they the same thing. Making people do things that are good for the frogs?
Actually, it's not about control as people have to opt in. You decide if you want to sign up for the standards set forth. I don't think people could be "controlled" by this unless they wanted to, and then it's technically not control, right?

Were you really asking or just leading?



kyle1745 said:


> One should also consider the reasons one would want to create such a "union". Is it truly about progressing the hobby or more about control?


----------



## RMB (Nov 26, 2009)

*Re: Price fixing*

Would a "rule of thumb" pricing work in this situation? By no means would it be binding or all inclusive, but I think it might be courteous to other hobbyists not to reduce the value of the frogs that they paid good money for by severely undercutting their prices. Something like "Sell froglets for no less than 90% of what you paid for their parents" assuming you bought the parents as unsexed froglets. This would probably only apply to newer, more valuable species in the hobby that people are just starting to produce larger quantities of, such as Benedicta. It would not apply to species such as Azureus or most Auratus, the prices of which have become mainly based on cost and effort of propagating them rather than based on rarity.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



RMB said:


> Would a "rule of thumb" pricing work in this situation? By no means would it be binding or all inclusive, but I think it might be courteous to other hobbyists not to reduce the value of the frogs that they paid good money for by severely undercutting their prices. Something like "Sell froglets for no less than 90% of what you paid for their parents" assuming you bought the parents as unsexed froglets. This would probably only apply to newer, more valuable species in the hobby that people are just starting to produce larger quantities of, such as Benedicta. It would not apply to species such as Azureus or most Auratus, the prices of which have become mainly based on cost and effort of propagating them rather than based on rarity.


What if the market doesn't accept that as a price? 

The problem is that the local hobby (represented by the forums) is a small portion of the people who would buy the frogs. If people really want to stabilize cost in the local hobby then surplus needs to be sold elsewhere. In this case, if it is sold outside of the hobby to the resellers. 

I wouldn't use auratus for this example as they are on the down swing of a popularity cycle and may not have hit rock bottom and fewer people have them than they did 15 years ago... thumbnails and pumilio pushed a lot of the larger frogs out of the limelight... It will be interesting to see if we lose any morphs before all is said and done. 

Ed


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

I'd just like to thank the moderators for moving this thread into the General Discussions section. Hopefully, more members will feel free to add their input without worrying too much about the "rough and tumble" of the Thunderdome.

Thanks again, Richard.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Re: Price fixing*



frogfarm said:


> Aren't they the same thing. Making people do things that are good for the frogs?
> Actually, it's not about control as people have to opt in. You decide if you want to sign up for the standards set forth. I don't think people could be "controlled" by this unless they wanted to, and then it's technically not control, right?
> 
> Were you really asking or just leading?


Enforcment of those standards is an interesting question. How do you think that would work?

One of things I worry about is whether or not the standards contain controversial elements and the implications if they do. 

Let's assume there is one controversial element that I don't agree with, but do agree with all of the others elements. If I don't sacrifice on my principals and therefore not sign up because of that one element, the implication could be made that I don't agree with any of the elements. Which of course would be false. That would seem to me to create an opportunity for a lot of false assumptions, amoungst other things.

Kinda of an all or nothing proposition.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*

I have no clue how it would be enforced. How is akc and other orgs enforcing their codes?

Then you could make up your own union that included mixing or hybridizing or whatever the controversial element was. Union is a bad word for it. Your own club/group/org.

Say one of the rules is no mixing froglets because of bullying or cross contamination and you got a picture of someones frog room w/ mixed juvis then they'd be, maybe voted out or a club appointed enforcer would decide, a board maybe?



pl259 said:


> Enforcment of those standards is an interesting question. How do you think that would work?
> 
> One of things I worry about is whether or not the standards contain controversial elements and the implications if they do.
> 
> ...


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

The enforcement question is important because the answer defines several things. 
It will be interesting to hear what those answers are.

From what I’ve seen, this “hobby” can basically be broken down into four aspects.

*Husbandry:* housing, nutrition, temp control, humidity control, lighting, health maintenance, QT, cleanliness, ect.
*Livestock:* WC, CB, FR, species, lineage, genetics, breeding, conservation efforts, import/export, ect.
*Social:* Forums, clubs, meetings, open houses
*Business:* Expenses, sales, marketing, shows 

We all place different priorities for each of these. Mine are in the order listed. The best path forward addresses all of us, each with our own priorities. 

*Regarding Husbandry*…I am fully in favor of establishing and maintaining a recommended set of best practices. I strongly discourage the term “standards”. I’d love to see an active working group of varied hobbyists openly, sharing and developing them. As long as we’re willing to share, there’s no reason we can’t distill down, the best info out there, for all of us to use. This would have the greatest positive impact. I don’t know anyone in this hobby, that doesn’t see this as a top priority. Yet, there are so few willing to pull together a simple care sheet, for example. One area I feel we fall short in, is communicating info about large collection management. 

*Livestock*…The reason we do what we do. Most of this boils down to lineage management. Line data, origin or locality data, managing genetic stock. Certainly there are also those people who hold the conservation side in high importance. Lineage is where the AKC comparison has the most merit IMO. But the comparison falls off quickly outside of this. There’s no reason we can’t utilize online management of our “stock”, with existing or new SW tools. And let’s not restart the whole “noname” horse puckey, from a few years ago. 

*Social*…If you’re reading this, then there’s really no need to go too far into it. Hopefully we all can see the value in keeping things open, diverse, and broad. Regional clubs are great and are the starting points for a strong network of hobbyists. Species specific groups also are important and the reason for those specific sub forums here. I’m not sure if there are any groupings, other than online forums, region, and species, that offer much more value socially. Perhaps terrarium related groups focusing on plant or/and viv related things. There are already forums and other groups out there for this.

*Business*…Ah yes. We all have our own needs/desires with respect to this aspect. We all have our own expenses. Some wouldn’t do it at all unless there was some profit margin, over and above every single cost they incur. Others are happy to break even. Still others really don’t care that much at all about it. Regarding inventories, some species are prolific, some aren't. All these differences make hard gaps to bridge, across the entire hobby. 

Another important factor that is highly variable, that is beyond the supply/demand economics of things, is production costs. Some of us breed, market and sell with a minimum of expense(time, materials). Tanks are basic and simple. Others spare little expense, have exotic plants, spend many hours a week, cleaning , pruning, whatever. Costs for the same animal can be very different. In either case, while production costs can vary greatly, and considering all other things equal, there’s no reason that the quality of the final product can’t be the same. That’s the nub of it.


The reason for all this, is to serve as a basis of discussion for how and where a union, or subset of hobbyists, might fit in with regards to these aspects. Working groups producing best practice items, I get that. Standards? Don't think so. Lineage managment? Maybe, but there's no reason it can't be available to all and more about basic record keeping. Conservation? That's a big yes! Social? Divisive and too member's only for my taste. Business? Well, that seems to be where the most bang for the buck is(pun intended). Hard for me to see how a subset of hobbyists can provide the best path forward, business wise, that addresses all of us, each with our own priorities. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pl259 said:


> four aspects.
> 
> *Husbandry:* housing, nutrition, temp control, humidity control, lighting, health maintenance, QT, cleanliness, ect.
> 
> *Regarding Husbandry*…I am fully in favor of establishing and maintaining a recommended set of best practices. I strongly discourage the term “standards”. I’d love to see an active working group of varied hobbyists openly, sharing and developing them. As long as we’re willing to share, there’s no reason we can’t distill down, the best info out there, for all of us to use. This would have the greatest positive impact. I don’t know anyone in this hobby, that doesn’t see this as a top priority. Yet, there are so few willing to pull together a simple care sheet, for example. One area I feel we fall short in, is communicating info about large collection management.


How does one seperate subjective versus objective standards in best practices.. for example currently it is generally considered "incorrect" to house tinctorius in anything other than pairs even though some people have had great success in the past with groups.. This dichotomy is large enough that as soon as person posts about issues with a group of tinctorius the first recommendations are to seperate them down into pairs..

Some thoughts..


----------



## dart666 (Sep 18, 2010)

This topic has been on every reef site I've been to regarding rare clown fish and as an ex breeder I know that the price when it all comes down to it is up to the consumer! If people are willing to spend $600 dollars on a pair of BJ pums lets say for argument than why would any breeder in there right mind wanna lower the price? But as fades change and more people breed them the price will always come down and as to the inbreeding topic well that's just lack of knowledge and puppy mill type mentality!


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

If they are together and doing fine then leave them together. I have suggested in the past only pairs because people want to usually add more later in life after frogs have made their territories, which usually leads to aggression. Most people only relay the first part of info and that's where it stays. Without learning the social dynamic and really having an interest in learning the dynamic, they just shorten to "tincs should only be kept in pairs. I have had 2-3 males in tanks and everything was fine till I threw a female in w/ the bunch, same applies to the opposite situation. Which is why I think it's rude to keep an individual frog for the rest of it's life. They obviously like nookie so much that they'll fight over it Not to try and humavize the frogs but....
The reason you shouldn't add to the group is one of social dynamic and health issues. As people go looking for others to add to a group, if you don't quarentine and at least see if they have the same parasites/diseases you'll end up compounding problems. That can be expensive and time consuming and a lot of people would just cut corners.



Ed said:


> How does one seperate subjective versus objective standards in best practices.. for example currently it is generally considered "incorrect" to house tinctorius in anything other than pairs even though some people have had great success in the past with groups.. This dichotomy is large enough that as soon as person posts about issues with a group of tinctorius the first recommendations are to seperate them down into pairs..
> 
> Some thoughts..


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> If they are together and doing fine then leave them together. I have suggested in the past only pairs because people want to usually add more later in life after frogs have made their territories, which usually leads to aggression. Most people only relay the first part of info and that's where it stays. Without learning the social dynamic and really having an interest in learning the dynamic, they just shorten to "tincs should only be kept in pairs. I have had 2-3 males in tanks and everything was fine till I threw a female in w/ the bunch, same applies to the opposite situation. Which is why I think it's rude to keep an individual frog for the rest of it's life. They obviously like nookie so much that they'll fight over it Not to try and humavize the frogs but....
> The reason you shouldn't add to the group is one of social dynamic and health issues. As people go looking for others to add to a group, if you don't quarentine and at least see if they have the same parasites/diseases you'll end up compounding problems. That can be expensive and time consuming and a lot of people would just cut corners.


Well yes.. but how do you prevent the subjective use of it from becoming a absolute standard, which if violated becomes a problem for most people? 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

People have to get a longer attention span and actually be interested in it to retain the whole of the information. It's a people flaw, I don't know how to fix those



Ed said:


> Well yes.. but how do you prevent the subjective use of it from becoming a absolute standard, which if violated becomes a problem for most people?
> 
> Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Ed said:


> How does one seperate subjective versus objective standards in best practices..
> Some thoughts..


I think one answer is you don't seperate them. And practically speaking, what is an objective standard anyway? 51% agreement?, 80%?, 100%? 

The working group, even if we assume that a good cross section of the hobby is represented, is going to be subjective. They can decide on the best recommended practice then offer additional recommendations/provisos. It certainly could get knotty.

This is one of the reasons why I think there needs to be recommendations. How and if, they get tied into acceptance within a group, is another question.

Of course another option is that you write the recommendation/best practice in a less specific, weaker manner. Such as...

"Thou shall not keep pairs and groups of animals together in the same enclosure, in numbers and/or ratios that would cause undo stress, bla, bla, bla"


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Actually if it was by % of the people then it is subjective... which is why I cited the tinctorius example... despite the current subjective standard, we know it can be done without issues in a different manner yet those methods are frowned upon due to "the commonly held subjective best practices". 

There are anecdotal cases of researchers having to house treefrogs in setups for leopard frogs because the best standard practice rules were written for leopard frogs... 


Ed


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

It is already clear that there will be a major schism between those of us who believe that large quantities of captive-born frogs offered at reasonable prices (to compete with cheap wc imports) is anathema to the leader (who is more interested in raising frog prices to keep people out of the hobby). I have been attacked often for taking this position, so I don't expect that the "union" will see this any differently than the leader.

Even if this is an invitation only group (as it stands today), will there be a membership? Will the members be permitted to vote on the constitution? Or will there be a small committee of the leader's friends who try to set the agenda for the rest of the hobby? What will become of all of us deviants who defy the "union"? I shudder to think.

Richard.


----------



## Chris Miller (Apr 20, 2009)

Richard,

What everyone, union or otherwise, needs to realize is the key to stability is selling surplus frogs at low prices to businesses outside the hobby (or at least have the potential to reach the outside world). This will prevent the devaluing of frogs (right or wrong, it happens) and has the potential to displace wild caught frogs from wholesales or jobbers holding tanks. 

If you think about it how many hobbyists purchase WC frogs? That's why it's important to push our frogs out and away from the hobby when we have extras. 

Flippers/jobbers have their place, but it shouldn't be flipping back into the hobby.


----------



## evolvstll (Feb 17, 2007)

Woodsman said:


> (who is more interested in raising frog prices to keep people out of the hobby).
> 
> Richard.


I have not seen any evidence of this at all on any of the forums. Where is your evidence to substantiate such a claim?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It's funny, he complains about so many people buying frogs that they have to be supplied by wc but wants more people in the hobby. Kinda confusing. 
Richard,
I think you have it wrong why people don't like wholesale prices to the public. There is a threshold below which we bottleneck genes by loosing breeding pairs in the hobby. They become too cheap to produce. No one wants to keep people out of the hobby. They do not like the idea of disposable pets, simple(and those people who buy disposable pets would not really be "in the hobby". They do not want to see morphs dissappear from too low prices and overproduction and bottleneck genes. We're only thinking about the frogs best interest, lets stop trying to spin this the wrong way?



evolvstll said:


> I have not seen any evidence of this at all on any of the forums. Where is your evidence to substantiate such a claim?


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree completely. I haven't been to too many shows outside my immediate area, but there are always wc frogs there for sale. Having a good supply of cb frogs also at the shows offers the alternative I was talking about. I think many of these purchases are not from hobbyists, but the larger herp community in general or the general public.

Take care, Richard.



Chris Miller said:


> Richard,
> 
> What everyone, union or otherwise, needs to realize is the key to stability is selling surplus frogs at low prices to businesses outside the hobby (or at least have the potential to reach the outside world). This will prevent the devaluing of frogs (right or wrong, it happens) and has the potential to displace wild caught frogs from wholesales or jobbers holding tanks.
> 
> ...


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Chris Miller said:


> Richard,
> 
> What everyone, union or otherwise, needs to realize is the key to stability is selling surplus frogs at low prices to businesses outside the hobby (or at least have the potential to reach the outside world). This will prevent the devaluing of frogs (right or wrong, it happens) and has the potential to displace wild caught frogs from wholesales or jobbers holding tanks.
> 
> ...


Help me to understand this issue. I wholesale frogs all the time.

What's the difference if I sell 15 wholesale frogs to PetNotsoSmart or one of our Sponsors?

What is the "outside world"?

On a related note, what are some examples of specific frog species that are now extinct from the hobby, solely because there were too many produced and not because of other factors, like disease, hard to breed, ect?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I don't want to put words in Chris's mouth so this should be read as only my thoughts on this.. 



pl259 said:


> Help me to understand this issue. I wholesale frogs all the time.
> 
> What's the difference if I sell 15 wholesale frogs to PetNotsoSmart or one of our Sponsors?


To me they should be the same unless you have some thoughts that it makes a difference personally on how thier care is going to be handled by the specific wholeseller or retailer. 




pl259 said:


> What is the "outside world"?


Outside of the immediate hobby is my thought. 



pl259 said:


> On a related note, what are some examples of specific frog species that are now extinct from the hobby, solely because there were too many produced and not because of other factors, like disease, hard to breed, ect?


There is at least one example off the top of my head where commonality of imports destroyed the market for captive bred animals resulting in a extinction until years later they were reimported.. The captive bred offspring didn't sell well at $15.. so breeding stopped and they were lost. 
Melanophryniscus stelzneri... 

In my opinion, if we didn't have reimports from either Europe or country of origins we probably would have seen far more extinctions. 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Personally, I don't think they're the same, but not because of a difference in the care they would receive. For several good reasons, I prefer to sell to Sponsors or other retailers in the hobby, which is the exact opposite of what Chris thinks is needed.

Regardless of where the frogs are purchased, isn't the new owner now "inside" the hobby? I'm not seeing the dividing line between inside/outside. One of the reasons I would prefer selling to a Sponser is that it keeps the money in the hobby. 

There's been a lot of discussion about regulating the supply side of frog sales. In support of that, I've read justifications centered around overbreeding of captive bred animals and how that caused an extinction within the hobby. I tend to think of this more as a result of poor collection/line management. Considering the growth of the hobby and the various places we can now wholesale to, it seems far less of a possibility that a particular species/line/morph would be lost.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Eric,

That's my thought exactly. The only ones we have to "blame" for the loss of a species or colormorph from the hobby is ourselves. I think perhaps the production of full-out Taxon Management Plans for each taxon in the hobby is reaching farther than we need to go (or may, perhaps, be unrealistic given the size of the hobby). 

If each dedicated hobbyist were to make a mission of organizing their collection around one species or colormorph, and endeavor to maintain the greatest amount of genetic divversity that exists right now for that taxon, and work toward breeding this diversity and offering true "bloodline" frogs, then I think a lot of the losses could be avoided.

I like working with D. tinctorius, someone else (George) might want to work mostly with E. tricolor, Ranitomeyas, etc. Rather than try to have as diverse a collection as possible, we as individuals can contribute more to the hobby's future by concentrating on a smaller number of taxons. You might think that looking at 8 different breeding pairs of Giant Orange or Reginas or Matechos would be boring, but I like seeing the diveristy and personalities that each pair exhibits. I keep a few thumbnails and oddities (like blue D. truncatus) for interest, but I have been very happy working in mostly one group.

That's at least one thought I had today, Richard.



pl259 said:


> Personally, I don't think they're the same, but not because of a difference in the care they would receive. For several good reasons, I prefer to sell to Sponsors or other retailers in the hobby, which is the exact opposite of what Chris thinks is needed.
> 
> Regardless of where the frogs are purchased, isn't the new owner now "inside" the hobby? I'm not seeing the dividing line between inside/outside. One of the reasons I would prefer selling to a Sponser is that it keeps the money in the hobby.
> 
> There's been a lot of discussion about regulating the supply side of frog sales. In support of that, I've read justifications centered around overbreeding of captive bred animals and how that caused an extinction within the hobby. I tend to think of this more as a result of poor collection/line management. Considering the growth of the hobby and the various places we can now wholesale to, it seems far less of a possibility that a particular species/line/morph would be lost.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Eric,

As I noted I can't speak for Chris. 



pl259 said:


> Personally, I don't think they're the same, but not because of a difference in the care they would receive. For several good reasons, I prefer to sell to Sponsors or other retailers in the hobby, which is the exact opposite of what Chris thinks is needed.
> 
> Regardless of where the frogs are purchased, isn't the new owner now "inside" the hobby? I'm not seeing the dividing line between inside/outside. One of the reasons I would prefer selling to a Sponser is that it keeps the money in the hobby.


Overall, most of the people active in the hobby tend to aquire thier frogs from each other as this is where the captive bred frogs are established. If the sponsor is selling them back into the active community then this is not removing surplus from the active hobby. 

The person "outside" the hobby who aquires frogs may be loosely considered to be in the hobby but until they actively enter the community and purchase from within the active community they are still outside. Until they enter the active community and start to aquire thier frogs primarily from other hobbyists and/or produce thier own for sale, they are a outlet for extra frogs. 

The active hobby in general is a closed market that has a saturation threshold. This threshold has historically been around $15/froglet at which time the market stops purchasing the frogs and divests. A period of time later (if my memory serves me correctly) ranging around 5 years or so later, the population has dropped enough that interest rises and demand increases... 

There isn't anything inherently wrong with selling to a sponsor but it can't be considered to be an method to reduce/prevent saturation of the market. 




pl259 said:


> There's been a lot of discussion about regulating the supply side of frog sales. In support of that, I've read justifications centered around overbreeding of captive bred animals and how that caused an extinction within the hobby. I tend to think of this more as a result of poor collection/line management. Considering the growth of the hobby and the various places we can now wholesale to, it seems far less of a possibility that a particular species/line/morph would be lost.


I would hope that to be the case but history has indicated otherwise. As I noted above, there is a threshold where the saturation of the market has a direct impact on the population overall. For whatever reason, at around $15 a froglet people get out of keeping that species. If we consider the long-term implications of this, particularly if a country closes and does not allow further exports, we could see morphs/species go extinct in captivity pretty easily. We can look at analagous hobby communties such as the killifish community to see that has occured in other hobbies (and this is despite the dedication of the AKA to keep morphs/species around..) Now this may be considered to be poor collection management but there is a market component and it has happened more than once. If you look at the history of the E. tricolor/anthyoni complex this cycle has happened at least one and in some morphs twice in the last 20 years... these booms and busts put the population at risk as the numbers can easily drop to the point there are very few animals or even just one sex (male stelzneri were around for several years after the population collapsed and on occasion sold for several hundred dollars..). 
One of the possible ways these cycles can be delayed or stopped is to sell the frogs into new markets to prevent saturation of the closed market. 

Ed


----------



## Chris Miller (Apr 20, 2009)

What Ed said...

That sums up my feelings. To me it's about getting the surplus out of the hobby. Some of the larger sponsors probably sell more to people outside the hobby than inside as people inside know they don't produce their own frogs. That would make them a conduit to move frogs outside of the hobby. 

While none have disappeared, some example frogs I can think of suffering from being over produced are, all 3 morphs of aurotaenia, terribilis, vittatus, green leg bicolor, the first black and green auratus. Even blue truncatus out supplied demand back in the day. 

It was poor management that caused the losses to diversity. I do see it being less possible now, but only because we are watching out for it now.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

I agree that a closed market will saturate. I also agree that a prolific species can easily saturate within that market. I also doubt as a hobby, that we have the resolve to only breed enough to maintain stable populations. The profit motive is too great. Result? Boom/Bust. While there may be a couple species that have gone extinct within the hobby, solely due to over production, the large majority of those that do go "bust" do not simply disappear. Profits might, but all the frogs don't.

"all 3 morphs of aurotaenia, terribilis, vittatus, green leg bicolor, the first black and green auratus. Even blue truncatus out supplied demand back in the day." Sure, and they are all still out there today. 

I do not advocate for, nor do I work towards, maximizing breeding production. In fact, my setups actually counter that. However, that being said, it is quite easy to end up with an excess. It's easy to do with Epis and Phyllos, for example. Pums on the other hand are very different. I can have 50 or more tads in the pipe, before I know that the first morphed froglets are heatlthy so I can curb further breeding. And even then, rashes of SLS can pop up that need to be resolved. I do not have the resolve to cull these young tads and froglets. Maybe I need to come to terms with that.

Excess production is also required just to maintain an active line. This has to be done in order to produce the next generation of healthy breeders. Yields are not 100%. This has nothing to do with breeding for profit.

We will have excess. When kept in safe tanks, frogs will breed, and they will do it well. Our husbandry skills will also continue to evolve and get better. What's left is to grow the market. There are several ways to approach this. Wholesaling excess stock to resellers wthin the hobby, gets affordable frogs to new owners and provides a direct link to other successful owners. We need to do our best, in all aspects, to help every new owner to be successful. If we accomplish this, their own collections will grow too. After all, nobody can have just one. 

Accepting a model that relies on new members NOT being successful, is not a direction I choose to go in. While it may parallel the natural world, I don't think as a hobby we're at a point where we need to do that. I think we can do better than to maintain a duality of good/bad husbandry, just for the purposes of population control.


----------



## evolvstll (Feb 17, 2007)

pl259 said:


> Accepting a model that relies on new members NOT being successful, is not a direction I choose to go in. While it may parallel the natural world, I don't think as a hobby we're at a point where we need to do that. I think we can do better than to maintain a duality of good/bad husbandry, just for the purposes of population control.


So this is not this first time this accusation has been put out there in this thread. Would anyone care to substantiate any of these claims regarding members of our hobby wanting people to fail with their frogs? Any posts from DB or other forums or is it just speculation?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So saying the profit motive is too great automatically exonerates anyone from responsibility?



pl259 said:


> I agree that a closed market will saturate. I also agree that a prolific species can easily saturate within that market. I also doubt as a hobby, that we have the resolve to only breed enough to maintain stable populations. The profit motive is too great. Result? Boom/Bust. While there may be a couple species that have gone extinct within the hobby, solely due to over production, the large majority of those that do go "bust" do not simply disappear. Profits might, but all the frogs don't.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

No one is accusing anyone. Who said anything about WANTING people to fail?

I'm not sure which threads, but there are posts with regards to how the hobby operates, and how mortality rates at the hands of novice keepers, actually tends to ease surpluses and lessen pressures. Which is true, and that it parallels natural population controls, like predation. That's what my paragraph is refering to.

I'd like to see us not accept this as a natural part of the hobby. I don't believe we're in a closed market, yet, as we haven't done all we can do to grow it.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> So saying the profit motive is too great automatically exonerates anyone from responsibility?


Of course not, it just makes it harder for us as a group, to effectively control our populations.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

People in Nigeria don't smoke in public because they are shunned because people think it's dirty. Never underestimate the control a population can have over itself if it puts it's mind to it. Why do you think different populations have different cultures? It's the way that people are treated that guides their actions, for the most part. If it's completely acceptable by a group to breed their frogs non stop then someone will gravitate towards that group. If there's no group that accepts said actions it won't occur as much, if at all. Maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong but I don't think it's been tried yet. Maybe it won't work at all, I don't know.

And not breeding your frogs doesn't have to equal bad husbandry. More pairs producing less is just better security and genetic diversity.

Thoughts?



pl259 said:


> Of course not, it just makes it harder for us as a group, to effectively control our populations.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> People in Nigeria don't smoke in public because they are shunned because people think it's dirty. Never underestimate the control a population can have over itself if it puts it's mind to it. Why do you think different populations have different cultures? It's the way that people are treated that guides their actions, for the most part. If it's completely acceptable by a group to breed their frogs non stop then someone will gravitate towards that group. If there's no group that accepts said actions it won't occur as much, if at all. Maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong but I don't think it's been tried yet. Maybe it won't work at all, I don't know.


I think people in Nigerias aren't smoking for profit  Sorry, just said for fun. Please ignore.

Why would someone gravitate towards a group that accepts non-stop breeding?



> And not breeding your frogs doesn't have to equal bad husbandry. More pairs producing less is just better security and genetic diversity.
> 
> Thoughts?


I'm in violent agreement.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

No, that's funny, but profit and addiction can be the same for some. Just look how some people who make more every year than they could ever spend who are complaining about a small raise in taxes while others are asking to be taxed more.
Someone would gravitate towards a group that accept s that if they are only worried about profit. It opens up a place to be accepted in your actions. Something Ed said in the past in reference to something else.
I used to breed some of my animals non stop because I thought that putting more out there would get them established, which didn't work. Now I'm thinking of only breeding my frogs for a standar 5 months out of the year and shutting them down for the other 7 months. I used to just let them take breaks when they did which was 2-3 months out of the year and not all at once. This way I can vacation and only have 10-15 pairs of adult frogs for someone to care for and give them all a good long rest. this will help give a natural up and down cycle so they don't get too oversaturated. I can take the whole year to get rid of frogs if i don't always have more coming up.



pl259 said:


> I think people in Nigerias aren't smoking for profit  Sorry, just said for fun. Please ignore.
> 
> Why would someone gravitate towards a group that accepts non-stop breeding?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pl259 said:


> I agree that a closed market will saturate. I also agree that a prolific species can easily saturate within that market. I also doubt as a hobby, that we have the resolve to only breed enough to maintain stable populations. The profit motive is too great. Result? Boom/Bust. While there may be a couple species that have gone extinct within the hobby, solely due to over production, the large majority of those that do go "bust" do not simply disappear. Profits might, but all the frogs don't.


The reason the frogs haven't vanished could also be an artifact that with some species imports have continued to come into the country as opposed to any real luck.. We have seen auratus (in general not specific morph) imported for more than 30 years... how often has that bolstered a collapsed population? How often have tinctorius continued to be supplied to the hobby from imported animals? 




pl259 said:


> I do not advocate for, nor do I work towards, maximizing breeding production. In fact, my setups actually counter that. However, that being said, it is quite easy to end up with an excess. It's easy to do with Epis and Phyllos, for example. Pums on the other hand are very different. I can have 50 or more tads in the pipe, before I know that the first morphed froglets are heatlthy so I can curb further breeding. And even then, rashes of SLS can pop up that need to be resolved. I do not have the resolve to cull these young tads and froglets. Maybe I need to come to terms with that.


I don't think the argument has been for anyone to maximize breeding or production. As I understood the argument was that surplus animals to be sold outside the hobby to prevent saturating the market. There is a much larger herp hobby that would be willing to purchase captive bred frogs. This would serve multiple purposes as it could
1) supply captive bred animals instead of wild caught animals to meet that demand reducing wild caught imports for the general pet market 
2) slow down or prevent saturation of the market to the point people divest of the frogs (as each cycle of divestment can be a loss of alleles and long term sustainability in the hobby)
3) bring newer people into the hobby through thier interest allowing for the hobby to expand and hopefully become involved in the long-term sustainability of the frogs. 



pl259 said:


> Excess production is also required just to maintain an active line. This has to be done in order to produce the next generation of healthy breeders. Yields are not 100%. This has nothing to do with breeding for profit.


While excess is technically used correctly here, the implications it brings are far in excess of what is actually needed... in reality you only need to produce a few healthy animals to ensure continuation of a line. The extra animals are to ensure a suitable sex ration and that at least one of each sex reaches maturity for the smaller frogs you only have to produce that for many frogs over a span that could be as long as 5-15 years (species dependent).. 




pl259 said:


> We will have excess. When kept in safe tanks, frogs will breed, and they will do it well. Our husbandry skills will also continue to evolve and get better. What's left is to grow the market. There are several ways to approach this. Wholesaling excess stock to resellers wthin the hobby, gets affordable frogs to new owners and provides a direct link to other successful owners. We need to do our best, in all aspects, to help every new owner to be successful. If we accomplish this, their own collections will grow too. After all, nobody can have just one.


As a hypothetical point (I am not advocating that people have to do this..) Actually it is possible to not have excess, the frogs do not have to breed.. they could be housed in enclosures that do not provide suitable triggers for reproduction.... or they could be bred on a seasonal basis or eggs could even be pulled (see my comments on sustainable populations above..). 

If everyone sells thier offspring to resellers within the hobby or only sell to one another within the hobby, the boom and bust from market saturation will continue. 



pl259 said:


> Accepting a model that relies on new members NOT being successful, is not a direction I choose to go in. While it may parallel the natural world, I don't think as a hobby we're at a point where we need to do that. I think we can do better than to maintain a duality of good/bad husbandry, just for the purposes of population control.


I wasn't aware that this was even part of the discussion... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pl259 said:


> I'd like to see us not accept this as a natural part of the hobby. I don't believe we're in a closed market, yet, as we haven't done all we can do to grow it.


If the market isn't growing doesn't that mean it is closed? 

As we have seen the market saturate at least several times for a number of species doesn't that indicate it is acting as a closed market?


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Ed said:


> If the market isn't growing doesn't that mean it is closed?
> 
> As we have seen the market saturate at least several times for a number of species doesn't that indicate it is acting as a closed market?


Yes, if it isn't growing I'd consider that closed. I don't consider the market we're in now to be closed, because we're doing things to grow it. But once we've done all that we can do to grow it, it will definately close. That's what I was trying to say. I think we're a ways away from that point.

From a species persective I'd agree the market for that species alone would be closed, but not the market overall.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

So, the personal ethics of the hobbyist don't count. That's all I'm getting.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Ed said:


> The reason the frogs haven't vanished could also be an artifact that with some species imports have continued to come into the country as opposed to any real luck.. We have seen auratus (in general not specific morph) imported for more than 30 years... how often has that bolstered a collapsed population? How often have tinctorius continued to be supplied to the hobby from imported animals?


It could be. Don't know the answer to those questions. But neither case proves the arguement that over population causes/caused pure extinction within the hobby. Makes it a possibility maybe. 



Ed said:


> I don't think the argument has been for anyone to maximize breeding or production. As I understood the argument was that surplus animals to be sold outside the hobby to prevent saturating the market. There is a much larger herp hobby that would be willing to purchase captive bred frogs. This would serve multiple purposes as it could
> 1) supply captive bred animals instead of wild caught animals to meet that demand reducing wild caught imports for the general pet market
> 2) slow down or prevent saturation of the market to the point people divest of the frogs (as each cycle of divestment can be a loss of alleles and long term sustainability in the hobby)
> 3) bring newer people into the hobby through thier interest allowing for the hobby to expand and hopefully become involved in the long-term sustainability of the frogs.


I only made the comment to clarify my own position. I've been advocating alot for the wholesaling of froglets and I didn't want anyone to get the impression I cranked out large quantities of them. 

If there is such a thing as true outside sales, then I agree those purposes would be served. 



Ed said:


> While excess is technically used correctly here, the implications it brings are far in excess of what is actually needed... in reality you only need to produce a few healthy animals to ensure continuation of a line. The extra animals are to ensure a suitable sex ration and that at least one of each sex reaches maturity for the smaller frogs you only have to produce that for many frogs over a span that could be as long as 5-15 years (species dependent)..


I've found that a minimum safe number to be 10. I'm currently holding back 12 P. Vittatus and I'm comfortable with that. I held back 6 SI E. Anthonyii and lost the line when I lost my breeding female and the 6 all turned out to be males. How many do you typically hold back for the next generation? 




Ed said:


> As a hypothetical point (I am not advocating that people have to do this..) Actually it is possible to not have excess, the frogs do not have to breed.. they could be housed in enclosures that do not provide suitable triggers for reproduction.... or they could be bred on a seasonal basis or eggs could even be pulled (see my comments on sustainable populations above..).


 Agreed, hypothetically. 



Ed said:


> If everyone sells thier offspring to resellers within the hobby or only sell to one another within the hobby, the boom and bust from market saturation will continue.


Yes, if the market is closed. 


I said..."Accepting a model that relies on new members NOT being successful, is not a direction I choose to go in. While it may parallel the natural world, I don't think as a hobby we're at a point where we need to do that. I think we can do better than to maintain a duality of good/bad husbandry, just for the purposes of population control.



Ed said:


> I wasn't aware that this was even part of the discussion...
> 
> Ed


I think it is part of the discussion because mortaility rates would be greater when selling "outside" of the hobby. The implication is that the husbandry would not be as good. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> Someone would gravitate towards a group that accepts that(producing many frogs) if they are only worried about profit. It opens up a place to be accepted in your actions.


We agree. This is one of the reasons why I think profit motive makes it harder to control populations.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Woodsman said:


> So, the personal ethics of the hobbyist don't count. That's all I'm getting.


Which personal ethics?


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Eric,

How would a frog become extirpated from the hobby unless hobbyists let them become extirpated? I keep the frogs I want without constantly considering how much money I can make on the offspring. If financial pay-off is the reason that many are in the hobby, then that is a sad truth about who we are as a "hobby".

Right?

Richard.



pl259 said:


> Which personal ethics?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pl259 said:


> Yes, if it isn't growing I'd consider that closed. I don't consider the market we're in now to be closed, because we're doing things to grow it. But once we've done all that we can do to grow it, it will definately close. That's what I was trying to say. I think we're a ways away from that point.
> 
> From a species persective I'd agree the market for that species alone would be closed, but not the market overall.


 
As a hypothetical example (as I know you stated you do this and I want to be clear this isn't aimed at you as any form of critism). If the hobby is selling to each other and surpluses are sold to vendors that resell back into the core hobby how are we growing the hobby? That seems to be a pretty closed market as growth is dependent on people joining it from the outside without minimal recruitment efforts. 

I don't think we are totally closed but we are fairly closed.. 

As for species...if one looks back over time, the number of people working with tinctorius (as a whole group) and auratus took a big drop when the large imports of pumilio came onto the market. They were in my opinion showing a decline because of interest in thumbnails but that decline was slow compared to the drop with the onset of the pumilio imports. I think in the next ten years we will have a answer for some of the those groups.. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pl259 said:


> . Makes it a possibility maybe.


Okay. 




pl259 said:


> I only made the comment to clarify my own position. I've been advocating alot for the wholesaling of froglets and I didn't want anyone to get the impression I cranked out large quantities of them.
> 
> If there is such a thing as true outside sales, then I agree those purposes would be served.


No aspersions or implications against you at all. I was arguing from a positional point of view and intended no personal implications. I didn't have the impression you were cranking out lots of froglets. 

Okay, on the rest. 



pl259 said:


> I've found that a minimum safe number to be 10. I'm currently holding back 12 P. Vittatus and I'm comfortable with that. I held back 6 SI E. Anthonyii and lost the line when I lost my breeding female and the 6 all turned out to be males. How many do you typically hold back for the next generation?


In the past, I would usually hold back around the same numbers and then thin them down as they became able to be sexed unless they could be housed in a group. Hylids are a little different due as success in reproduction is often increased by a greater number of males. The point still remains that the total offspring produced or held back can be spread out over a long period of time. 




pl259 said:


> Agreed, hypothetically.


Okay 




pl259 said:


> Yes, if the market is closed.


I think in main we may differ on what we consider an open or closed market. 




pl259 said:


> I said..."Accepting a model that relies on new members NOT being successful, is not a direction I choose to go in. While it may parallel the natural world, I don't think as a hobby we're at a point where we need to do that. I think we can do better than to maintain a duality of good/bad husbandry, just for the purposes of population control.
> 
> 
> I think it is part of the discussion because mortaility rates would be greater when selling "outside" of the hobby. The implication is that the husbandry would not be as good. But that's just my opinion.


Okay, it caught me by surprise as it seemed like a jump from somewhere and I couldn't figure out where it came from... 

I have no objections to a personal decision on where frogs get sold based on how a person percieves the care to be, I was just trying to keep the point out there that this isn't truely selling to outside the local market which doesn't do much if anything to deal with saturation. 

Ed


----------



## Chris Miller (Apr 20, 2009)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Eric,
> 
> How would a frog become extirpated from the hobby unless hobbyists let them become extirpated? I keep the frogs I want without constantly considering how much money I can make on the offspring. If financial pay-off is the reason that many are in the hobby, then that is a sad truth about who we are as a "hobby".
> 
> ...


It may not even be money. The whole deal of keeping frogs in glass boxes is selfish. I do it because I enjoy it. Selfish. I felt that i needed to pay a little back and after seeing what has happened to frogs that drop in value or popularity I decided to focus on thumbnails and set up my website. 

Because the initial act is selfish, people are predisposed to act without thinking of all the external consequences. If a frog isn't cool anymore it becomes okay to dump it. Frogs become less desirable for reasons other than money too. Auratus and tinctorius didn't experience a huge drop in price before the became less popular, people wanted something new.

We need to change the way people think about the hobby and their role in it.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

Chris Miller said:


> It may not even be money. The whole deal of keeping frogs in glass boxes is selfish. I do it because I enjoy it. Selfish. I felt that i needed to pay a little back and after seeing what has happened to frogs that drop in value or popularity I decided to focus on thumbnails and set up my website.
> 
> Because the initial act is selfish, people are predisposed to act without thinking of all the external consequences. If a frog isn't cool anymore it becomes okay to dump it. Frogs become less desirable for reasons other than money too. Auratus and tinctorius didn't experience a huge drop in price before the became less popular, people wanted something new.
> 
> We need to change the way people think about the hobby and their role in it.


Couldn't agree more. For instance I hope never to see the term "rat frog" ever again since it really paints a very ugly image of the motivations of some in the hobby in terms of what their true intentions for breeding are.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Chris,

I agree completely. I think what the arguments about what the "other" guy should be doing with his (or her) collection, the idea of creating a "union" that will impose ideas on individuals (whether or not this is the stated intention of such a club), really seems to be missing the point (IMO).

The only one who can make the hobby better is ME. The informed sources and documented bloodlines from which I acquire my frogs is up to me. The way that I house and decide to breed (or not to breed) my frogs is up to me. I am the only one to blame for my inability or unwillingness to be the best hobbyist I can be.

All of the good information is out there to be taken advantage of. This forum has such a store of knowledge and has many advanced members that I can access if I have questions about how best to care for my frogs. I am the captain of the ship that is called my frog room.

We all bitch about the state of the hobby, but all we really have control over is our own collection. Education has always been a better tool than tyranny in moving the world forward. So, "I'm starting with the man in the mirror".

Take care, Richard.




Chris Miller said:


> It may not even be money. The whole deal of keeping frogs in glass boxes is selfish. I do it because I enjoy it. Selfish. I felt that i needed to pay a little back and after seeing what has happened to frogs that drop in value or popularity I decided to focus on thumbnails and set up my website.
> 
> Because the initial act is selfish, people are predisposed to act without thinking of all the external consequences. If a frog isn't cool anymore it becomes okay to dump it. Frogs become less desirable for reasons other than money too. Auratus and tinctorius didn't experience a huge drop in price before the became less popular, people wanted something new.
> 
> We need to change the way people think about the hobby and their role in it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Woodsman said:


> \
> The only one who can make the hobby better is ME. The informed sources and documented bloodlines from which I acquire my frogs is up to me. The way that I house and decide to breed (or not to breed) my frogs is up to me. I am the only one to blame for my inability or unwillingness to be the best hobbyist I can be.


There is an inherent issue with this idea as well. There are a lot of frogs in the hobby that are from unknown origins and have been perpetuated in that fashion. The current run of thought requiring known lineage or origin actually devalues these frogs. This is actually a shame as some of the lines of generic auratus (or tinctorius) are actually representative of the history of the hobby. It would be a shame to see those "lines" lost simply because no one knows thier locality or import date.. 

While it is important to keep the known genetics of the frogs as properly used this can help keep those frogs around for the long-term, we as a group shouldn't devalue those groups of frogs of unknown provence.. 

Ed


----------



## evolvstll (Feb 17, 2007)

Woodsman said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> I agree completely. I think what the arguments about what the "other" guy should be doing with his (or her) collection, the idea of creating a "union" that will impose ideas on individuals (whether or not this is the stated intention of such a club), really seems to be missing the point (IMO).
> 
> Take care, Richard.


Again this is all speculative as you do not know nor have seen any part of the objectives of said union. 
As said prior the popularity of frogs such as tincs and auratus has taken a big dive since the increase of thumbs and pums. The statement about seeing what shakes out in the next 5 years or so says a lot. If we do continue on the current course not much is going to change in terms of popularity swings etc. That is great that you Richard would keep all of one type of frog like the Regina. How would you go about getting others to think and act like that? I see it that at least there are some out there trying to improve the hobby. If you see the union as these individuals as having selfish intentions so be it. Until the details are made public statements like the above are all speculative.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

You missed my point entirely. I am personally going to try to not be so concerned about what other people decide to do with their frogs. The only thing I can do is to try to be the best hobbyist I can be.

I would only hope that the reverse would be true, that others (who have different thoughts on the hobby) would be willing to try to keep their criticisms to themselves.

Take care, Richard.



evolvstll said:


> Again this is all speculative as you do not know nor have seen any part of the objectives of said union.
> As said prior the popularity of frogs such as tincs and auratus has taken a big dive since the increase of thumbs and pums. The statement about seeing what shakes out in the next 5 years or so says a lot. If we do continue on the current course not much is going to change in terms of popularity swings etc. That is great that you Richard would keep all of one type of frog like the Regina. How would you go about getting others to think and act like that? I see it that at least there are some out there trying to improve the hobby. If you see the union as these individuals as having selfish intentions so be it. Until the details are made public statements like the above are all speculative.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

I seriously missed alot of this and there is too much to quote, The issues on buying wc, on where to sell the hobby's excess cb and even why frogs disappear from the hobby are all issues we as a hobby have to fix. Individuals can only do so much and even then it gos unseen which is why any group, union, collaboration, unit or whatever need to take a stand and decide on what is acceptable and good for the hobby. Many froggers think that selling everything to the sponsors is a good thing and the only acceptable thing and we all know that its mostly DB members buying it all back up.There is no line info, import data or anything useful passed on for most of these frogs. We need far better management of whats here and selling off your breeders because the fad dies is the wrong thing to do.

I know many of the herp shops all over and some of them are more than capable of quality care of cb froglets, Decreasing the needed supply of wc can only happen by putting cb frogs into the hands of the herp shops and the guys on KS. We are just a small part of the herp hobby. 

Michael


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> ...I used to breed some of my animals non stop because I thought that putting more out there would get them established, which didn't work. Now I'm thinking of only breeding my frogs for a standard 5 months out of the year and shutting them down for the other 7 months. I used to just let them take breaks when they did which was 2-3 months out of the year and not all at once. This way I can vacation and only have 10-15 pairs of adult frogs for someone to care for and give them all a good long rest. this will help give a natural up and down cycle so they don't get too oversaturated. I can take the whole year to get rid of frogs if i don't always have more coming up.


Been a long WE. Hopefully I can jump back into these discusions without missing too much.

Those are all good points/ideas Aaron. We're fortunate in that the pricing model we operate under, afford more value for older frogs. We can hold them, let them grow older and perhaps even pair them up. All of these help us to smooth out the boom/bust cycles. 

IMO, managing breeding populations and large collection management are skills we don't communicate very well to new owners. Additionally, we should relook at which species we recommend for new owners. Species that are easy to keep, easy to breed, and high volume producers, should perhaps be recommended as intermediate or above, instead.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

pl259 said:


> IMO, managing breeding populations and large collection management are skills we don't communicate very well to new owners. Additionally, we should relook at which species we recommend for new owners. Species that are easy to keep, easy to breed, and high volume producers, should perhaps be recommended as intermediate or above, instead.


That leaves very few options then for new hobbyists to choose from. In my opinion we should be suggesting the frogs your talking about to new hobbyists as they could serve two purposes,
One they are usually the hardiest and least likely to die in the case of a screw-up and will give the hobbyists a chance to change things without having to replace the frogs and start over as you never learn that way. Keeping these frogs long term is far more educational and a great way to learn and get to the next level. 
Two they could raise them to breeding age, breed them while still advancing their skills with a far hardier frog and sell them to the herp shops and other hobby related business's further reducing the need for imports.
And if more hobbyists did this they would be able to trade for other species and work their way up to the more difficult species to keep without even having to buy from other breeders. Just another way for us to not have to depend on only what is here.

Michael


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Sorry for chopping up your post Michael. There are several good points I want to comment on seperately.


poison beauties said:


> I seriously missed alot of this and there is too much to quote, The issues on buying wc, on where to sell the hobby's excess cb and even why frogs disappear from the hobby are all issues we as a hobby have to fix.


Agreed, these are concerns we need to continue to communicate and find good methods to address them. I asked this earlier...Do we have any examples of species that actually have gone extinct from the hobby?



poison beauties said:


> Individuals can only do so much and even then it gos unseen which is why any group, union, collaboration, unit or whatever need to take a stand and decide on what is acceptable and good for the hobby.


Unless the hobby is well represented, and while it maybe well intended, having a subset of the hobby decide on what's acceptable or not for the rest, is risky. We're a diverse group, and finding common ground is a challenge. That's not to say I wouldn't give it a chance though, which I've stated before.



poison beauties said:


> Many froggers think that selling everything to the sponsors is a good thing and the only acceptable thing and we all know that its mostly DB members buying it all back up.There is no line info, import data or anything useful passed on for most of these frogs. We need far better management of whats here and selling off your breeders because the fad dies is the wrong thing to do.


As one who prefers selling to "inside" resellers, let me restate the reasons. And let me say, if someone could convince me selling to an "outside" reseller is better, I would do it more. And FWIW, I've sold retail, wholesale inside, wholesale outside. The whole bag.

Resellers are short time owners. Even if we could draw up some accepted definition of what inside vs. outside meant, it doesn't matter. Eventually the frogs end up in the hands of long term owners, who then are all insiders. Regardless if they're new owners or established. 

Mostly, I prefer to sell to sponsors, ect. who are in the hobby, because the profits STAY within the hobby. It helps the hobby to survive and grow. IMO inside resellers generate more new owners. I've never had an inside reseller tell me they'd prefer it if I sold to someone outside. Never. In fact, they all welcome the livestock.

IMO, an inside reseller also gives the best chance for a new owner to be successful. Successful owners buy more frogs. 



poison beauties said:


> I know many of the herp shops all over and some of them are more than capable of quality care of cb froglets, Decreasing the needed supply of wc can only happen by putting cb frogs into the hands of the herp shops and the guys on KS. We are just a small part of the herp hobby.
> 
> Michael


What I'm hearing sounds like goin' mainstream. As a CB only guy, I appreciate that whatever we can do to stem the WC tide is a good thing. Perhaps we need to establish a list of "approved" outside shops, that we can wholesale to. I know in my area, the only local places worth a darn, are insiders. It's not cost effective for me to ship when selling wholesale. That maybe part of the reason for the difference in perspectives.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

poison beauties said:


> That leaves very few options then for new hobbyists to choose from. In my opinion we should be suggesting the frogs your talking about to new hobbyists as they could serve two purposes,
> One they are usually the hardiest and least likely to die in the case of a screw-up and will give the hobbyists a chance to change things without having to replace the frogs and start over as you never learn that way. Keeping these frogs long term is far more educational and a great way to learn and get to the next level.


I'm all for hardy and agree 100%. One species that we tend to recommend as beginners that I think we shouldn't, is P. Terribilis. 


poison beauties said:


> Two they could raise them to breeding age, breed them while still advancing their skills with a far hardier frog and sell them to the herp shops and other hobby related business's further reducing the need for imports.
> And if more hobbyists did this they would be able to trade for other species and work their way up to the more difficult species to keep without even having to buy from other breeders. Just another way for us to not have to depend on only what is here.
> 
> Michael


I hear you. That's what we've been doing for a long time. Kinda like a Ponzi scheme. Works just fine as long as we have new members coming in. However, easy to breed, high volume species contibute to the boom/bust of that species. I'm not sure beginners have the knowledge or desire/motivation to keep the breeding in check. We shouldn't ignore supply side contributors. 

It's a difficult balance. More CBs do lessen WC pressures. But too many.. and they go bust, which doesn't help WCs either. Not sure what the answer is. I'd like to see easy to keep, easy to breed, moderate producers, (if there is such a thing) recommended more.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

pl259 said:


> I'm all for hardy and agree 100%. One species that we tend to recommend as beginners that I think we shouldn't, is P. Terribilis.
> 
> I hear you. That's what we've been doing for a long time. Kinda like a Ponzi scheme. Works just fine as long as we have new members coming in. However, easy to breed, high volume species contibute to the boom/bust of that species. I'm not sure beginners have the knowledge or desire/motivation to keep the breeding in check. We shouldn't ignore supply side contributors.
> 
> It's a difficult balance. More CBs do lessen WC pressures. But too many.. and they go bust, which doesn't help WCs either. Not sure what the answer is. I'd like to see easy to keep, easy to breed, moderate producers, (if there is such a thing) recommended more.


They wont boom or bust the market if the frogs are fed out to capable hands in herp shops and herp show flippers. All it will do is bring more attention to the hobby and allow it to grow. Id suggest even selling them at a lower cost to the herp shops on contract that they maintain a proper care level for the frogs until they sell. Anything is possible.and today the herp shops dont like bad press as its all over the forums. 10 years ago they did not care, I saw both sides of this selling cb pythons and monitors to them in the 90's

And I can help put a list of capable herp shops together no problem.

Michael


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

poison beauties said:


> They wont boom or bust the market if the frogs are fed out to capable hands in herp shops and herp show flippers. All it will do is bring more attention to the hobby and allow it to grow. Id suggest even selling them at a lower cost to the herp shops on contract that they maintain a proper care level for the frogs until they sell. Anything is possible.and today the herp shops dont like bad press as its all over the forums. 10 years ago they did not care, I saw both sides of this selling cb pythons and monitors to them in the 90's
> 
> And I can help put a list of capable herp shops together no problem.
> 
> Michael


It's good to see more people passionate about WC imports. Where did all those Pums go anyway? Selling larger quantities of lower cost frogs, in order to out compete WCs, is not a direction I personally would focus on. But I understand your logic in approaching the issue from that angle. 

Assuming for the moment our CB stock doesn't need periodic influxes of WC genes, I would gladly take a pledge to neither buy nor sell WC imports. Where do I sign? Is that something you'd support? 

I forget where you're located, but compiling a list of PB approved vendors to wholesale to in your area, is a good idea. We should do the same for other areas.


----------



## poison beauties (Mar 1, 2010)

pl259 said:


> It's good to see more people passionate about WC imports. Where did all those Pums go anyway? Selling larger quantities of lower cost frogs, in order to out compete WCs, is not a direction I personally would focus on. But I understand your logic in approaching the issue from that angle.
> 
> Assuming for the moment our CB stock doesn't need periodic influxes of WC genes, I would gladly take a pledge to neither buy nor sell WC imports. Where do I sign? Is that something you'd support?
> 
> I forget where you're located, but compiling a list of PB approved vendors to wholesale to in your area, is a good idea. We should do the same for other areas.


Most of the darts that come in wc die. Otherwise there would not be a need for repeating the imports year after year by bringing in thousands of frogs. If you don't sell them at a decent price the herp shops have no reason to discontinue buying wc as they make more money doing it. We as hobbyists do not see it most of the time but the bulk of this hobby is business oriented. They and even the sponsors buy at low prices and resell at higher ones. So even cutting deals with herp shops at low prices on bulk frogs would not hurt the value of the frogs. Infact cb ones may seller better and higher than what the wc or farmed ones sell for. 

That said there is a need still for wc for some species as they have not been well managed but it only takes a small group of say 20-30 frogs in order to put together a well planned breeding project and track lines to the point those frogs could continue a varied line of genetics for many years. If we dont as a group try and do something nothing will get done.

Im in ATL but Ive worked with, traded and sold to herp shos all over. I can start a list later today that people can add to no problem. I can also list herp shops that have already told me they be happy to buy cb at a decent price and would walk away from imports if the demand could be filled.

Michael


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Price fixing*



Ed said:


> On 19 March 2009, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced that 18 individuals had been charged following an extensive undercover investigation into the poaching, smuggling and illegal sale of protected reptiles and amphibians. Operation Shellshock




Further fallout of Operation Shellshock http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49823778/



> Men charged with trafficking endangered rattlesnakes
> Two Florida reptile wranglers are charged with trafficking endangered rattlesnakes.
> Co-owners of Glades Herp Farm, Inc. located in Bushnell, Robroy MacInnes, 54, of Fort Myers and Robert Keszey, 47, of Bushnell, collected protected snakes from the wild in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

I think one of the main keys to growing and sustaining the hobby is saturation and connection. We need more retailers and more sources for frogs and for hobby specific items. What I've noticed in my years in the hobby is that there are very few ways to connect. If you are in a large metropolitan area things may be different but if not it's likely that you'll have difficult finding too many other froggers and even more unlikely that you'll find any place local that carries frogs or specific PDF supplies.

The Community functions on this board are quite poor. If they were improved they would be a great way to organize people and increase some of those connections with other froggers. I took to Facebook to create a frogging group for my state. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

MrBiggs said:


> The Community functions on this board are quite poor.


Hi Travis,

I'm going to have to disagree with that. I've seen many American's frog rooms, have been to frog day and two American meets this year alone and was welcomed with open arms. Thank you! I'm lucky because I travel a lot in the US. I have been to many more in Canada. From what I see, there are many meets annually. Maybe not in your area, but that's where the work begins. These meets evolve with one frogger reaching out.

Best,


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

frogfreak said:


> Hi Travis,
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with that. I've seen many American's frog rooms, have been to frog day and two American meets this year alone and was welcomed with open arms. Thank you! I'm lucky because I travel a lot in the US. I have been to many more in Canada. From what I see, there are many meets annually. Maybe not in your area, but that's where the work begins. These meets evolve with one frogger reaching out.
> 
> Best,


Ya I have to agree with this. Most people in this hobby love getting together with people and seeing each others frogs, and everyone seems happy to invite you into their home. Usually when I go to shows, half the people there didn't plan on buying anything, they just came to see other locals and frogs. 

Glenn, if you're ever in WA, let me know. I always enjoy meeting other DB members.


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

frogfreak said:


> Hi Travis,
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with that. I've seen many American's frog rooms, have been to frog day and two American meets this year alone and was welcomed with open arms. Thank you! I'm lucky because I travel a lot in the US. I have been to many more in Canada. From what I see, there are many meets annually. Maybe not in your area, but that's where the work begins. These meets evolve with one frogger reaching out.
> 
> Best,


No, you missed my meaning. I don't mean that the community itself is poor, I mean the literal 'community' function of this forum is poor. (At the main bar look across, you'll see User CP, Blogs, FAQ, and then Community.) If the social groups (found within the 'Community' link) were easier and more efficient to use it would be easier to organize meetings with other members, etc. I absolutely do believe that it begins with people reaching out, I'm just saying that it would be far easier to begin that process if the forum tools for doing so were improved.


----------



## Nath514 (Jul 8, 2012)

MrBiggs said:


> No, you missed my meaning. I don't mean that the community itself is poor, I mean the literal 'community' function of this forum is poor. (At the main bar look across, you'll see User CP, Blogs, FAQ, and then Community.) If the social groups (found within the 'Community' link) were easier and more efficient to use it would be easier to organize meetings with other members, etc.


I agree totally with this, I saw those features when I first started using this forum and was hoping they would be useful at finding users around me and handling meetups but they are not really used at all.


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

Nath514 said:


> I agree totally with this, I saw those features when I first started using this forum and was hoping they would be useful at finding users around me and handling meetups but they are not really used at all.


Yep, exactly.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

MrBiggs said:


> No, you missed my meaning. I don't mean that the community itself is poor, I mean the literal 'community' function of this forum is poor. (At the main bar look across, you'll see User CP, Blogs, FAQ, and then Community.) If the social groups (found within the 'Community' link) were easier and more efficient to use it would be easier to organize meetings with other members, etc. I absolutely do believe that it begins with people reaching out, I'm just saying that it would be far easier to begin that process if the forum tools for doing so were improved.


sorry about that. I see what you mean now, Travis.


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

frogfreak said:


> sorry about that. I see what you mean now, Travis.


No problem!


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Sorry I misunderstood as well. 

At least we have the ability to form groups on here. Although, it doesn't seem like they are used all that much. WADS definitely isn't. Personally, I think it would be great if we could get something like the group pages they have on facebook, much more accessible and people would probably use them more.


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

thedude said:


> Sorry I misunderstood as well.
> 
> At least we have the ability to form groups on here. Although, it doesn't seem like they are used all that much. WADS definitely isn't. Personally, I think it would be great if we could get something like the group pages they have on facebook, much more accessible and people would probably use them more.


Which is pretty much what I mentioned earlier. I started a group for my state and in two weeks has more information and is more useful than the Iowa group that's been established here for several years.


----------



## Reef_Haven (Jan 19, 2011)

I am a member of divebuddy.com
They have a search function to find other divers in your area, just type in your zipcode, select how many miles away to include in your search, and every member within that search area is displayed with their city.
Any member can opt out, or set their contact preferences.
That might be a useful tool here.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Sometimes there are things that just kill a meeting... for example the open meeting that were an annual event at Scott Menigoz's home were pretty much shot down because an attendee decided to steal some blue jeans from another attendee... This was a big issue since Scott had people looking and peeking in all of this his tanks, trusting people to be honest..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

Instead of the "community" page, most of us in SoCal just use the regional forums to get news out about meetings, etc. It has the added advantage of appearing on the "new posts" search so more people know when threads are updated.


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

phender said:


> Instead of the "community" page, most of us in SoCal just use the regional forums to get news out about meetings, etc. It has the added advantage of appearing on the "new posts" search so more people know when threads are updated.


Which is great for larger areas but for places like the Midwest is not nearly as effective.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Ed said:


> for example the open meeting that were an annual event at Scott Menigoz's home were pretty much shot down because an attendee decided to steal some blue jeans from another attendee...


Wait. What? Seriously? That's just sad...


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Ed said:


> Sometimes there are things that just kill a meeting... for example the open meeting that were an annual event at Scott Menigoz's home were pretty much shot down because an attendee decided to steal some blue jeans from another attendee... This was a big issue since Scott had people looking and peeking in all of this his tanks, trusting people to be honest.....
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


...think someone would have noticed somebody pulling someone elses pants off...crazy froggers. I had a big open house and the only exciting thng was Eldalote2 beating the crap out of JimO in a self defense demo...of course I can't remember anything after the 11th or 12th Platinum...


----------

