# More waffling on hybridizing



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Wolves and Dogs. Chickens and Jungle Fowl. Corn and _Teosinte_?

Yes, this subject is well beaten, but the horse isn't dead yet. I hope my thoughts are useful.

I've been reading the arguments without comment over the past couple years. It's been hard to put together all the different opinions and separate fact from fantasy. There are valid arguments about details on both sides. When I step back, and try to look at the whole picture unemotionally, I see three related things:

1) Reintroduction to the wild has been mentioned only in passing, but to me it seems like it should be the central point of departure. Why else should we be preserving bloodlines? What happens when the inbred, bottlenecked captive populations are reintroduced? The older "purebred" lines are a little more natural than a white lab rat.

2) I've come to the conclusion, by synthesis of arguments, that most captive strains are already hybridized, then selectively bred to a standard of what that morph should look like. The technical definition of hybrid includes even two lines of any strain, crossed together. Hybrid doesn't only mean between species unless "interspecific hybrid" is stated.

3) Older captive lines of PDF are nearly domesticated. They are selected for color as well as adapted to captive culture. They should not be reintroduced to the wild. I don't think anyone has argued against that point.

Breeders outside Western Europe and North America, generalizing here, tend not to share the same values about preserving distinctions, and focus more on aesthetics, production and salability. [I predict...] The hobby will include more and more obvious hybrids as these frogs are domesticated further. I suspect that intrageneric hybrids are already gaining in popularity in other parts of the world, and may already be sold as named varieties.

The point someone made about orchids being collected for specialists who prefer natural wild selections is valid. Due to the public awareness raised by orchids' popularity, those are usually (no, not always!) collected in a far more responsible and legal way now than they were in the past. Domesticated, easier to cultivate, hybrids are the primary reason for this public awareness.

This makes me look like I support hybridizing frogs. In reality, I'm not arguing, just trying to see clearly what is already happening. In case you care where I'm coming from, I am a conservative about preserving wild species' diversity and specific forms in general- i.e. I grow mostly species plants, support conservation efforts, and preserve them in cultivation as much as possible. 

I have also hybridized, and selectively bred, plants and some fish. This is a wholly separate endeavor.

*A critical part of any Western plant hybridizer's ethos is preserving wild populations and diversity.* Nearly every hybridizer I know is involved in some way in conservation efforts, even if it's just sending a few dollars toward those doing the field work.

In the wide angle view, It looks like the future of the *domesticated* PDF hobby is just beginning to separate from the *conservation* of wild species. The two processes can not be considered in the same argument. 

The arguments sometimes seem like the agonized cries of birthing pains; or maybe the sadness (and sometimes denial) of a parent facing their first child growing up and moving out.

Vincent


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

I guess I should state an opinion after all, even though it's implied up there. 

OK, what I think is that the domesticated culture should be separated from attempts at wild types preservation.

Wild caught, conserved, pure lines should be rigorously kept apart from any potential mixed breeds. This is exactly what some are arguing for all frogs- but it's unrealistic and, really, too late. These lines should be maintained with an awareness of the wild ecologies and taxonomy. General hobbyist animals are never allowed back into preserved breeding lines, no matter how "right" they look.

Domesticated strains should be the catch-all for anything that is intentionally or unintentionally cross bred, or even uncertain. This would include most older lines that don't have a verifiable documentation trail. This should reduce the temptation for breeders to pass off mixed lines as pure strains.

Both disciplines should continue helping the huge effort needed to maintain wild populations as much as possible. 

I think that's the most realistic solution to avoid continuing arguments between apples and oranges. This model is used in nearly every other captive plant and animal hobby, from Platies to Hamsters, and I think it's inevitable here.

V


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

dirtmonkey said:


> I've come to the conclusion, by synthesis of arguments, that most captive strains are already hybridized


Can you explain this statement?


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

The timing of this couldn't be better huh?

I just don't have the strength to debate after the titanic rep-struggle.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

dirtmonkey said:


> 1) Reintroduction to the wild has been mentioned only in passing, but to me it seems like it should be the central point of departure. Why else should we be preserving bloodlines?


It should be noted from the start that no frogs currently in the captive US hobby are suitable for reintroduction (as well as the vast majority of amphibians in zoo and other institutional collections...largely due to issues of biosecurity). So using this as a basis for the argument is already misguided as it's simply not an option for us.

HOWEVER, keeping and managing animals properly (e.g. for genetic diversity and to maintain wild-type animals) is still absolutely worth doing (and the crux of the Amphibian Steward Network [ASN]) if for no other reason than to help curb the need for wild-caught animals in the trade. What has happened in many hobbies is that so much hybridization and line-breeding has occured that it becomes difficult to find a wild-type specimen of a plant/animal...and those that can be found often have a very small captive genetic pool. So another wave of wild collection occurs to increase the genetic pool and find "pure" animals...yet because of the attitude/ethos of the hobby, the same cycle only repeats itself.

One of the primary points of the ASN is to maintain very carefully managed captive populations of amphibian species so that, even if the hobby at large is hybridizing/line breeding/etc...there is at least a source of genetically diverse, wild type animals that can supply captive demand for such and curb (or hopefully prevent) the need for further collection and negative impact on wild amphibian populations.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Boondoggle, what I meant was that after seeing all the statements about how certain or uncertain people are about the ancestry of their frogs, averaging them all together, and knowing that there is constant trade among same-named breeding populations, I see the family tree as pretty tangled, and the most likely case is that there have been mixups.

Philsuma, I'm missing the timing reference... the debate has gone on pretty much constantly without any real breaks for years now on one board or another. I keep seeing people arguing about two different things that are not the same. My predictions are just that- predictions. Guesses, based on similar real world situations.

I didn't mean to debate, there's already enough of that. All sides have stated and repeated their arguments several times in several places. I'm just organizing my own thoughts in one place, trying to be reasonable and realistic.

Ron; I agree with you 100%. The part you quoted was a rhetorical question. I hope what I wrote afterward is clear about that. The ANS would fall cleanly into the first camp, science and preservation. When I refer to "wild caught", I am referring to rescue and research operations, mostly due to loss of wild habitat, not illegal or unethical collection which should be fought tooth and nail regardless of species or kingdom.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

skylsdale said:


> ....wild type animals that can supply captive demand for such and curb (or hopefully prevent) the need for further collection and negative impact on wild amphibian populations.


That brings up my last point that I kept forgetting to mention.

There is no need, except for pure conservation. The hobby is not based on any need in any way. I think that should be kept in mind. I've seen too many hobbyists (myself included when I'm being careless) say thing like "we NEED" this, that, or the other. They are not needs, they are wants, and wanted mostly by those of us privileged enough to have extra resources available to spend on a want.

I know personally people who were on the other end of those wants, and used them for their real needs. Burned in my mind are the real life stories of a friend who grew up in extreme poverty in Central America. Some of the few happy childhood memories he has are of when he would find a parrot's nest with fledglings, and take them to town to sell. He'd get what amounts to about $3 or $5 per bird at most. That bought a LOT of food and clothing for the whole family. He also talked about pulling trailer loads of _parasitos_ from trees and cliffs, for cattle feed. These were all epiphytic orchids, bromeliads, ferns, etc. That is still a common practice today (his father is a rural cattle farmer down there).

Images like those keep me humble, and a little on fire to see the situation changed. But that's a different subject!

V


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

dirtmonkey said:


> Boondoggle, what I meant was that after seeing all the statements about how certain or uncertain people are about the ancestry of their frogs, averaging them all together, and knowing that there is constant trade among same-named breeding populations, I see the family tree as pretty tangled, and the most likely case is that there have been mixups.


I think we probably have very similar opinions regarding hybridization but I do disagree with this point. I think that the "family tree", while not exactly pristine, isn't as tangled as you would assume. Most of the keepers I know are pretty careful, bordering on neurotic obsessive about avoiding hybridization in their collections. Even the breeders that don't frown on it are usually pretty honest about representing what they sell, and they don't breed many hybrids because, frankly, they aren't worth very much. The other threat is the casual keeper with the "one of everything" setup...but I really don't think there is enough successful breeding being done by these "hybridists" to really affect collections as a whole. 

Incidentally, Philsuma was referring to the eventual mud-slinging that will happen in this thread if it stays alive long enough. We just had a huge debate on some features of this board and everyones knuckles are sore.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Ah, thanks Boondoggle. I'm glad to hear the first part, from someone more on the inside. It's not at all clear from many of the posts on various forums over the last few years (maybe too many unfounded accusations).

For the second part, like I said, I wasn't hoping for an argument and I'm sorry if it goes that way. Maybe someday more people can have open discussions instead of a battle of wills.

V


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

dirtmonkey said:


> There is no need, except for pure conservation. The hobby is not based on any need in any way. I think that should be kept in mind. I've seen too many hobbyists (myself included when I'm being careless) say thing like "we NEED" this, that, or the other. They are not needs, they are wants, and wanted mostly by those of us privileged enough to have extra resources available to spend on a want.


Agreed...when I used the term "need" I was speaking from the perspective of demand in the hobby market.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

I did take it the way you meant it, it just reminded me to get that off my chest


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

I've been doing some homework. I still believe large scale (relative to the size of the hobby) domestication and hybridization will happen; and I will be interested to see the results. But personally, I'll be throwing my support and efforts in with TWI and ASN. 

New TWI member coming soon.

Vincent


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Vincent, you've used the term "domestication" quite a bit so far--would you mind elaborating what you mean by that term in regards to this discussion?


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Sure Ron; I'm using it literally. I went to look up a dictionary definition to start with, but actually the first lines of the current Wikipedia entry say it best:

*"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to human provision and control. A defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by humans."*

Couldn't a' said it better myself, and due to my untameable prolixity, it would have taken me three paragraphs anyway 

Vincent


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

I think we are a few hundred years away from selectively breeding frogs that fetch our slippers or newspapers.

I think the term you are searching for is _selective breeding_.....not domestication.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

You're right, using the word domestication is taking it too far in that light. I was really thinking of it more to the degree that selected and hybridized tropical fish or bromeliads are domesticated, but I see that I used extreme examples in the first line of my original post.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> I think we are a few hundred years away from selectively breeding frogs that fetch our slippers or newspapers.


Be careful not to confuse "training" with "domestication." 

Actually, based on the definition's premise that that animals "through a process of slection, become accustomed to human provision and control," I think there are ways in which frogs could become domesticated, specifically egg/larval rearing. An issue that has come up regularly throughout the course of the hobby is the impact egg pulling by the hobbyist could have on the ability of future generations of frogs to transport and/or rear their own young. Through our process of continual selection (i.e. removing eggs) we could be domesticating frogs such that future captive generations are no longer able to transport and raise their own larvae.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

dirtmonkey said:


> Sure Ron; I'm using it literally. I went to look up a dictionary definition to start with, but actually the first lines of the current Wikipedia entry say it best:
> 
> *"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to human provision and control. A defining characteristic of domestication is artificial selection by humans."*
> 
> ...


I would be careful attempting to use domestication with respect to the frogs as opposed to behavioral conditioning. A better definition is snip "The process of domestication involves adaptation, usually to a captive environment. Domestication is attained by some combination of genetic changes occurring over generations and developmental mechanisms (e.g., physical maturation, learning) triggered by recurring environmental events or management practices in captivity that influence specific biological traits. "endsnip (from Price, Edward O.; 1999; Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication; Applied Animal Behavior Science 65(3): 245-271). At this time while we have seen selection within some species for color patterns we have yet to see any changes to those behaviors that are typical of domesticated animals (sociality, reduced territorial aggression, parental behaviors to name a few).. "Tameness" of the frogs cannot be linked to domestication as even wild caught animals within a short time become acclimated to husbandry practices..instead most of these behavioral items are the result of behavioral conditioning.. 

As a side note.. in the technical sense, hybrids do not occur between animals of the same species regardless of regional stability of patterns.. (see Dunn, E.R., 1937, Hybrids and Intergrades; Copeia 1:1-4) and these definitions as can be seen have been accepted for a long time.. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Ed said:


> As a side note.. in the technical sense, hybrids do not occur between animals of the same species regardless of regional stability of patterns.. (see Dunn, E.R., 1937, Hybrids and Intergrades; Copeia 1:1-4) and these definitions as can be seen have been accepted for a long time


No ordinary interpretation of the word hybrid supports this specialized definition. The etymology even derives from a word for cross breeds, not species.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Catfur said:


> No ordinary interpretation of the word hybrid supports this specialized definition. The etymology even derives from a word for cross breeds, not species.


I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary interpretation" as it has been standard in the scientific literature for a very long time.. I referenced the older paper to demonstrate that has been the case.. maybe you should consider reviewing Hybrid Zones and the Evolutionary Process, 1993, Oxford University Press... 

The fact that the etymology derives from the word for crossbreeds does not validate or invalidate the technical meaning of the word or its usage. 

Ed


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Ed said:


> The fact that the etymology derives from the word for crossbreeds does not validate or invalidate the technical meaning of the word or its usage.


I use the term ordinary usage in direct contrast to technical meaning. While evolutionary biologists may have created a restricted definition of the term hybrid, they don't get to redefine words for the whole of the English language. Even in technical usage outside of evolutionary biology the term hybrid is not restricted to inter-species crossings alone, agronomists use the term hybrid all the time when referring to crosses of cultivars and other intraspecies crosses.

If you want to restrict the use of the term hybrid to the definition used by evolutionary biologists within the bounds of any discussion, I have no problem with that, but you need to provide some sort of replacement verbiage that is easily understood by everybody. When you use words in their restricted, narrow technical sense you can easily just confuse the discussion, especially since we're not all evolutionary biologists here (even amateur ones).

To sum, you're just confusing everybody when you say "word x doesn't mean what you think it does (see journal reference 'y')" when, to the general public word x does mean exactly that. Especially when you don't provide further clarification to help guide the discussion.

Also, not everyone (I.E. most people) has access to the scientific literature. I'm not asking you to stop quoting journal references, just to recognize that when you are discussing some topic with Joe Schmoe he likely _can't_ look up what you are referencing, and is left to just scratch his head.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Catfur said:


> I use the term ordinary usage in direct contrast to technical meaning. While evolutionary biologists may have created a restricted definition of the term hybrid, they don't get to redefine words for the whole of the English language. Even in technical usage outside of evolutionary biology the term hybrid is not restricted to inter-species crossings alone, agronomists use the term hybrid all the time when referring to crosses of cultivars and other intraspecies crosses.
> 
> If you want to restrict the use of the term hybrid to the definition used by evolutionary biologists within the bounds of any discussion, I have no problem with that, but you need to provide some sort of replacement verbiage that is easily understood by everybody. When you use words in their restricted, narrow technical sense you can easily just confuse the discussion, especially since we're not all evolutionary biologists here (even amateur ones).
> 
> ...



With respect to the reference to plants.. the usages in plant breedings (see for example Principles of plant genetics and ... - Google Books) are different than the usages with animals.. that is one of the reasons I specifically referenced animal related terminology.. the fact that the "ordinary usage" is the result of applying incorrect terminology due to a lack of understanding is a problem in and of itself....and the reason for the need to correctly identify the terminology and hence the citations. 

hybrid = interbreedings between different species

intergrade = interbreedings between different species or regionally stable color variations along a zone in the natural enviroment

cross bred = stable variations of an animal crossed with a stable variation of the same species ( this is the terminology for breed crosses in dogs.. and is more appropriate to the morph x morph intergrades) 

morph cross = herpetoculturist hobbyist coined related phrase meaning cross bred... if one is going to use "ordinary" terminology then this is the "correct phrasing".... used because when people see cross bred they confuse it with hybrid... 

Ed


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

This is interesting to me. I do forget that specific terminology is used differently between disciplines. For example I had called my light point rex and coal black rex rats "hybrids", because I used three different established lines in breeding them (Blue, Rex, and "Siamese"). That would be incorrect by the description cited. 

The first generations exhibited what I've always called "hybrid vigor". I'd never noticed the term "crossbreed vigor", until I looked for it just now. When I say hybrid relating to frogs though, I'm using the term that is used most here and elsewhere when discussing crosses of all types- hybrids, intergrades, crossbreeds, morph crosses and sometimes the result of bringing just any two breeding lines together. I'll try to be more specific, when I am being specific.

In my reply, I was only clarifying my own use of "domestication" in my posts, as the "common" usage I'm accustomed to. I didn't mean to say I believe that is the only definition. Wikipedia is really only useful in the general sort of way I intended.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Most of us work pretty darn hard to find and provide the best conditions we can, to raise, care, and breed these fascinating and beautiful animals. They exist naturally, in the wild, with an extraordinary range of colors and variety.

Questioning the reasons why cross-breeding, hybridizing, ect. are not generally accepted in the hobby, misses the point.

What benefit does cross breeding, hybridizing, ect., bring to me or my frogs? How does it help me as a keeper do my thing? What are the risks and possible unintended results with doing it? 

I have yet to hear anyone make a substantial argument in favor of it, that doesn't utlimately boil down to selfishness and/or additional risk. Perhaps that's why we don't support it, because of the misplaced priorities that it implies.

So lets hear those reasons why we should. Convince me it's a good thing.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

pl259 said:


> What benefit does cross breeding, hybridizing, ect., bring to me or my frogs? How does it help me as a keeper do my thing? What are the risks and possible unintended results with doing it?


I have to say that Eric's point is exactly the 'first thing' that came to my mind when I saw the OP. What possible up side would there be to the hobby?

Honestly, the only answer I can 'see' from my perspective in the hobby is a selfish 'need' to create something unnatural. And to those people I say 'begone demons!, begone' 

It is unlikely anyone will be 'convincing me' that cross breeding, morph breeding or hybridization is 'beneficial' to any of us, or my frogs. Sorry.

Fun? possibly. Selfish? indeed. Cool? short-lived. Detrimental? likely.

If the hobby goes the 'inevitable' way [as some have said] of the gecko hobby, or snake hobby etc.....I will be leaving it.

IMO of course


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

I find it almost comical that anyone on this board that has contributed to the removal of frogs from the wild(and that includes all of us that own frogs) can condem those that are not of the opinion that hybrids, cross breeds, cross morphs, designers(or whatever the new buzz word of the day may be) is the evil of all evils. We are all selfish for our own reasons. Either to make money, enjoy the frogs in our living room, to think of ourselves as conservationists, or to be the coolest because we own rare frogs like blue jeans or have a collection of 300+ frogs. If all the pure at heart are really into saving the frogs, stop sinking hundreds or thousands or more into new setups and larger breeding groups and start buying up rainforest land and funding research projects that stop global warming. All the effort to keep bloodlines pure has not stopped the collection of frogs. All the breeding has not stopped the collection of a single species or for the search and extraction of new species or new location distinct current species. Please, if the debate needs to continue, ask yourself, is my reason truely any less selfish then someone else's or do I simply have a difference of opinion.

My personal "opinion," there is room in this hooby for both sides of the fence and all those that are sitting on it. I would buy a designer frog if I felt it looked really cool and the price was right. I also think that there are so many naturally cool looking frogs that I do not "need" the designer alternative. I think it is sad that those currently keeping "pure" line frogs would leave if designers became part of the hobby. Would your work be any less beneficial in your eyes simply because some choose to design new frogs? It would not be lessened in my eyes.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

"What possible upside would there be to the hobby and the frogs"

1. A designer frog would create a demand for an animal that is not collected from the wild(with the exception of the original starting breeding groups). 

2. A possible money making frog that could help offset the cost of breeding less valuable frogs. Increasing the number of breeders and hopefully lessoning the need for wild caught animals.

3. More exposure in the pet trade which should lead to more exposure for the need for conservation of the frogs habitats.

4. 1-3 may not benefit an individual frog directly but could/should on a global level by lessoning collection of wild animals and increasing the spread of knowledge of the animals and on the conservation needs of the animals


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

I actually agree with Jellymans post. 


> Honestly, the only answer I can 'see' from my perspective in the hobby is a selfish 'need' to create something unnatural.


How is that any worse than a selfish 'need' to keep critters in glass boxes.
What is so wrong with the gecko and snake hobbies. Is everyone afraid that mixes will over take natural animals and they will disappear?


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

So for the questions...

*What benefit does cross breeding, hybridizing, ect., bring to me or my frogs? How does it help me as a keeper do my thing? What are the risks and possible unintended results with doing it?* 

The answer I'm hearing so far is that it creates cool looking frogs that I and other people can enjoy too.

Is that it? Anything else?

One of the things I enjoy most about this hobby is sharing with other people, these little wonders of nature. That's the fascination, that nature created them over countless years of evolution and natural selection, and not by me, in some forced breeding setup, in a petri dish. Creating "designer" frogs is easy. But IMO, it lessens and cheapens the natural process that created them in the first place, just for the sake of having something "cool". Even if it possible means creating a new, sterile, malformed life.

Another reason is that I want to bring what I bring to help advance the hobby. Be it technical innovation, husbandry techniques, for example.

If these are selfish reasons, I'll take them first and every single time, over reasons like "because it's cool".

We have so much more to get right in keeping these animals, why waste the time on creating something cool to look at? When I talk about priorities, that's what I mean.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Boondoggle said:


> ..... the eventual mud-slinging that will happen in this thread if it stays alive long enough. .....


Perhaps we should all quite now before it ends poorly....again...?

If ASN/TWI starts supporting hybridization/cross breeding of PDF's then I may reconsider my opinion.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bussardnr said:


> I actually agree with Jellymans post.
> 
> 
> How is that any worse than a selfish 'need' to keep critters in glass boxes.
> What is so wrong with the gecko and snake hobbies. Is everyone afraid that mixes will over take natural animals and they will disappear?


Actually in other sectors of the herp hobby, collections of new animals were undertaken because of the rampent hybridization (cornsnakes for example) resulted in a lack of pure line animals.... so the answer is yes....

Purchasing land doesn't do any good unless the funds and infrastructure to protect that land are also put into place....that is a lesson learned the hard way a longtime ago by conservation organizations...

People don't tend to support conservation programs unless they have a connection to the animals/plants in those programs and captive animals are that link that is needed for conservation to occur....

One of the reasons there is still widespread importation is because demand is out pacing supply...

A different way to look at it is each hybrid is taking up space that could be utilized to keep that morph/species in captivity and each hybrid is reducing the longterm prospects of that morph/species because it is reducing available resources....

Jellyman is oversimplifying the problem....

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

dirtmonkey said:


> The first generations exhibited what I've always called "hybrid vigor". I'd never noticed the term "crossbreed vigor", until I looked for it just now. When I say hybrid relating to frogs though, I'm using the term that is used most here and elsewhere when discussing crosses of all types- hybrids, intergrades, crossbreeds, morph crosses and sometimes the result of bringing just any two breeding lines together. I'll try to be more specific, when I am being specific.
> 
> intended.


With respect to crossbred and "ordinary usage" the phrase is used in The Quiet Man with respect to some sheep.. and it's hard to get more ordinary than usage in popular media for the average person....

I've argued over the use of hybrid to describe non-species breedings multiple times here...,


Ed


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 12, 2008)

Ed said:


> One of the reasons there is still widespread importation is because demand is out pacing supply...


How does this argument mesh with the argument that cheap captive bred dart frogs is a bad thing?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

sports_doc said:


> Perhaps we should all quite now before it ends poorly....again...?


Actually, for the first couple pages this thread was quite civil--if people can just take a couple breaths before they walk in and start firing off responses, maybe we can create one of the first respectfully conducted discussions on this topic. (e.g. Don't get pissy, people.)



> If ASN/TWI starts supporting hybridization/cross breeding of PDF's then I may reconsider my opinion.


Being an organization that is concerned about the conservation of wild amphibian populations, I can't imagine any reason the ASN would _support_ hybridization or cross/intergrade breeding (for a few reasons that Ed already stated above--decreased availability of wild-type animals eventually leads to increased demand for recollection of wild animals). People are free to do what they want with their animals--we don't have ownership over anyone's amphibians--but our programs and recommendations will always be in light of how wild amphibian populations will (or won't) be impacted by them.


* And while we're defining commonly misused terminology, I need to add a quick pet-peeve of mine:

*Biotope*: an area of uniform environmental conditions that provides a living space for a specific assemblage of plants, animals, etc.

*Biotype*: a group of organisms having the same genotype.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Conley said:


> How does this argument mesh with the argument that cheap captive bred dart frogs is a bad thing?


They don't have to mesh at all since price may be irrelevant if supply doesn't meet demand....

On a different note, the hobby historically has been price driven (not counting impulse purchases by novice or new people) as we have repeatedly seen population crashes when prices/commonality reaches a threshold (look at the boom and bust of tricolors/anthyoni for example) that people stop working with the frogs..
Most of the cheap imports aren't being sold to the established hobby but instead are going to impulse purchases at swaps/shows and pet stores. 


Ed


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

sports_doc said:


> Perhaps we should all quite now before it ends poorly....again...?
> 
> If ASN/TWI starts supporting hybridization/cross breeding of PDF's then I may reconsider my opinion.


I'd like to think that this "community" as I've heard it called can discus issues like this without all the immaturity and drama than a few people seem unable to let go.



Ed said:


> Actually in other sectors of the herp hobby, collections of new animals were undertaken because of the rampent hybridization (cornsnakes for example) resulted in a lack of pure line animals.... so the answer is yes....
> 
> Purchasing land doesn't do any good unless the funds and infrastructure to protect that land are also put into place....that is a lesson learned the hard way a longtime ago by conservation organizations...
> 
> ...


If mixes became more common place and acceptable, would the current #s imported rise because of that? Would the people that are seriously working with animals drop them in favor of the quick buck these mixes might bring?

People seem to forget, or not want to remember, that alot of these animals are disposable pets. Mommy buys little Jonny a cute frog for him to keep for a week till he bores of it.......

I just dont see this hobby ever becoming what the snake hobby has, theres just to many frog geeks that care.
I do however think that mixes can help fill that pet store niche without being the end of the world like a few people seem to think.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

> People don't tend to support conservation programs unless they have a connection to the animals/plants in those programs and captive animals are that link that is needed for conservation to occur....


The word conservation get thrown around alot in this forum. Especially in these these theads. One might even think its a big part of this hobby from reading this board. So a few more questions:
How many people here are managing their animals in a proper way, as far as inbreeding, following the tmps..? 
What % of ans stewards have thier animals accessioned or are participating in twi projects?
What % of the hobby is doing anything to help with the conservation of these animals?
I know no one has the answers to most of these but its something to think about.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bussardnr said:


> If mixes became more common place and acceptable, would the current #s imported rise because of that? Would the people that are seriously working with animals drop them in favor of the quick buck these mixes might
> 
> I just dont see this hobby ever becoming what the snake hobby has, theres just to many frog geeks that care.
> I do however think that mixes can help fill that pet store niche without being the end of the world like a few people seem to think.


If demand increases due to an inability to get the animal then yes imports are going to increase whether legally or illegally imported...

If the hobby wasn't market driven then we wouldn't have seen all of the boom and bust cycles... so while some may stick with the pure lineages as opposed to the crossbred/hybrids etc, the displacement by hybrids can do significant harm to the ability to keep a population viable longterm. 
If you think the sale of hybrids to a pet store isn't a threat, I suggest looking through the identification threads where visual determination of a frog of unknown provence was assigned as one or another morph... Hybrids and crossbreeds can be intermediate in the first generation to the parent stock while further generations can closely resemble the parents or be intermediate....

Ed


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

as you just mentioned its already a problem, and very few are paying attention to it. 
Another reason the ASN program is so important, yet it, and others like it wont get the attention they need till the hobby is forced to use them. As in widespread mixs being out there. 
At least thats my prediction.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> 1. A designer frog would create a demand for an animal that is not collected from the wild(with the exception of the original starting breeding groups).
> 
> 2. A possible money making frog that could help offset the cost of breeding less valuable frogs. Increasing the number of breeders and hopefully lessoning the need for wild caught animals.
> 
> ...


These reasons are better than "because they're cool". Allow me to restate...

1. This seems to me to say that you believe people will want cool, unique designer frogs more so than WC, FR, or CB frogs, bred within their species. And this will lower the burden on wild frog harversting.

2. Sounds like you think it's possible to make more money selling designer frogs, and the increased revenue will help save other, less fortunate frogs. 

3. And that designer frogs will spur more interest in the hobby and conservation, than other frogs.

4. Is a general "it will help save the planet" summary.

Is that about right?


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

I'm sorry Ed but I am not over simplifying the problem, just bringing topics to light for discussion. The effort has to start somewhere and the seperation of the dart frog community over the "opinion" on hybrids is not the answer.

Yes, the protection of the purchased land is a factor but until the land is purchased you have nothing to protect.

Hybrids will not decrease the visibility of frogs and the need for conservation. This is no different then the argument about mixed enclosures in Zoos. Any frog that catches the curiosity of an individual and creates a connection has the possibility to influence the support of conservation. 

Yes, demand is out pacing supply. All we hear is how breeders cannot make money selling frogs. Maybe to offset the cost of breeding the average Joe auratus, these breeders could sell the "designer frog" for a profit. Get the best of both worlds, a new frog not pulled from the wild and an increased supply of ordinary frogs to reduce the need of wild caught frogs. 

It has been stated previously to avoid the bottle neck effect there will always be a need to selectively pull new genes from wild populations. Correct me if I am wrong, because I was told by the elephant keeper at the Topeka Zoo that it is being discussed that the aging captive American population of elephants is in need of new genetic material and that imports of wild caught elephants is in the near future. Is this any different then refreshing the genes of captive bred frogs?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Ed said:


> If you think the sale of hybrids to a pet store isn't a threat, I suggest looking through the identification threads where visual determination of a frog of unknown provence was assigned as one or another morph...


An aspect of this issue is touched on in an article in the new issue of _Leaf Litter_ (which will hopefully be available this week) using _Dendrobates auratus_ as an example.

Of course the problem is when something is assigned as a specific something (which it might not actually be) and that is then bred with something else (which might actually be that specific something)... 

As you have said Nathan: this is why registering and being able to track our animals (and their concretely known, or unknown, provenances) is so important and what the ASN is attempting to do. But, as you have also mentioned: regardless of population management and tracking tools and databases, its success will be determined by hobbyist participation.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Jellyman said:


> Hybrids will not decrease the visibility of frogs and the need for conservation.


Isn't this sort of like thinking that by people interacting with and/or keeping dogs that they'll somehow become interested in or more aware of the plight of wild wolf populations? In each case you have an organism that is very similar to the organism in question...but it's not quite the same thing. Also, this is an oversimplification assuming that it's just about the animal in and of itself--conservation has to be an ethos for hobbyists (or the hobby at large), a conversation constantly being had. Otherwise there is just a disconnect that never gets bridged.



> It has been stated previously to avoid the bottle neck effect there will always be a need to selectively pull new genes from wild populations. Correct me if I am wrong, because I was told by the elephant keeper at the Topeka Zoo that it is being discussed that the aging captive American population of elephants is in need of new genetic material and that imports of wild caught elephants is in the near future. Is this any different then refreshing the genes of captive bred frogs?


Coming from the zoo world, Ed will no doubt be able to answer this question more specifically...but in regard to the ASN and our managing for genetic diversity, each TMP (Taxon Management Plan) for each species is written and guidelines are recommended (including founding group size) based on a 100-year management plan. In other words: the founding stock (that will consist, presumably, of unrelated animals already in captivity) will provide enough genetic diversity within that captive population for at least the next century of captive breeding and keeping.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

pl259 said:


> These reasons are better than "because they're cool". Allow me to restate...
> 
> 1. This seems to me to say that you believe people will want cool, unique designer frogs more so than WC, FR, or CB frogs, bred within their species. And this will lower the burden on wild frog harversting.
> 
> ...


Give or take. What I wrote was a framework that would need to be more clearly defined. 

1. It is already apparent that the pet hobby accepts hybrids and that there would be demand for them. I never said "more so then WC, FR, or CB" as you stated but I do think it would fill a significant niche in the hobby and once they are out who really knows.

2. I guess that is exactly what I think. I have never bred frogs so I really cannot comment on that with any further detail.

3. Nowhere did I say designer frogs would "spur more interest then other frogs." I stated they would help increase awareness.

4. My opinions never reflect the "it will help save the planet summary." My opinions are in response to the question as to how this would help promote the hobby and benefit the frogs.


----------



## Marty71 (Nov 9, 2006)

I have seen too many posts asking for a frog identity, too many mislabeled frogs and too much questionable information given out at different shows etc. to ever support or even consider hybrid frogs as a benefit. I think any pro hybrid point of view is overestimating the average keepers ability to keep records, pass along information, and eventually properly label and sell their animals. If you could tell me that these frogs would be properly labeled, responsibly sold, etc. my opinion might change, otherwise I think you are just opening the floodgates for no real good reason. 

The average pet store does not carry frogs. If they did I don't see how a potential purchaser would look at an azureus or a leuc and then say if only I could find a blue and orange frog. Well, buy a Giant Orange or a Regina and on and on. I think you are greatly overestimating a demand for a designer frog, when most patterns, colors etc. are already out there.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> Isn't this sort of like thinking that by people interacting with and/or keeping dogs that they'll somehow become interested in or more aware of the plight of wild wolf populations? In each case you have an organism that is very similar to the organism in question...but it's not quite the same thing. Also, this is an oversimplification assuming that it's just about the animal in and of itself--conservation has to be an ethos for hobbyists (or the hobby at large), a conversation constantly being had. Otherwise there is just a disconnect that never gets bridged.


I think there is a difference when comparing something that has been domesticated and are verywhere, as dogs, and when you are talking about exotic species of animals. It is not everyday that the average Joe will see or learn about a dart frog. 





> Coming from the zoo world, Ed will no doubt be able to answer this question more specifically...but in regard to the ASN and our managing for genetic diversity, each TMP (Taxon Management Plan) for each species is written and guidelines are recommended (including founding group size) based on a 100-year management plan. In other words: the founding stock (that will consist, presumably, of unrelated animals already in captivity) will provide enough genetic diversity within that captive population for at least the next century of captive breeding and keeping.


First off, I think what you are doing is great. From your statement it sounds like if the hobby wants to it can maintain a genetic base that will last for the next 100 years without the need for future genetic material to be pulled from the wild. This also would conclude that there would be no need for future collections from the wild(barring any unseen die off) and that hybrid animals would not effect the managed popultions.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Marty71 said:


> I have seen too many posts asking for a frog identity, too many mislabeled frogs and too much questionable information given out at different shows etc. to ever support or even consider hybrid frogs as a benefit. I think any pro hybrid point of view is overestimating the average keepers ability to keep records, pass along information, and eventually properly label and sell their animals. If you could tell me that these frogs would be properly labeled, responsibly sold, etc. my opinion might change, otherwise I think you are just opening the floodgates for no real good reason.


I agree, and for this reason if I was 100% concerned about getting a pure breed frog I would not buy from a pet store or someone at a show but from someone I researched as being a registered breeder with ASN.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

> From your statement it sounds like if the hobby wants to it can maintain a genetic base that will last for the next 100 years without the need for future genetic material to be pulled from the wild. This also would conclude that there would be no need for future collections from the wild(barring any unseen die off) and that hybrid animals would not effect the managed popultions.


That is correct.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> That is correct.


So that pretty much kills the arguement that hybrids would disrupt captive breeding efforts of pure genetic specimens?


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

no, as only a tiny # of animals are in the program right now


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

bussardnr said:


> no, as only a tiny # of animals are in the program right now


Sorry, I meant if the correct number of animals were properly registered.

So, more animals would need to be collected and registered since the records of most of the captive unregistered frogs is somewhat blurred?


----------



## Malaki33 (Dec 21, 2007)

Ok all I need to at least send forth my opinion

I was once a Snake guy I would breed primarily corn snakes, I did not hybradize my snakes, however, I saw what Line breeding, and crossing did to the hobby and I left it, why the heck does anyone need a Albino corn snake? Let me answer, Because they look cool. Why does anyone line breed albino corn snakes? Because they want to make money, plain and simple. How about lets cross a red rat snake and a gray rat snake!!! for what? It boils down to one thing and one thing only MONEY, I have seen it first hand when I was in the snake hobby, I couldnt take it anymore. I would really hate to see the same thing happen to PDF or Mantella. PDF's have so many color options out there there is no NEED for anything else. Also, who the heck got into the PDF hobby to make money? I just want to sell some so I can buy more!


----------



## JoshK (Jan 5, 2009)

Malaki33 said:


> Ok all I need to at least send forth my opinion
> 
> I was once a Snake guy I would breed primarily corn snakes, I did not hybradize my snakes, however, I saw what Line breeding, and crossing did to the hobby and I left it, why the heck does anyone need a Albino corn snake? Let me answer, Because they look cool. Why does anyone line breed albino corn snakes? Because they want to make money, plain and simple. How about lets cross a red rat snake and a gray rat snake!!! for what? It boils down to one thing and one thing only MONEY, I have seen it first hand when I was in the snake hobby, I couldnt take it anymore. I would really hate to see the same thing happen to PDF or Mantella. PDF's have so many color options out there there is no NEED for anything else. Also, who the heck got into the PDF hobby to make money? I just want to sell some so I can buy more!


 Luckily a hybrid isn't worth much, if anything, otherwise the hobby would be full of them. I have yet to see a hybrid look near as nice as the real thing. Also, people are line breeding in this hobby and I wish it was looked upon the same as crossing morphs because it is just as bad if not worse for the frogs.


----------



## Malaki33 (Dec 21, 2007)

JoshK said:


> Luckily a hybrid isn't worth much, if anything, otherwise the hobby would be full of them. I have yet to see a hybrid look near as nice as the real thing. Also, people are line breeding in this hobby and I wish it was looked upon the same as crossing morphs because it is just as bad if not worse for the frogs.


Josh,

I look at linebreeding the same way as Hybridizing, infact I bought a few chocolate leucs a long time ago and I am trying to breed them with normal leucs to try and bring the variation back instead of breeding for line. Having problems finding a viable male though. But I will keep trying.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

As I have been gently receding from the snake community for the last two years after almost a decade of breeding/selling, this topic is very familiar. While not exactly the same situation, I believe the boa constrictor morph market has many parallels to this potential situation. Those animals are attractive to hobbyists for the same reason hybrids/cross breeds would be (Wow factor, something new, potentially valuable because of rarity and uniqueness).



Jellyman said:


> "What possible upside would there be to the hobby and the frogs"
> 
> 1. A designer frog would create a demand for an animal that is not collected from the wild(with the exception of the original starting breeding groups).
> 
> ...


None of these things came true for the boa market...in fact usually the opposite. I know its an imperfect model for this situation, but I think it bears contemplation.

Also, one of the major problems with hybrids/cross breeds is that they are usually not worth much when accurately represented, but can be very very valuable if misrepresented as an animal new to the hobby.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

Malaki33 said:


> Ok all I need to at least send forth my opinion
> 
> I was once a Snake guy I would breed primarily corn snakes, I did not hybradize my snakes, however, I saw what Line breeding, and crossing did to the hobby and I left it, *why the heck does anyone need a Albino corn snake? Let me answer, Because they look cool. Why does anyone line breed albino corn snakes? Because they want to make money, plain and simple. * How about lets cross a red rat snake and a gray rat snake!!! for what? It boils down to one thing and one thing only MONEY, I have seen it first hand when I was in the snake hobby, I couldnt take it anymore. I would really hate to see the same thing happen to PDF or Mantella. PDF's have so many color options out there there is no NEED for anything else. Also, who the heck got into the PDF hobby to make money? I just want to sell some so I can buy more!


How does this differ from the dart hobby?


----------



## Malaki33 (Dec 21, 2007)

bussardnr said:


> How does this differ from the dart hobby?


Like I said, I did not think most of us in the hobby are looking to make money, infact just like in Snake breeding you never make back what you spend. When I first got into this hobby I was specifically told, and I agree, If I am in it to make money I am in the wrong buisness!....LOL


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Boondoggle said:


> Also, one of the major problems with hybrids/cross breeds is that they are usually not worth much when accurately represented, but can be very very valuable if misrepresented as an animal new to the hobby.


I find this to be the most compelling arguement against hybrids. With boa's and other larger reptile/amphibians and mammals electronic ID chips can be inserted to help identify animals. Probably not a viable option for darts??


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

Malaki33 said:


> Like I said, I did not think most of us in the hobby are looking to make money, infact just like in Snake breeding you never make back what you spend. When I first got into this hobby I was specifically told, and I agree, If I am in it to make money I am in the wrong buisness!....LOL


But are you implying theres something wrong with those who do? And I'm sure some people buy those snakes because they injoy them. 
I dont understand why so many feel that darts are so different then other animals in the trade.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

skylsdale said:


> An issue that has come up regularly throughout the course of the hobby is the impact egg pulling by the hobbyist could have on the ability of future generations of frogs to transport and/or rear their own young. Through our process of continual selection (i.e. removing eggs) we could be domesticating frogs such that future captive generations are no longer able to transport and raise their own larvae.


Hi Ron

This is an excellent point and something I had not thought of before. Thanks for pointing that out and We will be leaving the eggs in the viv for the frogs to transport.


----------



## Malaki33 (Dec 21, 2007)

bussardnr said:


> But are you implying theres something wrong with those who do? And I'm sure some people buy those snakes because they injoy them.
> I dont understand why so many feel that darts are so different then other animals in the trade.


I really am not implying anything of the sort, what I am trying to say is that if in it to make money, what lengths are we willing to go to do so? I am not saying everyone who is in it to make money will do ANYTHING it takes to make money in fact most I know are very responsible breeders. Line breeding and Hybridizing, ruined the dog world, it ruined the snake world and I would hate to see it happen to the frog world. I am just one guy with one opinion, mine may differ from yours, or some others but it is my opinion, and just like I did with snakes, if the PDF hobby becomes the stomping grounds for line breeding and hybridizing I will leave the hobby and that is of course my perogative, I just hope that I don't have to.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

It is interesting to hear the term "natural" used about frogs in the hobby. If natural is referencing the wild environment and the animals that inhabit them, then what is natural is constantly evolving as time moves on, and only what is currently in those natural environments can be considered natural. Of course everyone seems to have their own definition of what they think is natural, but the moment any animal leaves the wild it stops evolving according to the selective pressures existing in the natural environment. The closest we can get to producing a natural animal in the hobby is properly managing a population to maintain the original genetic diversity of the animals from the moment they came into the hobby. Even then we are producing a snapshot of an animal that was natural in a certain time and place, not of one that is currently natural. Sometimes it seems that people who talk about natural frogs in the hobby, really just want an animal that looks natural and not one that is actually natural (whatever that is supposed to mean, as the term is one created by humans, and these animals exist on their own separate from any human definition..). Personally I love observing the population dynamics of wild populations and the diversity within them, so I'll always try to manage my animals to maintain the original diversity when possible (and as many have already said it's an ongoing effort that depends on the keepers themselves).


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

How coincidental that the dreaded Hybrid thread sees new life right about the time that the reputation feature goes bye bye 

Don't worry Jel.....I am about ready to jump in. I'm.......just....around.....the corner 

Why don't we just repost links to the other 7 or 8 long threads on this subject. There is absolutely nothing new.....nothing we haven't already discussed.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Philsuma said:


> How coincidental that the dreaded Hybrid thread sees new life right about the time that the reputation feature goes bye bye


Not coincidence. It's Renge, weedhopper!


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

pl259 said:


> It's Renge.....


 
dude, you are assigning WAY too much credence to it, if you are dipping into eastern philosophy to help define the human urge to contemplate frog "hybridization".   


....there is no spoon....


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Actually the reputation thing was irrelevant to my posting. I was never subject to it because I was not involved with Dendroboard during that fiasco. I've just recently decided to do something with my long-standing interest again.

I was going to say the hobby isn't dividing, it's polarizing. But, that's not really accurate. The arguments are between two vocal camps: "Hybridizing/crossing is evil", and "Both practices are/can be important". The true opposite pole, "Forget conservation, just focus on designer animals" hardly exists, if at all (thankfully!).

I agree that most of the arguments have become repetitions of what I've already read in the older posts. I'm even repeating myself. Even though I didn't intend it, I've stuck the thermometer in the anus of the argument and gotten the same temperature reading as those old threads- but as the majority do not argue, I only know the thoughts of a few people. Wherever the upper parts of the opinion bell curve lie, those people aren't participating in the conversation much.

I still see conservation, as defined by TWI & ASN, extremely important and as a separate concept from the generalized pet trade and "designer frogs". They need to be defined separately.

Dart frogs in general are more widely kept than ever- that's obvious. I see two main reasons for this. 

1. The technology (as in knowledge of techniques) has evolved to the point that more people are capable. 

2. The frogs themselves are already on the path toward domestication (_sensu lato_). They (captive bred animals) are becoming genetically adapted to captive culture due to the (even unintentional) selection pressures in captive breeding. This makes for stronger animals _in captivity_.

I can not understand why people are still arguing about good or evil. The energy should be spent in different ways, e.g.: 

-Separate the conversations about crossbreeding from conversations about genetic conservation. Educate, and direct peer pressure toward awareness of HOW to keep them separate, and what CAN be done to further conservation efforts. 

-Recognize that "designer frogs", despite the stigma still attached to the term, will grow in the hobby, and pay attention to the breeding methods that will produce stronger, more beautiful domesticated strains. I've stared that I'm a conservationist. I still keep things, even plants that are "boring" and not "beautiful", because it helps preserve the genetic base. But, I will not bury my head in the sand and stop helping that way just because someone does something with some of the progeny I don't like. 

This is by far the most important thing I'm going to say in this post:

*At least two people have stated here that they will leave the hobby if they start seeing more hybrids. That was startling to read. Please don't do that! Instead, use your expertise to focus on helping with the efforts of conservation, as with ASN! Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!*

Vincent


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Boondoggle said:


> None of these things came true for the boa market...in fact usually the opposite. I know its an imperfect model for this situation, but I think it bears contemplation.


Cayos Cochinos Boas (aka Hog Island Boas) were almost extirpated from the wild due to collection for the pet trade and there is strong speculation that there are few if any non-mixed (cross bred) boas of this locality left in the pet trade... and they will never be imported again.. see DICE - Stephen Green for more information.. 

What ever happened to those really purple (much more purple than those imported in the last 5-8 years) Guyana boas that were extensively imported in the late 1980s and very early 1990s?

Ed


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Wow, I just got emotional in my last post. Sorry for yelling. To be clear, I believe 100% that the conviction of those dedicated to preservation is desperately needed, especially now that (I believe) the hobby is at the cusp of large changes.

Vincent


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Philsuma said:


> dude, you are assigning WAY too much credence to it, if you are dipping into eastern philosophy to help define the human urge to contemplate frog "hybridization".
> 
> 
> ....there is no spoon....



Never underestimate the power of cause and effect. The DB universe is still causal, for now anyway :|


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

_No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. -John Donne, Meditation XVII_*

I suggest, that could be extended to no life-based hobby. I make a lot of horticultural comparisons, because that's what I know best. Thank you for taking the time to point out the similarities and differences.

Thank you also to those who have been willing to restate their thoughts in so many different ways, trying to teach understanding of both "sides".

V

edit-

* Haiku in memes:

_We're all in this together.
Your loss is my loss.
We're all gonna die someday._
-Vincent P.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Jellyman said:


> I'm sorry Ed but I am not over simplifying the problem, just bringing topics to light for discussion. The effort has to start somewhere and the seperation of the dart frog community over the "opinion" on hybrids is not the answer.


Actually you are oversimplifying a complex issue... see below.. 



Jellyman said:


> Yes, the protection of the purchased land is a factor but until the land is purchased you have nothing to protect.


Actually this is not true.. the animals can be protected outside of the habitat through a number of means.. in addition, sustainably collected animals can provide much better protection for the habitat than purchasing the land and attempting to then fund and protect it particuarly when the local population doesn't see the value in attempting to restrict what can be done on the land (and with respect to Central and South America this also ignores that the habitat is adapted to a small scale slash and burn ecology.. so to say that the best thing is to buy and protect the land is a gross simplification... 



Jellyman said:


> Hybrids will not decrease the visibility of frogs and the need for conservation. This is no different then the argument about mixed enclosures in Zoos. Any frog that catches the curiosity of an individual and creates a connection has the possibility to influence the support of conservation.


Actually by simply diverting resources (housing) from the non-mixed frogs it will reduce visibility for the frogs... and impact the ability for long term captive conservation. With respect to the mixed cage Zoo display, you are comparing apples and oranges.. the mixed tank at the zoo doesn't divert resources as the frogs are not being bred.. as this would divert off exhibit space from species that are in much more critical shape like Atelopus zeteki, Bufo baxteri, or Nectophrynoides asperginis.. This is different than the hobby where mixed breed frogs are displacing space for the species as well as risking breeding mixed breed frogs into stable species/morphs.. See my post on the boas above.. and we have also ignored again, the impact on mixed breed frogs in speeding up boom and bust cycles which are also some of the greatest threats to the long-term sustainable captive breeding of the frogs... 



Jellyman said:


> Yes, demand is out pacing supply. All we hear is how breeders cannot make money selling frogs. Maybe to offset the cost of breeding the average Joe auratus, these breeders could sell the "designer frog" for a profit. Get the best of both worlds, a new frog not pulled from the wild and an increased supply of ordinary frogs to reduce the need of wild caught frogs.


And this will reduce the number of non-mixed frogs that are bred and kept, increasing the risk that a mixed frog will be misrepresented as a pure frog, lower the population of non-mixed frogs which reduces gene frequencies and increases the rate of boom and bust cycles such as that seen with tricolor/anthonyi and we are currently seeing with a number of others (like some of the tincts..)




Jellyman said:


> It has been stated previously to avoid the bottle neck effect there will always be a need to selectively pull new genes from wild populations. Correct me if I am wrong, because I was told by the elephant keeper at the Topeka Zoo that it is being discussed that the aging captive American population of elephants is in need of new genetic material and that imports of wild caught elephants is in the near future. Is this any different then refreshing the genes of captive bred frogs?


 The problem with trying to use elephants as an example is that the vast majority of elephants in captivity in the USA were aquired at least 30 if not 40 or more years ago with no intention to breed them in captivity as most zoos were/are unable to house a bull elephant for multiple reasons (such as space, ability to deal with them when they go into musth and feeding),in addition a number of zoos housed African and Asian elephants together for education reasons and this is possibly the source of a herpes virus (see EEHV - Elephant endotheliotropic herpes virus) that causes significant mortality in neonatal Asian elephants.. . Now there is interest in attempting to breed them and build a sustainable population and due to multiple factors the current captive population is insufficient to accomplish this task.. We haven't hit this point with most dendrobatids as of yet but we have come close and the addition of mixed breed frogs could easily be the tipping point... 

Ed


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> Give or take. What I wrote was a framework that would need to be more clearly defined.
> 
> 1. It is already apparent that the pet hobby accepts hybrids and that there would be demand for them. I never said "more so then WC, FR, or CB" as you stated but I do think it would fill a significant niche in the hobby and once they are out who really knows.
> 
> ...


If I understand your comments correctly you're saying you don't think hybrids offer any advantages over species bred WC, FR, or CB frogs. But you do think there's possibly a market for them, but don't know how much they'd sell for in that market.

Interesting thoughts on the possible rewards for producing hybrids. How about the risks and/or unintended consequences? Have you thought about that side of the issue?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Malaki33 said:


> Josh,
> 
> I look at linebreeding the same way as Hybridizing, infact I bought a few chocolate leucs a long time ago and I am trying to breed them with normal leucs to try and bring the variation back instead of breeding for line. Having problems finding a viable male though. But I will keep trying.


If there is sufficient "lines" then breeding the lines to one another is a method that works to increase allele frequency.. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

dirtmonkey said:


> 2. The frogs themselves are already on the path toward domestication (_sensu lato_). They (captive bred animals) are becoming genetically adapted to captive culture due to the (even unintentional) selection pressures in captive breeding. This makes for stronger animals _in captivity_.


It also needs to be pointed out that this does not automatically mean that the frogs are no longer able to survive in the natal enviroment.. and is one of the reasons why attempting to capture and maintain the maximal available allele frequency is important. Every time we see a boom and bust cycle, allele frequencies are lost... 


Ed


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Wow again. 4 more posts while I was editing my last one.

Another addition is the preservation of mutational alleles, selected color/pattern changes especially, as in albinism.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

dirtmonkey said:


> Wow again. 4 more posts while I was editing my last one.
> 
> Another addition is the preservation of mutational alleles, selected color/pattern changes especially, as in albinism.


Provided that they are not preserved at a rate that causes a loss of other alleles.. 

Ed


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Ed said:


> ... attempting to capture and maintain the maximal available allele frequency is important. Every time we see a boom and bust cycle, allele frequencies are lost...


I agree with this. I hope I have stressed how important I think it is by referring to the methods of ASN.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

pl259 said:


> If I understand your comments correctly you're saying you don't think hybrids offer any advantages over species bred WC, FR, or CB frogs. But you do think there's possibly a market for them, but don't know how much they'd sell for in that market.
> 
> Interesting thoughts on the possible rewards for producing hybrids. How about the risks and/or unintended consequences? Have you thought about that side of the issue?


My opinion has always been the middle ground on this topic. I do not disagree with most of the arguements against hybrids and I do not agree with all the arguements for hybrids. I simply lean more on the side of the fence that sees them as unique and desirable and find it as crazy as religion when trying to discus the topic with someone on "either" end of the extreme.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Still nothing new or fresh presented.....

No new viewpoints, information or cites......

No comical statements or utterences to quote even 

Meh....


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Re: mutations:



Ed said:


> Provided that they are not preserved at a rate that causes a loss of other alleles..


I wasn't stating a value judgment there. I do agree with you, especially since, personally, I think albino animals (and also most mutation variegated plants) are unattractive.


Re: cultivated varieties (plant term again):



Ed said:


> And this will reduce the number of non-mixed frogs that are bred and kept, increasing the risk that a mixed frog will be misrepresented as a pure frog, lower the population of non-mixed frogs which reduces gene frequencies and increases the rate of boom and bust cycles such as that seen with tricolor/anthonyi and we are currently seeing with a number of others (like some of the tincts..)
> Ed


I'm not so sure about this part. The human nature I've seen in action tends to make collectors of varieties and hybrids eventually value the preservation of wild types far more than they would if they hadn't been involved in the first place.

Yes, there will be mixing. That's why documented lines to go back to are so important.

There are a lot of points made, I can't keep up. My original intention was to try and stay with the "big picture", and I am reading and considering all points even if I'm not commenting on them all.

Vincent


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Jellyman said:


> My opinion has always been the middle ground on this topic. I do not disagree with most of the arguements against hybrids and I do not agree with all the arguements for hybrids. I simply lean more on the side of the fence that sees them as unique and desirable and find it as crazy as religion when trying to discus the topic with someone on "either" end of the extreme.


This is where I'm at, too.

edit- I'd add "Potentially" desirable when talking about the crosses- early generations often aren't all that interesting until further breeding work is done.

V


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

dirtmonkey said:


> Re: mutations:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> Still nothing new or fresh presented.....
> 
> No new viewpoints, information or cites......
> 
> ...



Sorry. I decided I don't regret the thread though, every time something is explained in a different way there will be people out there reading who can come to a better understanding of the issues and make more informed judgments. I'm trying to keep in mind the majority of people who read and don't post, as well as dipping into my own thoughts.

edit- what? My meme haiku wasn't comical?!?

V


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

As a side point, I have seen a lot of things happen in hybrid/cross breed threads here and in snake forums...but the one thing I have never seen is anyone change their mind.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Ed said:


> I may have a unusual perspective compared to a lot of the hobbyists as I've been dealing with dendrobatids for at least 20 years now and was working in the pet trade well before that...
> Historically there have been a number of boom and bust cycles which are often related to availability of "new" morphs/species/variations we have seen a huge swing in what is commonly available.... tricolor/anthonyi has been through at least one and possibly two boom and busts, terriblis has gone through one.. currently we are seeing one with the tinctorius and auratus (they have been displaced by pumilio and thumbnails..). Any additional variations (particularly if they are presented as "true morphs" or end up being misidentified or misrepresented) can change the desire to maintain those species.
> 
> Ed


I do understand that, but Ed, I'm thinking of the likely direction many, hundreds, of people _new_ to the hobby might trend toward in the future. They will not be aware of boom/bust issues, and I doubt it will be explained to them with every purchase.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Boondoggle said:


> As a side point, I have seen a lot of things happen in hybrid/cross breed threads here and in snake forums...but the one thing I have never seen is anyone change their mind.


I certainly don't expect anyone who is a vocal participant to change their mind any time soon  I wouldn't want them to, except the people who might throw in the towel because of a philosophical disagreement.

But there are hundreds of other people, the silent majority, who are learning with (almost) every post.

V

Edit: I was one of those people for over 20 years, myself.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

dirtmonkey said:


> I do understand that, but Ed, I'm thinking of the likely direction many, hundreds, of people _new_ to the hobby might trend toward in the future. They will not be aware of boom/bust issues, and I doubt it will be explained to them with every purchase.


And if they are keeping mixed breed frogs then that is a resource that is no longer available to the "pure" frogs as well as being a potential source for misrepresented frogs ending up within the gene pool (see my comments above on the boas..) 

Ed


----------



## fishyfan (Dec 29, 2008)

IMO, if you produce hybrids it should be for your own enjoyment, not for redistribution. It can be interesting to see what you produce by breeding two different species together, but the hybrids produced shouldn't be sold. If you feel the need to sell these hybrids, they should be advertised as such. It can be particularly frustrating when you own something that looks to be a pure strain and come to find out after breeding it that it was a hybrid.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

dirtmonkey said:


> But there are hundreds of other people, the silent majority, who are learning with (almost) every post.


My wife and I have been in the hobby less than a year. 

What am I learning from this thread and the others like it? There are people out there that would crossbreed PDF's.

Cross breeding PDF's is not anything I would ever consider. They're just plain beautifull the way God made them. Why would I even think about doing something like this? Why would anyone? 

If they're not good enough for people the way they are...well...switch hobbies.

Don't mess with Mother Nature

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

fishyfan said:


> IMO, if you produce hybrids it should be for your own enjoyment, not for redistribution. It can be interesting to see what you produce by breeding two different species together, but the hybrids produced shouldn't be sold. If you feel the need to sell these hybrids, they should be advertised as such. It can be particularly frustrating when you own something that looks to be a pure strain and come to find out after breeding it that it was a hybrid.


The problem may not be with the first or second owner of the frogs but futher down the line when they get out of the frogs.. There is a rate (which I would describe as high) in the hobby and this is where the risk comes into play. 

Ed


----------



## Dragonfly (Dec 5, 2007)

I am not enough a student of the sciences involved in this discussion to understand all the statements made in several of the posts.

I personally have no reason to do any mixed breeding -- I don't see any good reason to do it. I have no desire to have mixes in this hobby available for random and unknown purchase or known sales.

That all said please consider the following: 

"Hey Johnnie, why do you keep hitting your head on the wall?" 

"Because it feels so good when I stop."

and

If it is your own head you are hitting against the wall, please be kind to yourself and take a nice warm bath and go to bed with someone you love (even if the only someone you go to bed with is yourself - and especially yourself).

If you are letting someone hit your head against the wall, please be kind to your self and do the above.

If you are tempted to hit someone else's head againt the wall, see above.

And on that note, I am going to follow my own suggestion and hopefully dream of peaceful waterfalls and gentle sounds and awake to the singing of my leucs.

Peace Out.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> My opinion has always been the middle ground on this topic. I do not disagree with most of the arguements against hybrids and I do not agree with all the arguements for hybrids. I simply lean more on the side of the fence that sees them as unique and desirable and find it as crazy as religion when trying to discus the topic with someone on "either" end of the extreme.


Thanks JMan for going as far as you did, exploring those answers. I would hope that anyone who is seriously consdering producing non-species bred offspring, would go through a basic risk/reward process before they did. And share their thoughts on it. While we didn't get there on this discussion, I'd still like to hear proponent's insights into the possible risks of doing it. 

Now honestly, do you think that a hybrid will ever be able to compete, in anyway, with this...


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

pl259 said:


> Now honestly, do you think that a hybrid will ever be able to compete, in anyway, with this...


That was the point I was trying to make in My earlier post Eric. PDF's are so beautiful to begin with, why mess with them. I just don't get it. If they all came in black and white then maybe someone would want to crossbread to see what they could come up with.

That is not the case with PDF's. There's every colour under the rainbow.

Very nice pic btw.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

I certainly wouldn't mind a line of leucs the size of tincs. It is not always about different colors or patterns. Sometimes size either going big or small can be desirable. This could be a hybrid or line breeding issue non the less. I personally like the larger frogs but one of my favorite color/patterns are the leucs so why not the best of both worlds if possible?

My agreement with the anti designer crowd would fall in the lines of responsibility of selling the frog labeled correctly as to what it is.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Jellyman said:


> ... I personally like the larger frogs but one of my favorite color/patterns are the leucs so why not the best of both worlds if possible?


I tried selective breeding for size, once, but I ran out of cross-breeders to feed him. Had to let him go. I think he's still out there somewhere though...


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 12, 2008)

Ed said:


> If the hobby wasn't market driven then we wouldn't have seen all of the boom and bust cycles...


Ed, I don't think thats a natural leap. You can seem boom and bust without it being market/price driven. 

In the Reef hobby, we've seen a number of corals dissappear because the price stayed high, and then a couple of tanks crashed. The problem isn't low prices. Its people getting bored.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

The US representation in the current dart frog hobby is fairly small in comparison to the European and Asian hobbyist numbers.

Our members are also fewer in number than the other US Herpetoculturist groups such as Lizards - Geckos, Varanids, snakes, hots, turtles ect.

There are only "so many frog bucks" to be spent and that's why you see some neglected species and why some species seem to "go out of favour".

and while on the subject germaine to this thread. The selective breeding / line breeding and "hybrid" segment of our hobby is very small, proportionately. Much smaller than those found in the snake and gecko crowd. I personally believe this is the result of "conservation mindset" first, with the frogs. 

some thoughts....


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

"conservation mindset"
What exactly is this? 
From what i've seen very few people in this hobby are involved in conservation


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

bussardnr said:


> "conservation mindset"
> What exactly is this?
> From what i've seen very few people in this hobby are involved in conservation


I think most are, actually. Conservation is not just buying and protecting land Nate.

I think the very act of keeping naturalistic vivaria and getting just one other person to become excited about a frog and where it came from is indeed, conservation at it's most grass roots level.

Conservation efforts begin with your meaningful participation in this very site.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

sorry Phil, but keeping pet frogs has nothing to do with conservation.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

bussardnr said:


> sorry Phil, but keeping pet frogs has nothing to do with conservation.


That's just a small minded personal opinion of yours Nate......


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

no need to name calling and personal attacks Phil. 


> I'd like to think that this "community" as I've heard it called can discus issues like this without all the immaturity and drama than a few people seem unable to let go.


I guess i was eating to much rainbow stew when i said that.

Explain exactly why this hobby keeps patting its self on the back like they do,
and why keeping frogs makes us all conservationists.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

bussardnr said:


> Explain exactly why this hobby keeps patting itself on the back like they do,and why keeping frogs makes us all conservationists.


Now who's being disingenuous? 

Where's the pat? What more would you do Nate? What's on your conservation agenda?

I think your statement was small minded and that you probably didn't think it through in your rush to debate me. That's not personal, name calling or any kind of attack.

Do you think that this site has nothing to do with conservation as well?

How about childrens books about frogs in an elementary school?

Conservation efforts often start small.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Conley said:


> Ed, I don't think thats a natural leap. You can seem boom and bust without it being market/price driven.
> 
> In the Reef hobby, we've seen a number of corals dissappear because the price stayed high, and then a couple of tanks crashed. The problem isn't low prices. Its people getting bored.


Hi Rich,

Historically in the dart frog hobby, the crashes occured when there were lots of offspring around and the price dropped below about $20 a froglet (for example the first time tricolors crashed breeders weren't able to move the froglets for $15 a froglet...) and the market didn't rebound until they were scarce and breeders could get a lot more fir them. I can't think of any of the frogs that went through a cycle that were still selling for $50 or more a froglet. Melanophryniscus stelzeri appears to be lost to the hobby at this time as those who bred the toads had a very difficult time in selling any of the metamorphs, as they were commonly available resulting in a crash from which they probably won't recover unless more imports occur. I agree that boredom may play a part but at least in this hobby price is also a big factor...

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bussardnr said:


> "conservation mindset"
> What exactly is this?
> From what i've seen very few people in this hobby are involved in conservation


It depends on what you mean by conservation...

Ed


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Ed said:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> Historically in the dart frog hobby, the crashes occured when there were lots of offspring around and the price dropped below about $20 a froglet (for example the first time tricolors crashed breeders weren't able to move the froglets for $15 a froglet...) and the market didn't rebound until they were scarce and breeders could get a lot more fir them. I can't think of any of the frogs that went through a cycle that were still selling for $50 or more a froglet. Melanophryniscus stelzeri appears to be lost to the hobby at this time as those who bred the toads had a very difficult time in selling any of the metamorphs, as they were commonly available resulting in a crash from which they probably won't recover unless more imports occur. I agree that boredom may play a part but at least in this hobby price is also a big factor...
> 
> Ed


On this note, it makes me wonder how the "conservation" discussion stands up. It seems to be debated that the breeders and hobbiest are not in this for money/profit but for the conservation of the frogs. If that is the case, wouldn't the breeders be happy producing as many offspring as possible to reduce the need for wild caught animals and on the flip side the hobbiest would pay enough for the breeders to break even. I understand this is not realistic but is that not the backbone of the conservation discussion.

I do believe there is a percentange of frog owners that have conservation on their mind. I also believe the percentage is much higher for those that simply keep the frogs for their own amusement without conservation being a driving or motivational factor. And the statement above would imply(not trying to mix up your words Ed) that a certain percentage is in it to make money.

Who knows. We need to invent replicators.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

There have been frog breeders that were upset by the high number of offspring produced and the resulting deflation of profitablity of a particular species of dart frog.

There are some hobbyists that have a keen eye to collecting only the most lucrative species and even stock up on a current high priced import in order to cash in on being the first breeder to produce progeny.

Bob Clark did it back in the mid1980's with Albino Burmeses pythons. He spent something like $20,000 for a male stud breeding loan and soon cornered the market and made probably over 250K in a couple years off that line alone.

Is that wrong? Who can blame him? That's American capitalism at it's finest. But did he give back? Was he at all active in conservation? I don't have those answers.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

Philsuma said:


> Now who's being disingenuous?
> 
> Where's the pat? What more would you do Nate? What's on your conservation agenda?
> 
> ...


The pat is the attitude that the hobby is about conservation. By keeping frogs some get that warm feeling fuzzy feeling like they are saving the world(or frogs). 



> What more would you do Nate? What's on your conservation agenda?


again, your making it personal, how does my agenda change any of the questions I've asked.


> Do you think that this site has nothing to do with conservation as well?


I wouldn't say nothing, but i wonuldn't say it has much.




> I think your statement was small minded and that you probably didn't think it through in your rush to debate me. That's not personal, name calling or any kind of attack.


well you right right, keeping frogs can have something to do with conservation so let me reword it.

The way animals are kept by the majority of this hobby has nothing to do with conservation 
That better?
This also has nothing to do with you. I have been talking about this since post 37, Ed and Ron have been the only ones to touch it other than you.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

bussardnr said:


> The pat is the attitude that the hobby is about conservation. By keeping frogs some get that warm feeling fuzzy feeling like they are saving the world(or frogs).


Why tear things down? Why belittle and devalue the efforts of hobbyists? We realize that basic frog keeping isn't the huge leap that you would like it be, but can't you see it clear that the hobby _*leads *_to other avenues for conservation? Hobbyists keep a frog....they find this board....they go to an IHS or IAD (oops).....they donate to a conservation cause.....they get a friend involved in the hobby and they do likewise.....and on and on

Please see some conservation value, however slight.

The people to get upset with are those people who don't know what a frog is and have no clue or care as to where it lives or what it does. 

We are all friends here. We aleady have a commonality.We are passionate about these animals or else we wouldn't spend so much time here.

I think the amount of conservation "energy" generated by all these dart frog hobbyists and DB members are greater than most people think. I will put them up against the snake and lizard group any day of the week. I know the crowd because I've been there. The energy may not be as direct and focused as you would like and there is NO REASON to rest on our laurels / back pats as you say, but I think there is more good here than bad, if I can reduce it to those terms.

You know it's nothing personal Nate  I have to buy you a gluten free beer this Sat, after all!


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> Hobbyists keep a frog....they find this board....they go to an IHS or IAD (oops).....they donate to a conservation cause.....they get a friend involved in the hobby and they do likewise.....and on and on


If I can add a nuance to this: assuming people continue to keep/breed/manage animals in the hobby the way they always have, this will then encourage futher collection from populations in the wild (possibly even on land that has been purchased for conservation but isn't being actively monitored or sufficiently protected). People end up with these frogs...donate their money to conservation causes...buy more frogs... 

Does the cycle just become the PDF hobby's version of carbon credits if the problems of our current systems of management never actually change?

Is the hobby just massaging its guilty conscience by doing these things, or is it doing something that is an actual _net benefit_ to wild amphibian populations (this latter notion being how I would define conservation)?


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Ron,

It's very hard for me to project that kind of data that you are requesting.

The thing that I honestly believe in, is correct habitat preservation / parques and effective management of same.

I believe in zoological efforts _very_ strongly too.

If people can't SEE the animal - what chance do they have of making a connection with it or even caring about it? Very slim IMO.

That said....is it better to have a lot of dart frog hobbyists?

IMO......yes......the more the better.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

Phil, 

There are very few hobbyists that I know of who are actively managing their frogs to preserve genetic diversity, and virtually none who participate in _in situ_ conservation efforts. I think a lot of this has to do with sampling bias, if you look at the ASN you see efforts being made, you look on dendroboard and are a good amount of members who are stewards, but how much of the total hobbyist population is this? And, that is excluding all those keepers who do not publicize their collections. I understand what you are saying about the benefit of an increase in frog keepers, but what is the benefit if they are not going to take their hobby to the next level? there are plenty of people who are content keeping frogs without regard to their status in the wild. 

Mantellas....as a genus they're more endangered than many of the Dendrobates being kept now, how much is being done within the hobby to help conserve these frogs? Thankfully this year there has been some captive breeding of a few species, but proportional to the more commonly kept (and unthreatened) Dendrobates? I think we can determine a lot about how "conservation" oriented the hobby is by what species are being worked with....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

There are two ways to view the blanket term conservation.. there is conservation within the hobby and then there is conservation that directly affects the wild habitat and populations.... 

Within the hobby, maintaining species and variations long-term while attempting to capture the maximal amount of alleles of those populations is a form of conservation.. working out and sharing better methods of husbandry are methods of captive conservation.. 

With respect to the wild populations there are a couple of main ways to conduct conservation such as 
1) true sustainable harvesting which prevents development or clear cutting of the land as it provides a source of economic gain for the local populace 
2) assisting in a program where land is set aside and funded to ensure stewardship (many of these programs are successful in the short term but in the longer term funding to ensure protection is often lacking, resulting in the land being poached and developed, the land is often not large enough to make a difference or is not connected with other tracts...)

Ed


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> If people can't SEE the animal - what chance do they have of making a connection with it or even caring about it? Very slim IMO.


But that's not conservation...that's awareness. Now, awareness is needed for eventual conservation efforts to be accomplished, but simply knowing about an animal and appreciating it (and even its native habitat and the various factors impacting it) is not conservation. I'm not saying awareness is bad or pointles -- it's not at all -- but it, in and of itself, is not providing any sort of net worth for the animals in the wild or their native habitat.



> That said....is it better to have a lot of dart frog hobbyists?


With the way we are currently managing things, history and experience would show that more hobbyists would equate to more demand or larger market size, which would most likely fuel more collection. Also, I think one of the reasons the Dendrobatid hobby is more tightly knit than others, and perhaps delves more into topics of natural history, conservation, etc. is because of its small size. Contact is increased and information is spread and discussed more easily. Larger size of the hobby might actually equate to diminished awareness and "water things down," so to speak. I'm not saying these are absolutes...just possibilities. You can see a difference in the philosophy of the killifish hobby compared to the larger freshwater aquarium hobby it is a subset of. I think the PDF hobby could be understood as a similar subset of the larger herp hobby.



otis07 said:


> Mantellas....as a genus they're more endangered than many of the Dendrobates being kept now, how much is being done within the hobby to help conserve these frogs?


It's ironic: the vast majority of Dendrobatids are doing just fine in the wild while species such as Mantella are doing very poorly and their habitat is either being decimated or heavily fragmented in the wild. If ever there was a poster species for the need to responsibly keep and manage amphibians to prevent adding further damage by supporting unsustainable collection from the wild, it would be these guys...yet they receive very little attention in the hobby. But even further, taking it to the level of conservation, the question would then become: what can we do to actually _improve_ the situation of Mantella spp. in the wild?


----------



## Marty71 (Nov 9, 2006)

I don't know if it's possible but i would love to see this topic spun off and retitled "conservation efforts" or something along those lines. I think it's a very interesting topic that deserves a detailed discussion, far away from the tired old hybrid/mixing/whatever debate....


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> But even further, taking it to the level of conservation, the question would then become: what can we do to actually _improve_ the situation of Mantella spp. in the wild?


Not sure, I think the best we can hope for as hobbyists is to reduce stress on wild populations by out competing them with captive bred frogs. This will not directly improve their situation and by no means guarantees anything, but as hobbyists who live in a different country I think this is what's realistic, for now.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

otis07 said:


> Phil,
> 
> There are very few hobbyists that I know of who are actively managing their frogs to preserve genetic diversity, and virtually none who participate in _in situ_ conservation efforts. I think a lot of this has to do with sampling bias, if you look at the ASN you see efforts being made, you look on dendroboard and are a good amount of members who are stewards, but how much of the total hobbyist population is this? And, that is excluding all those keepers who do not publicize their collections. I understand what you are saying about the benefit of an increase in frog keepers, but what is the benefit if they are not going to take their hobby to the next level? there are plenty of people who are content keeping frogs without regard to their status in the wild.
> 
> Mantellas....as a genus they're more endangered than many of the Dendrobates being kept now, how much is being done within the hobby to help conserve these frogs? Thankfully this year there has been some captive breeding of a few species, but proportional to the more commonly kept (and unthreatened) Dendrobates? I think we can determine a lot about how "conservation" oriented the hobby is by what species are being worked with....


Agreed, and couldn't have said it better.

Furhermore, while my opinion falls squarely in the conservation camp and I have a firm dedication to the conservation of species, I find it truly disturbing that a few people with strong opinions represent their opinions as those of hobbyists in general. I don’t believe for a second that the “majority” of hobbyists or that frog keepers in general are conservation minded or give a rats ass about hybrids. 

Let’s face it most frog keepers are just your average everyday pet owner. No different than a dog owner, a gecko owner or a snake owner.

As a scientist, I applaud the efforts of those who do contribute to the conservation efforts(both captive and native) and I myself am very passionate about the conservation of species. But the fact remains that most pet frog owners really don’t care. Those that feel passionately ,one way or the other, voice their opinion, the rest remain silent. Members involved in these discussions represent a very, very small percentage of the membership here and an even smaller percentage of hobbyists as a whole.

So what’s my point? I keep hearing things like “the hobby does not accept hybrids”, and “most hobbyists are conservation minded”. Hogwash, it just ain’t so and trying to bolster ones argument with such statements is just lame. Let’s stick to good sound reasoning and science and perhaps we can sway some of that silent majority our way.

Rant over … carry on…


----------



## JoshK (Jan 5, 2009)

edwardsatc said:


> So what’s my point? I keep hearing things like “the hobby does not accept hybrids”, and “most hobbyists are conservation minded”. Hogwash, it just ain’t so and trying to bolster ones argument with such statements is just lame. Let’s stick to good sound reasoning and science and perhaps we can sway some of that silent majority our way.
> 
> Rant over … carry on…


 
I find it funny you say this about "the hobby does not accept hybrids". Check out this care sheet from Thatpetplace.com, as far as I know, they have no affiliation with this hobby, yet somehow they know whats going on. https://www.thatpetplace.com/pet/displayArticle.web?Filename=Poison_Frogs.html

_"NOTE: Mixing species is generally frowned upon in the poison frog hobby, even in larger tanks. The possibility of breeding hybrid frogs is undesirable, and many of these frogs are extremely aggressive and will fight each other. This can lead to frog deaths due to drowning, starvation, and stress. It is much better to start with one species per tank, especially when new to the hobby. There are many factors which can lead to serious problems when multiple species occupy the same vivarium."_


It seems that more than just a few people find hybrids unacceptable, and it seems rather accepted to find it unacceptable. 

Also, if you don't appreciate people saying that most feel one way, maybe you shouldn't argue that most feel another way.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Donn,

Thanks for that wet blanket. Along with all the people saying..."this ain't conservation.....that ain't conservation"....

makes me wanna give up and just produce line bred hybrids 

There isn't much pure science here, I'm afraid....just a lot of opinions.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> Along with all the people saying..."this ain't conservation.....that ain't conservation"....


I'm sorry if you have a hard time hearing this Phil, but none of the things you've mentioned thus far in this thread would be considered conservation by anyone actually involved in the field. Reading books about frogs isn't conservation. Keeping frogs in glass tanks isn't conservation. 

There's no opinion involved here--it's fact. As I stated before, these things can be good...but they are not providing a net positive for wild amphibian populations.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> things mentioned thus far in this thread would not be considered conservation by anyone actually involved in the field.


The definition of conservation is not limited to the field, Ron....it just isnt.

I just don't think either you or I are going to win this argument.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree...but that doesn't meant you can make it mean whatever you want. The traditional definition of conservation in general is the "protection, preservation, and careful management of natural resources and of the environment." Like you, I have no interest in arguing just to "win"...but I do think that many have a misunderstanding as to what actual conservation actually entails. 

I think it's safe to say that the hobby, at large (and I am including myself in this as I am part of the hobby), has done more harm than good for the animals we keep. If not, then CITES wouldn't need to monitor the overharvesting of animals from the wild and in international trade. Keep in mind: some CITES regulations have been instituted because of overharvesting of animals for the pet trade. Conservation isn't just about slowing that down (although that would be a good thing)...but reversing the impact altogether. What if the hobby functioned in such a way that it was actually a BENEFIT for those wild populations? Is that actually possible? I don't know. I would like to think so. 

Learning more about the natural history of organisms and ecosystems is awesome. Being enthralled by the animals we keep is fantastic. Spreading awareness about their plight to those who are unaware and helping create a contingency that wants to do something about it is a great thing. All of these things are the impetus behind TWI's Microcosm conference being help next September...but if it never goes further than that, we're only fooling ourselves if we think we're accomplishing actual conservation for amphibians in the wild and the environments on which they depend.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

The whole of my OP and my posts in this thread since then are speculation about the future. I mentioned the future of conservation as well, so that's on topic.

If I put these all together, The question becomes "What next?" and the answer looks like "It's too soon to tell yet".

I'll keep an eye open and check back in 10 years or so.


In case anyone wondered, I'm not planning to make any crosses. I'm still trying to figure out what will be the one frog best suited to my situation is, I'll only focus on one for now, and that's in a different thread.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

What are the reasons for the hatred of designer frogs in this hobby? 
Heres a few i've pulled from this thread




> Actually in other sectors of the herp hobby, collections of new animals were undertaken because of the rampent hybridization (cornsnakes for example) resulted in a lack of pure line animals....
> ......People don't tend to support conservation programs unless they have a connection to the animals/plants in those programs and captive animals are that link that is needed for conservation to occur....
> .......A different way to look at it is each hybrid is taking up space that could be utilized to keep that morph/species in captivity and each hybrid is reducing the longterm prospects of that morph/species because it is reducing available resources....





> If demand increases due to an inability to get the animal then yes imports are going to increase whether legally or illegally imported...





> I have seen too many posts asking for a frog identity, too many mislabeled frogs and too much questionable information given out at different shows etc. to ever support or even consider hybrid frogs as a benefit. I think any pro hybrid point of view is overestimating the average keepers ability to keep records, pass along information, and eventually properly label and sell their animals. If you could tell me that these frogs would be properly labeled, responsibly sold, etc. my opinion might change, otherwise I think you are just opening the floodgates for no real good reason.





> They're just plain beautifull the way God made them.





> PDF's are so beautiful to begin with, why mess with them.



@ the 1st one 
The poor management of populations could lead to the same thing happening just from the status quo. How is that acceptable to the hobby? 



> People don't tend to support conservation programs


I dont think that designer frogs will have a large impact on this, but I could be wrong. 



> taking up space that could be utilized to keep that morph/species in captivity


Without proper management, whats it matter?



> inability to get the animal


again, thats already happening, yet its acceptable as long as the cause isn't designer frogs?



> too many posts asking for a frog identity


again, thats a current problem that should have a better solution then hating 
mixed frogs.

The others fall under the natural argument. 
How many of us have hybrid plants. Other animals that aren't "natural" or godly. 
How are darts so different then other living things?


If you cant see where i'm goin with this:
The energy put in by this hobby to bash, blacklist, harass, whatever, people and institutions with hybrids, mixed tanks, etc would be much better used to insure we are actually doing everything we can with our animals to keep the populations viable in the future.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

skylsdale said:


> I agree...but that doesn't meant you can make it mean whatever you want. The traditional definition of conservation in general is the "protection, preservation, and careful management of natural resources and of the environment." Like you, I have no interest in arguing just to "win"...but I do think that many have a misunderstanding as to what actual conservation actually entails.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that the hobby, at large (and I am including myself in this as I am part of the hobby), has done more harm than good for the animals we keep. If not, then CITES wouldn't need to monitor the overharvesting of animals from the wild and in international trade. Keep in mind: some CITES regulations have been instituted because of overharvesting of animals for the pet trade. Conservation isn't just about slowing that down (although that would be a good thing)...but reversing the impact altogether. What if the hobby functioned in such a way that it was actually a BENEFIT for those wild populations? Is that actually possible? I don't know. I would like to think so.
> 
> Learning more about the natural history of organisms and ecosystems is awesome. Being enthralled by the animals we keep is fantastic. Spreading awareness about their plight to those who are unaware and helping create a contingency that wants to do something about it is a great thing. All of these things are the impetus behind TWI's Microcosm conference being help next September...but if it never goes further than that, we're only fooling ourselves if we think we're accomplishing actual conservation for amphibians in the wild and the environments on which they depend.


Nice post.

One thing I see that I would add my opinion on though......

THE HOBBY needs to be seperated from the rank and file importers and pet stores, when you talk about damage done. Unscrupulous importers and pet stores were the main cause of the creation of CITES and have lead to more collateral animal death and bad press than anything we hobbyists have ever done.

Like Ed, I have seen animal importation for mass retail markets first hand all the way back in the early 80's. The way that some of the dart frog importation is currently being done is a VAST improvement and I have to think that we hobbyists are playing a major role in that - demanding better methods and passing the word around on who has good practices and who doesn't.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

[/QUOTE]The energy put in by this hobby to bash, blacklist, harass, whatever, people and institutions with hybrids, mixed tanks, etc would be much better used to insure we are actually doing everything we can with our animals *to keep the populations viable in the future*.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly why I will always voice my opinion on Hybrids. To keep the populations viable in the future. To me viable means no cross breading, pure morphs, etc.

This doesn't take a whole lot of energy


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Philsuma said:


> THE HOBBY needs to be seperated from the rank and file importers and pet stores, when you talk about damage done. Unscrupulous importers and pet stores were the main cause of the creation of CITES and have lead to more collateral animal death and bad press than anything we hobbyists have ever done.


Excellent point

It been mentioned here several times that the hobbiest in not contributing to conservation. I disagree. Many of the large breeders probably started out as hobbiests. If anyone has been into dart frogs for more than 10 minutes, they more than likely, would never buy a PDF from a pet store. They would likely go to a breeder or a friend how has some tads or froglets going. Does this not put less pressure on imports. Does this not have the pet stores bringing in less because the demand is diminished, even if it's just a little bit. I wonder how many frogs have NOT been brought in because there are people with CB frogs?


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

The energy put in by this hobby to bash, blacklist, harass, whatever, people and institutions with hybrids, mixed tanks, etc would be much better used to insure we are actually doing everything we can with our animals *to keep the populations viable in the future*.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly why I will always voice my opinion on Hybrids. To keep the populations viable in the future. To me viable means no cross breading, pure morphs, etc.

This doesn't take a whole lot of energy [/QUOTE]

Except for the members of TWI/AWN have posted that hybrids would not effect the viability of pure morphs if breeders registered and properly managed their frogs.
According to them there system would keep the populations viable without even the need to add new genetic material for 100 years. It is not realistic to think that every keeper of dart frogs wants to be involved in that endeavor.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> THE HOBBY needs to be seperated from the rank and file importers and pet stores, when you talk about damage done. Unscrupulous importers and pet stores were the main cause of the creation of CITES and have lead to more collateral animal death and bad press than anything we hobbyists have ever done.


I'm not sure it's always that simple, though. The importers wouldn't have a job if it weren't for hobbyists who were willing to buy their goods. And I think even our niche of a hobby has had significant negative impacts. For instance, I recently talked to someone who visited the locale of the 'standard'/highland form of _R. lamasi_ a few years ago. He was pretty excited to see them in the wild, but had been told by folks there that he would be hard-pressed to find any. He was convinced that, given enough time and energy, he would be able to find some no problem, that it couldn't be that bad. However, after an exhausting search he was only able to find a single adult. That's it. Although there are some other factors involved, the single most pressing influence on the decline of this population isn't the massive commercial pet trade...it's our very own PDF hobby. I've never seen WC lamasi in a pet store. 

Although the pet hobby at large is obviously responsible for a lot of death, population decline, etc. -- I have nothing to argue with you about there -- but I don't think we can point our finger at and villify them in this instance. In a similar fashion, we tend to decry the actions of European smugglers...but who is it lining up and filling threads on DB, chomping at the bit to get the "legal" imports of offspring of those smuggled animals? I'm pretty sure it's not the pet stores or wider herp hobby.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Philsuma said:


> Donn,
> 
> Thanks for that wet blanket. Along with all the people saying..."this ain't conservation.....that ain't conservation"....
> 
> ...


Phil 
It was not my intention to throw a wet blanket on the topic …. In fact, I would prefer just the opposite. So let’s take it to the Conservation subforum and discuss facts. If we’re truly interested in conservation, let’s discuss ways to accomplish it. Or maybe even DO something about it rather than discuss what it is, what it isn’t, or who thinks it’s important.

Perhaps a post similar to your “Ways to advance the hobby” post. We could discuss ways to promote conservation(in both captive and natural populations) and methods to accomplish some actual conservation within our hobby .

Rather than quibbling in a hybrid thread, perhaps we would be better served spending our time promoting TWI/ASN.

Although I don’t always agree with your opinions, I do always appreciate your input into this board and thank you for your efforts to advance the hobby.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Jellyman said:


> The energy put in by this hobby to bash, blacklist, harass, whatever, people and institutions with hybrids, mixed tanks, etc would be much better used to insure we are actually doing everything we can with our animals *to keep the populations viable in the future*.


This is exactly why I will always voice my opinion on Hybrids. To keep the populations viable in the future. *To me *viable means no cross breading, pure morphs, etc.

This doesn't take a whole lot of energy [/QUOTE]

Except for the members of TWI/AWN have posted that hybrids would not effect the viability of pure morphs if breeders registered and properly managed their frogs.
According to them there system would keep the populations viable without even the need to add new genetic material for 100 years. It is not realistic to think that every keeper of dart frogs wants to be involved in that endeavor.[/QUOTE]

I said *To me* Bryan. 

I realize that it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Everyone isn't from the same cloth in this world and I respect that. 

I do believe that Hybrids will screw up Hobbiests though. Eventually the morphs could get so mixed up you wouldn't have a clue what you were buying. There's plenty of irresposible pet owners out there.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

edwardsatc said:


> Perhaps a post similar to your “Ways to advance the hobby” post. We could discuss ways to promote conservation(in both captive and natural populations) and methods to accomplish some actual conservation within our hobby.


This is a good idea--I will try to start a seperate thread in the Conservation forum with some thoughts sometime later today and we can continue there.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

frogfreak said:


> This is exactly why I will always voice my opinion on Hybrids. To keep the populations viable in the future. *To me *viable means no cross breading, pure morphs, etc.
> 
> This doesn't take a whole lot of energy


Except for the members of TWI/AWN have posted that hybrids would not effect the viability of pure morphs if breeders registered and properly managed their frogs.
According to them there system would keep the populations viable without even the need to add new genetic material for 100 years. It is not realistic to think that every keeper of dart frogs wants to be involved in that endeavor.[/QUOTE]

I said *To me* Bryan. 

I realize that it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Everyone isn't from the same cloth in this world and I respect that. 

I do believe that Hybrids will screw up Hobbiests though. Eventually the morphs could get so mixed up you wouldn't have a clue what you were buying. There's plenty of irresposible pet owners out there.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, was not trying to step on your opinion. Your opinion is as valid as mine and/or anyone elses.


----------



## Marty71 (Nov 9, 2006)

^Thread after thread you probe the line, looking for some quote that you can twist into an argument for mixing. Why don't you just say that you want to mix frogs, they are your frogs, and you can do with them what you like. End of discussion. That's it. You bought them. I choose not to, because that is my choice as well. That's it, there is no silver bullet. You are not going to reduce wild caught demand, increase awareness or whatever else you trotted out in this thread, mixing version 87.4. Trying to assign some scientific justification to the bottom line fact that you want to create your own large leuc or small azureus is just flat out disingenuous. All i would ask is what I ask of anyone, if you ever sell or move your frogs along, please represent them properly. The same thing i would expect from anyone, mix or not.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

> To me viable means no cross breading, pure morphs, etc.


So your changing the definition of the word viable to fit your opinion? 
How about this definition :a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately.


----------



## BrianC (Jul 18, 2009)

Most of the conservation discussion that I have seen in this community centers around genetic conservation of dart frogs, and habitat conservation in tropical systems. This makes sense - given that tropical species husbandry is what brought most of us here in the first place. Given that most of us don't actually live in the tropics I would be encouraged about the degree of 'conservation mindedness' of the community at large to see more discussion about restoration and conservation of local ecosystems in addition to those about the tropics.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Marty71 said:


> ^Thread after thread you probe the line, looking for some quote that you can twist into an argument for mixing. Why don't you just say that you want to mix frogs, they are your frogs, and you can do with them what you like. End of discussion. That's it. You bought them. I choose not to, because that is my choice as well. That's it, there is no silver bullet. You are not going to reduce wild caught demand, increase awareness or whatever else you trotted out in this thread, mixing version 87.4. Trying to assign some scientific justification to the bottom line fact that you want to create your own large leuc or small azureus is just flat out disingenuous. All i would ask is what I ask of anyone, if you ever sell or move your frogs along, please represent them properly. The same thing i would expect from anyone, mix or not.


This is NOT an angry post. This is probably the most succinct and to the point distillation and flat out response. You may as well chisel Marty's post above in stone somewhere -it's just that accurate.

Through all the spin and misdirection of this thread - the OP topic has just now been answered perfectly.

Now lets move on to that conservation thread and some good information and ideas.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

BrianC said:


> Most of the conservation discussion that I have seen in this community centers around genetic conservation of dart frogs, and habitat conservation in tropical systems. This makes sense - given that tropical species husbandry is what brought most of us here in the first place. Given that most of us don't actually live in the tropics I would be encouraged about the degree of 'conservation mindedness' of the community at large to see more discussion about restoration and conservation of local ecosystems in addition to those about the tropics.


TWI's Amphibian Steward Network (ASN) is what gets a lot of attention on this board because of its focus on Neotropical Dendrobatids, but another one of our primary programs is Operation Frog Pond (OFP) which actually focuses on native _in situ_ amphibian habitat creation and/or restoration. Actually, when we have tables at frog shows, there is just as much interest in OFP (if not more) than the ASN. You just don't hear about it much on DB because the community is understandably centered around a rather specific focus.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

BrianC said:


> Most of the conservation discussion that I have seen in this community centers around genetic conservation of dart frogs, and habitat conservation in tropical systems. This makes sense - given that tropical species husbandry is what brought most of us here in the first place. Given that most of us don't actually live in the tropics I would be encouraged about the degree of 'conservation mindedness' of the community at large to see more discussion about restoration and conservation of local ecosystems in addition to those about the tropics.


I agree, our native amphibians are no less important than the colorful specimens we keep in our homes. Conservation of our native species should receive equal importance, and for the average frogger, would be a much easier endeavor to get involved with.

Do what you can, where you can.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Marty71 said:


> ^Thread after thread you probe the line, looking for some quote that you can twist into an argument for mixing. Why don't you just say that you want to mix frogs, they are your frogs, and you can do with them what you like. End of discussion. That's it. You bought them. I choose not to, because that is my choice as well. That's it, there is no silver bullet. You are not going to reduce wild caught demand, increase awareness or whatever else you trotted out in this thread, mixing version 87.4. Trying to assign some scientific justification to the bottom line fact that you want to create your own large leuc or small azureus is just flat out disingenuous. All i would ask is what I ask of anyone, if you ever sell or move your frogs along, please represent them properly. The same thing i would expect from anyone, mix or not.


Hi Marty,
Not sure why you feel the need to single me out. I did not start the thread and am not the only person here that has an opinion that does not oppose hybrids. I think I have said from the beginning that I practice the art of mixed enclosures. I have never produced a hybrid but am not against the idea that they can have a niche in this hobby. I have not "trotted" anything out in this thread or have made claims that hybrids would reduce demand anymore or less then keeping lines pure has accomplished. I suggested possibilities but I am not a breeder of darts so I do not have knowledge to the business side of the hobby. I have not made claim to any scientific data. 

You ask, "if you ever sell or move your frogs along, please represent them properly."

I ask the same as you do. Misrepresenting a hybrid to me is as bad as the snake owner not properly securing their snake and allowing it to escape. It gives the entire hobby population a black eye. 

You defend your position as I defend mine. The difference is I do not tell you not to or that you are wrong for doing so. What I ask is that you respect my opinion as I respect your opinion. 

Heck, this thread has brought up some great topics and has alot of members contributing. It's nice to be able to speak freely.


----------



## Marty71 (Nov 9, 2006)

Sorry, I don't know why I singled you out. I guess it would be like somebody singling me out for debating the reputation system. That would make no sense. Anywhoo, debate away. I rarely step in the beartrap that is these threads but as I stated before, your house, your frogs, knock yourself out. Just don't assign a scientific reason where there is only a selfish one. That's all. I am selfish, you are selfish, we are all selfish. I keep frogs in enclosures that woudl be the equivelant of me living in my car trunk. Oh well, we all do the best we can. Do what makes you happy. I guess if that includes perpetuating this debate, then by all means. 

Here's hoping that a conservation thread comes out of this.....


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Marty71 said:


> Here's hoping that a conservation thread comes out of this.....


I started one here: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/47324-conservation-hobby.html#post412914 

Vincent, I apologize if all of this derailed the original intent of your post!


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

bussardnr said:


> So your changing the definition of the word viable to fit your opinion?
> How about this definition :a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately.


I'm not sure what you mean by me changing the meaning of viable.

Developing normally or adequately means just that.

I would imagine that Hybrid frogs would not develop adequately or normally. I'm sure there would be health problems associated with Hybrids.

Just my opinion...


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

your still not getting it, 
"no cross breading, pure morphs, etc" does not = capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately.
Theres much more to it, that for some reason alt in the hobby are ignoring.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Jellyman said:


> Except for the members of TWI/AWN have posted that hybrids would not effect the viability of pure morphs if breeders registered and properly managed their frogs.
> According to them there system would keep the populations viable without even the need to add new genetic material for 100 years. It is not realistic to think that every keeper of dart frogs wants to be involved in that endeavor.


.[/QUOTE]


That is only valid if 
1) there are at least 50-100 of each morph/species registered and agreed to be managed as the founders population.. 
2) the registration of future animals can be assured to not be of mixed origin... 
3) there is sufficient interest from the hobby that allows for sufficient placement and housing of the offspring of the founders to ensure a stable population and allele base. 

This is where the addition of "designer" frogs becomes a problem as 
1) there is already insufficent participation to ensure the stability of any of the captive populations for 100 years
2) the introduction of mixed breed frogs reduces the potential available housing for proper management for long term viability of the population
3) the introduction of mixed breed frogs into the general hobby may prohibit the ability to add morphs/species of unknown provence to the breeding program as the risk of a misidentified animal significantly increases over time (particuarly if one considers the average length of time a person stays in this hobby and the chance that a given frog will change hands multiple times)

While it is not realistic to expect every hobbyist to participate, there is a need for as many people as possible to participate or we will have insufficient founders to maintain the population. 

It is too early to assume because TWI has ASN that this reduces the threat to the stability of the population posed by the mixed breed frogs. 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bussardnr said:


> What are the reasons for the hatred of designer frogs in this hobby?



Since I was the person quoted a number of times, I think I need to state that I don't hate mixed breed (or as you are calling them as a more "palatable" term) designer frogs. I just am not going to make the mistake of undestimating the risk based on what has happened in other portions of the herp hobby... what is that famous quote by Santayana..."Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

See my comment on the Hog Island Boa above... 




bussardnr said:


> Without proper management, whats it matter?


So until such a time as proper mangement can be done, it should be okay regardless of the risk to the population? So if enough people never bother that makes it okay?


Ed


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

No Ed, that was pretty stupid of me to say.


----------



## Chris Miller (Apr 20, 2009)

skylsdale said:


> In a similar fashion, we tend to decry the actions of European smugglers...but who is it lining up and filling threads on DB, chomping at the bit to get the "legal" imports of offspring of those smuggled animals? I'm pretty sure it's not the pet stores or wider herp hobby.


Right just like how Mark's waiting lists get shorter right after European Union frogs come in.


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 12, 2008)

Marty71 said:


> Trying to assign some scientific justification to the bottom line fact that you want to create your own large leuc or small azureus is just flat out disingenuous.


Everything we do in this hobby is motivated by our own personal selfishness. Trying to argue that someone is being more selfish because they disagree with you is disingenuous at best.

For all the "what good is it for the frogs" comments that come out about hybridization, mixing, etc, it applies to our whole hobby. NONE OF THIS IS GOOD FOR THE FROGS. They see no advantage to any part of being kept in cages in our living rooms.


----------



## JoshK (Jan 5, 2009)

Rich Conley said:


> Everything we do in this hobby is motivated by our own personal selfishness. Trying to argue that someone is being more selfish because they disagree with you is disingenuous at best.
> 
> For all the "what good is it for the frogs" comments that come out about hybridization, mixing, etc, it applies to our whole hobby. NONE OF THIS IS GOOD FOR THE FROGS. They see no advantage to any part of being kept in cages in our living rooms.


 
So you now speak on behalf of the frogs? Buying CB frogs and giving them a great home isn't selfish, they were already born, already in captivity. Is it selfish to keep dogs, cats, or fish?

I guess it is all how you look at things but, quite frankly, some of you guys have shitty attitudes about your "hobby".


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

bussardnr said:


> your still not getting it,
> "no cross breading, pure morphs, etc" does not = capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately.
> Theres much more to it, that for some reason alt in the hobby are ignoring.


Can you please explain 

Are we talking about inbreeding here?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Conley said:


> Everything we do in this hobby is motivated by our own personal selfishness. Trying to argue that someone is being more selfish because they disagree with you is disingenuous at best.
> 
> For all the "what good is it for the frogs" comments that come out about hybridization, mixing, etc, it applies to our whole hobby. NONE OF THIS IS GOOD FOR THE FROGS. They see no advantage to any part of being kept in cages in our living rooms.


Hi Rich,

If we look at it from the point of view of the frog's genes..then keeping the frogs in glass boxes is a pretty successful move for thier genes.. 

Ed


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

JoshK said:


> So you now speak on behalf of the frogs? Buying CB frogs and giving them a great home isn't selfish, they were already born, already in captivity. Is it selfish to keep dogs, cats, or fish?
> 
> I guess it is all how you look at things but, quite frankly, some of you guys have shitty attitudes about your "hobby".


In my opinion, yes, it is self serving to keep any animal as a pet. I do not feel that animals should not be kept as pets but it is for the interest of the owner and not really in the interest, best or otherwise, of the animal.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Jellyman said:


> I do not feel that animals should not be kept as pets


Yet, you do keep them? and mix them? I'm failing to see the connection.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Jellyman said:


> In my opinion, yes, it is self serving to keep any animal as a pet. I do not feel that animals should not be kept as pets but it is for the interest of the owner and not really in the interest, best or otherwise, of the animal.


From a gene point of view... living in captivity can be a very successful move on the part of the animals... compare the number of domestic dogs to any wild canid population... which animal is the more successful animal? 


Ed


----------



## Marty71 (Nov 9, 2006)

Rich Conley said:


> Everything we do in this hobby is motivated by our own personal selfishness. Trying to argue that someone is being more selfish because they disagree with you is disingenuous at best.
> 
> For all the "what good is it for the frogs" comments that come out about hybridization, mixing, etc, it applies to our whole hobby. NONE OF THIS IS GOOD FOR THE FROGS. They see no advantage to any part of being kept in cages in our living rooms.


I did not realze you were a fog whisperer. Please accept my apologies. While everything that you may do is motivated by your own selfishness, that's a pretty bold hobby-wide statement to make. One that I don't think is accurate. There are plenty of people that devote their time to more than their own self interests.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Ed said:


> From a gene point of view... living in captivity can be a very successful move on the part of the animals... compare the number of domestic dogs to any wild canid population... which animal is the more successful animal?
> 
> 
> Ed


I have no idea but if I were to listen to those that are against hybrids then the answer would be the wild ones because they are pure?? Isn't the above line of thinking in favor of hybrid animals?

I'm just asking because I do not know.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

edwardsatc said:


> Yet, you do keep them? and mix them? I'm failing to see the connection.


I've stated from day one that my motivation to keep all the animals I care for is 100% selfish. It is the sole purpose of my enjoyment. I'm not condeming anyone just stating the obvious when it comes to pet ownership. Yes, I believe that a very small amount of people in the hobby have some non selfish motivation but in my opinion that percentage is very small.

Again, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Jellyman said:


> I have no idea but if I were to listen to those that are against hybrids then the answer would be the wild ones because they are pure?? Isn't the above line of thinking in favor of hybrid animals?
> 
> I'm just asking because I do not know.


Actually it is not in favor of hybrids.. unless you are going to choose to enable hybrid gene combinations to displace those of the non-hybrid frogs... that would be a conscious choice to actually reduce the gene combinations... 
One needs to keep in mind that the domestic dog is not a hybrid... 

Ed


----------



## JoshK (Jan 5, 2009)

Jellyman said:


> In my opinion, yes, it is self serving to keep any animal as a pet. I do not feel that animals should not be kept as pets but it is for the interest of the owner and not really in the interest, best or otherwise, of the animal.


 
This may have been the case for the first "pet keepers" in the beginning of mankind, but this is not the case anymore. Many people take in strays. Growing up in rural Texas, we had strays show up more than once, half dead from starvation. I remember my mom nursing them to health and them becoming wonderful pets. That doesn't sound selfish to me, she did that out of kindness as MANY people do every single day. 

My cat Domino was brought to my work by Animal Control, they knew a co worker helped with animals sometimes. They found my cat at Ace Hardware and I was told he was too small and young, and would be put to sleep. At the time my place didn't allow cats, but I couldn't let him be put to sleep. I risked my home and added an extra expense for selfish reasons?

You may keep pets for your own selfish reasons, but you don't have the right, opinion or not, to say that EVERYONE does it for selfish reasons. Thats simply a false statement.

Just because some people may not see the good things in life, doesn't mean they aren't out there.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

*Time out in the sandbox*

Arent you all so glad the reputation system was suspended?  Now all the true personalities can come out and throw sand at each other without fear of the red dotty thing.

I just dont see a majority of hobbiest desiring designer frogs. Honestly 90% of DB members have less then 5 years in the hobby. Those that are considered 'old timers' just dont trouble themselves with pages of arguing about hybrid frogs [most anyways]. Most arent even on DB at all. 

Dont take this the 'wrong' way but what helps me not to worry so much about the hobby becoming a mess of hybrids and unknowns is that I believe that most hobbiests in time develop a wisdom if you will, that keeps them from toying with such nonsense. And if they dont, well, they usually have left the hobby before then so I dont have to worry . Most anyways. 

I wont be buying frogs from 'mixers', or friends of 'mixers', or suspected 'mixers' ect ect, mainly because I cant trust the line of frogs they might be working with. If they are cavalier enough to breed hybrids then I can no longer trust their 'pure' lines to be pure. I cant imagine I'm alone in that line of thought.

I buy from people I can trust [well mostly anyways] because I can trust them. If 'mixers' become the norm, then I dont think anyone's collection will really contain what they think it contains. The lines will be spoiled by 'accidental' pairings of similar animals only to find out some were hybrids.

We do it already....like breeds to like....but we get away with it because 99% of the time the lines are kept separate and you really do know what you've bought from someone. 

I'd stick with established breeders and those that can attest to the rigors of their breeding habits. All others can fend for themselves in the 'mixers' lounge


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

Ed said:


> Actually it is not in favor of hybrids.. unless you are going to choose to enable hybrid gene combinations to displace those of the non-hybrid frogs... that would be a conscious choice to actually reduce the gene combinations...
> One needs to keep in mind that the domestic dog is not a hybrid...
> 
> Ed


Thanks. I always thought they were. I learned something new.


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

JoshK said:


> This may have been the case for the first "pet keepers" in the beginning of mankind, but this is not the case anymore. Many people take in strays. Growing up in rural Texas, we had strays show up more than once, half dead from starvation. I remember my mom nursing them to health and them becoming wonderful pets. That doesn't sound selfish to me, she did that out of kindness as MANY people do every single day.
> 
> My cat Domino was brought to my work by Animal Control, they knew a co worker helped with animals sometimes. They found my cat at Ace Hardware and I was told he was too small and young, and would be put to sleep. At the time my place didn't allow cats, but I couldn't let him be put to sleep. I risked my home and added an extra expense for selfish reasons?
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I did not say "EVERYONE" kept pets for selfish reasons. I did say that in my opinion the overall percentage that did not was very small. So you are correct that is a false statement but that statement was never made.


----------



## JoshK (Jan 5, 2009)

Jellyman said:


> In my opinion, yes, it is self serving to keep any animal as a pet. I do not feel that animals should not be kept as pets but it is for the interest of the owner and not really in the interest, best or otherwise, of the animal.


Sorry, but this seems to pretty much lump EVERYONE into the same group, maybe it is just the way I am reading it.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

skylsdale said:


> I started one here: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/47324-conservation-hobby.html#post412914
> 
> Vincent, I apologize if all of this derailed the original intent of your post!


It's all interesting to me. I appreciate that there are people here who apply reason and can look outside their own tanks long enough to see a larger picture. There just hasn't been much point in posting when individual points get drowned out in such a huge argument. Even though all the subjects are of course all related, they're being argued as if they're all One Big Point. Painters say, when you mix colors indiscriminately, you get mud.

Another thing I can predict from all this, is that people who are doing crosses won't be open about it. The prevailing attitudes will guarantee that secretiveness, denial, and even lying about crossbreeding (intentional or accidental) will stay the norm. DB counts as prevailing attitude, even if a minority in actual numbers, when it's probably the most widely read forum on the subject. And everyone knows, if you read it on the internet, it's the gods' own truth. That's too bad, since it's opposite the desired effect 

Who's going to have an intentional or even accidental cross and then discuss it after reading so many of the statements posted here? Who's going to risk asking a question? Not so very many I bet.

Q: Morph "A" and morph "B" bred in my mixed tank, and the babies look kinda cool. What will happen if if cross one of them with morph "C"?
*A: Baby Jesus is crying because you have a mixed tank. Now you are going to hell because you made them breed in an unnatural way and it's an abomination.*

Q: The lines of two morphs are getting weak. Since they intergrade in the wild, I'm going to outcross them. Do you think this will being some strength back?
*A: No one will never buy any of the frogs you breed, or your friends breed, or any from anyone who buys from you, or anyone who has ever spoken to you, or their friends either.*

Q: Wouldn't it look great to breed a frog that.....
*A: NO! Frogs are going EXTINCT because of unscrupulous, unethical, stupid, evil people like YOU!*

In case anyone is wondering, the above are dramatizations.

As I said before I'm not planning to do any crossbreeding in real life. (_But wait, maybe I'm protesting too much! Maybe I'm just saying that, so people will buy frogs from me!_)

V


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

I've already crossed you off my list Vincent ...

Mainly b/c you only have plants , but your going to Hell anyways....so...

Your post was amusing, and yes an exaggeration, but the truth is when you buy animals from another breeder you do have to _trust_ you are paying for what they advertise. 

The more commonplace a mix-morph, mix-breed, mix-whatever is in the hobby the greater the likelihood that someone made *mud* with their collections accidentally. 

If they are rare/non-existent, and remain that way, the rest of us wont have to worry about screwing up our collections.

So, for a minute here let's just ignore all the 'conservation' arguments against mixing, and stick with pure capitalism. Since it drives the hobby anyway, right?

Mix your animals and they become worthless....but worse still...so does the rest of your collection [in the eyes of other hobbiest like myself]...and maybe even the collection of those you sold to [because you've cast 'doubt' upon the lines they breed now]. You dont see the logic?



> Q: The lines of two morphs are getting weak. Since they intergrade in the wild, I'm going to out cross them. Do you think this will being some strength back?
> *A: No one will never buy any of the frogs you breed, or your friends breed, or any from anyone who buys from you, or anyone who has ever spoken to you, or their friends either.*


This example though isn't necessarily a representation of what your OP was about. We do this in some cases already. Basti pumilio for instance. Nothing wrong with a cream boy and a red girl, or orange etc. Giant Orange and Regina are an example where the hobby _may_ someday universally cross them back together. There are others. 

And what is wrong with the simple argument that the hobby has existed for 2-3 decades with emphasis placed on the value of a 'wild type' animal, and that I simply just 'like it to stay that way'?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Watch a documentary called The Botany of Desire and then come back to this thread. The documentary follows 4 plants: the potatoe, tulip, apple and marijuana. In this documentary they look at it from the other perspective. They think the plants tricked us into caring for and propagating them beyond what they can naturally achieve thru their own means. They became sweeter, more colorful and produced more to get us to care for them.



Rich Conley said:


> Everything we do in this hobby is motivated by our own personal selfishness. Trying to argue that someone is being more selfish because they disagree with you is disingenuous at best.
> 
> For all the "what good is it for the frogs" comments that come out about hybridization, mixing, etc, it applies to our whole hobby. NONE OF THIS IS GOOD FOR THE FROGS. They see no advantage to any part of being kept in cages in our living rooms.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

Even when points are valid, it's unfortunate to see the tone set that discourages open conversation.

I didn't know capitalism drove this hobby. How disappointing.

I can't work up much concern about what's gained or lost that only affects the hobby side. Effects beyond that go over into the conservation forum now.


----------



## dirtmonkey (Feb 10, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> Watch a documentary called The Botany of Desire and then come back to this thread.


I read the book when it first came out. He's not always convincing if you've had any training in critical thought, but he does come up with some great ideas!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Snip" Q: The lines of two morphs are getting weak. Since they intergrade in the wild, I'm going to outcross them. Do you think this will being some strength back?" endsnip

Can you name even one documented intergrade population of dendrobatids? (the population Shawn referenced isn't a intergrade zone but a polymorphic population (much like that seen in many lizards (like some Uta species).

Ed


----------



## massha (Aug 30, 2009)

Well, apparently hybrid frogs are being sold. Yesterday at the Harrisburg expo there was a frog labeled as "designer" frog - forgot which two species were listed as parents. It WAS clearly labeled as a hybrid.


----------



## Malaki33 (Dec 21, 2007)

massha said:


> Well, apparently hybrid frogs are being sold. Yesterday at the Harrisburg expo there was a frog labeled as "designer" frog - forgot which two species were listed as parents. It WAS clearly labeled as a hybrid.


And now we know why most of us do not like Hybridizing!!


----------

