# Connecticut Laws.



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

Has anyone found anything definitive as to whether Conn has a problem with the possession of Dart frogs. I’m not concerned about selling them. I’m teaching in Conn and would like to use dart tads in my 7th grade bio class. I’d just as soon keep mine at home in NY if Conn has a problem with possession though.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Hi Chris, I actually brought my 2 Leucs. to my sons day care this past summer,after of course, having to explain to his teachers that they won`t poison everyone in the classroom! As far as I know it`s ok to own them, but not to sell them. Hope this helps.

John


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Hi Chris,

I would call your Wildlife division directly. No sense in relying on hearsay information. There may be an education exemption to any laws that are in place anyway.

Main Office 
79 Elm Street 
Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

Phone: (860) 424-3011


----------



## ian (Dec 25, 2006)

When you do find out, please post yout findings, It would be interesting to know.


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

O.K. Here is the scoop,

According to a biologist in the state wildlife department, no dart frogs can be possessed in the state of Connecticut. This is because there is confusing documentation as to what food sources allow the frogs to produce toxins. The biologist also said that there are several subspecies which may still be problematic in captivity. She was a little on the defensive side, so I didn’t push her about that last one. She is sending me a list of allowable animals which is not available on the web. My project is officially scrapped. :?


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Well, I guess I`ll be getting rid of my frogs won`t I?


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

That sucks, sorry to hear that Chris. You know, even though there may not be enough documentation on what food sources allow the frogs to produce the toxins, maybe all you'd really have to prove is that they don't produce much toxins when fed fruit flies? That way if you wanted to debate the law you could get it changed to dart frogs are only legal when fed fruit flies.. or something like that..


----------



## Abbathx (Aug 15, 2007)

fruit fly's and crickets


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Go on late night TV and lick a captive bred P. terribilis like the "Bug Man" did on one of the Late night shows. (Conan O'Brien? There was a discussion on who was going to donate the frog for the TV thingy on frognet., so when I found myself traveling and in a motel room with a TV at the right time, I tuned into it. I don't have a TV at home.) He licked the frog and didn't die. I'm not sure how the frog fared. 

Does Connecticut have a law against keeping fire bellied toads? I don't believe they lose their skin irritants no matter what they are fed, and neither do a lot of other amphibians, but I see them in pet shops all the time. Has anyone ever died or even become ill in the United States from handling or keeping a captive bred, or even a wild caught dart frog? Yeah, there was the report of a guy who licked his fingers after contacting a dart frog he was treating and had annoyed, and he got a rush or something, which he described in detail on one of the forums. I think it was an auratus, not noted to be particularly poisonous, even in the wild. Others, who apparently knew more about him, reported that he was one of the people likely to get rushes because he also tended to do other kinds of drugs and imagine things. This was about the only report I recall reading about any problems handling dart frogs. 

I don't lick my frogs or even touch them with my hands, except in emergencies when one escapes and I grab it up without precautions. I don't fear for myself. I'm more likely to injure the frogs than they are likely to injure me in any way. Intact skin is a great barrier to toxins, if they are even there. But frogs don't have the same defense with their membranous skin that absorbs the stuff from our hands readily if we handle them. There are documented proofs that the skin toxins of Dendrobates do disappear in captivity, and perhaps we should consider changing the common name of "Poison Dart Frogs" to something less exciting, perhaps like "Jewels of the Rain Forest," that Jerry G. Wells came up with in his table top book of pictures. 

Connecticut seems to have put a "child-proof cap" upon the subject. I hate it when the regulations and laws address the lowest common denominator of intellect and expertise. 


[/i]


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip " I don't believe they lose their skin irritants no matter what they are fed, and neither do a lot of other amphibians, but I see them in pet shops all the time."endsnip

Just to add to the point, this is because toads do not aquire thier toxins from thier diet. 

snip "Has anyone ever died or even become ill in the United States from handling or keeping a captive bred, or even a wild caught dart frog? Yeah, there was the report of a guy who licked his fingers after contacting a dart frog he was treating and had annoyed, and he got a rush or something, which he described in detail on one of the forums. I think it was an auratus, not noted to be particularly poisonous,"endsnip

It was a terriblis, it was originally described on frognet

see http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewt ... s&start=15 and quote 
from the frognet archives 

http://lists.frognet.org/htdig...13412.html 

snip "I then went back to applying more medication, and going over the frog pretty thoroughly. She of course, did NOT like this at all, and really began to struggle, until all of a sudden, she pulled all her limbs in close, and got really slimy. Almost immediately, It felt like I had a bleach residue on my fingers. 
> 
> No way, I am thinking. To refine something, you have to have a start 
> product to get an end product. carefully, I touched one of my fingers to 
> the tip of my tongue, and for those in the NW familiar with the hot sauce 
> known as "The Man" (You have to sign a release to buy it) I got an instant reaction. YUCK!! It burned, and I mean burned to the point that I went and checked my tongue for a physical reaction. (There was none.) Even now, I am sweating and feeling light headed, and a little sick to my stomach. 
> 
> For years, I have held that not even Terribilis can inflict any damage or 
> poison after being captive bred. Now, I thik I may say that terriblis, and 
> possibly bicolor, aerotaenia, and lugubris may have the ability to make 
> something from the crickets and wax worms that we feed them. 
> 
> Anybody have any thoughts? I am going to go lay down, cause I actually feel sick. endsnip 
endquote

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Well, after living in CT for 20+ yrs, this is yet another reason I'm glad I moved out of there. 

When teachers teach and are passionate about what they present, everyone wins. I'd encourage you Chris, to continue to pursue this. Try to take a look at the actual CT statute governing this. What you're hearing from this biologist maybe a couple times removed from actual law. 

For example, if the statute indeed excludes only "dart" frogs, then technically only the big three would apply. You could still keep and raise tincs.

You certainly don't want to risk a law suit or your job, but you may find some wiggle room in the statutes that would allow you to move forward. With your knowledge of the animals and the hobby, coupled with a good understanding of the law, you maybe able to work the right person to grant you an approval or exemption, considering this is for educational purposes. I'm also sure there are many among us that would be happy to write recommendations for you as needed.

Good Luck,


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

The recourse is to send letters to the Connecticut legislature. The wildlife folks are just enforcing the laws they are handed and they may, or may not, actually endorse the law as written. Clearly the law is based on ignorance, misinformation, and or perhaps a warped perception of what really poses risks to humans. Regardless, it is the legislature that makes the laws and they are the ones to unmake them. The place to start may be to get an educational exemption written into the law. With amphibian conservation becoming an increasingly important topice, and dart frogs being an ideal model for teaching kids about the topic, surely some well placed letters from Connecticut residents could get things moving.


----------



## Homer (Feb 15, 2004)

bbrock said:


> The recourse is to send letters to the Connecticut legislature. The wildlife folks are just enforcing the laws they are handed and they may, or may not, actually endorse the law as written. Clearly the law is based on ignorance, misinformation, and or perhaps a warped perception of what really poses risks to humans.


Does anyone have the citation for the law that is purportedly being interpreted by the wildlife officer? Or is there a written guideline of what falls within this law? Without the text of the statute, it is possible that you have gotten an officer that is interpreting a law based on ignorance, misinformation, and or a warped perception of what really poses risks rather than the law being based on ignorance, misinformation, or a warped perception. It is possible to call some government offices twice and get two significantly divergent answers, so I would want to see the actual regulation or statute that the officer is using to make the decision. However, that's just me.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Homer said:


> Does anyone have the citation for the law that is purportedly being interpreted by the wildlife officer? Or is there a written guideline of what falls within this law? Without the text of the statute, it is possible that you have gotten an officer that is interpreting a law based on ignorance, misinformation, and or a warped perception of what really poses risks rather than the law being based on ignorance, misinformation, or a warped perception. It is possible to call some government offices twice and get two significantly divergent answers, so I would want to see the actual regulation or statute that the officer is using to make the decision. However, that's just me.


Excellent point Homer. And it is not unheard of for an agency charged with enforcing a law to take advantage of ambigous language in a statute to promote an agenda that the legislators did not necessarily intend. In other words, if the law is not perfectly clear, it could get applied much more broadly than was initially intended. And as Homer said, the answer you get could be just luck of the draw. I once had to read and interpret a new wildlife law to a wildlife enforcement officer so he could issue a permit that he didn't even know I needed.


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

CRAP! I am glad I found this thread. So some dude got a nasty reaction from a CB terribilus...great. I have been telling my wife they produce no toxins in captivity and had plans to set up a 75 for terribilus. 

But this makes perfect sense, when you think about it. As has been stated, many amphibians commonly sold are nasty (Taricha newts, and Amazonian Milk frogs to name a couple). So maybe the combination of normal amphib toxins and their special talents is what makes them so nasty, or something like that... 

I have to admit I am very disheartened to learn this, as it brings the subject back within the realm of UNPREDICTABILITY, something I am not crazy about dealing with. I have kids and a dog, and anything can be accidentally thrown or kicked through the front of an aquarium: frog hits the floor, dog eats frog and dies writhing in front of my horrified children...not good. Working at a zoo with Tigers and Bears teaches you to expect and prepare for the worst at all times when it comes to exotic animals. Whatever can go wrong probably will. CRAP...this sucks.

As far as the DNR biologists are concerned, I would acquire, read, and interpret the law for myself rather than ask their opinion...because I can almost guarantee you they will not interpret it the way you want. My experience is that most of them don't know the difference between a Northern water snake and a cottonmouth, or can tell a painted turtle from a slider. You get what you pay for in this life...and we don't pay much for our DNR biologists.

Please tell me I am making too much of this. Maybe I'll do some big Tincs instead, just to buy myself some insurance.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

yeah, you are better off being safe then sorry, here in NYC, that being manhattan is ok to own but not to sell, but every other borough is ok, g figure.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Smashtoad said:


> Please tell me I am making too much of this. Maybe I'll do some big Tincs instead, just to buy myself some insurance.


Okay, I'll say you are making too much of it. We often say that "PDF don't produce toxins in captivity" but that really isn't true. What we mean is that they don't produce the major toxins (pumiliotoxins, batrachotoxins, histrionicotoxins, and epibatadines, probably a few others). Those are the toxins that make the frogs famous and there is ample evidence they aren't present in captive bred frogs fed normal captive diets. But that doesn't mean the frog's skins aren't swimming with other compounds that would be considered toxic. If they weren't they'd all be dead from infections in a short time. You just can't hop around with a permeable skin covered in moist protein and not have defenses against microbes.

Knowing the terribilis reaction story quite well, it's safe to say that the person in question was not exposed to batrachotoxin. Otherwise, he would not have been alive to write about it. A number of people, myself included, have experienced warming, numbing, or even burning sensations after captive frogs have made contact with more sensitive parts of skin like the underside of a forearm. But the reaction is much less than what you would get from rubbing Icy Hot on the same area.


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

Brent,

Thanks. After my email, I did some reading by Patrick Neighbors and others and felt better. I should have known better than to take one negative report so seriously without looking into it further. Thanks again.


----------

