# The zoo



## irish (Apr 7, 2008)

So my son wanted to go to the zoo for his birthday this year. We went and had a great time. But I am curious. The PDF exhibit in the zoo was rather small compared to the other exhibits in the building. It was completely open air. I could literally reach in and touch the frogs if i wanted to. Obviously the humidity in the building was up to par though.
They had (all in the same enclosure) azureus, auratus, and leucs. All were froglets. I have read time and again about the dangers of mixing species on this board, but I am wondering if having a huge space for the frogs makes a difference, or if the zoo just does it that way for lack of more space and their own enclosures. 
What precautions would the zoo have to take to make sure that nothing bad happens to these frogs?

Thanks -
Irish


----------



## newman (Feb 26, 2008)

I would guess zoos tend to push the crowding a little bit to ensure that there are at least some frogs visible at all times. Also, they probably push the diversity for the wow factor, which is too bad, because 6 tastefully displayed 10 gallon vivs would do just as well.

My son and I just went to the Como Zoo in St Paul, MN and they had several adult pairs of at least three species in a 25 gallon vivarium. There was even a clutch of eggs laid on a leaf in the front of the display so apparently they haven't done anything to prevent possible hybridization.

Also, a few weeks ago we visited the San Francisco zoo and they also had a viv with several species of pdf froglets together, They were drawing a huge crowd. And I think the completely won my wife over so we are looking at getting our first pdfs.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

Having a large space _may_ cut down on issues like aggression, but it still does not eliminate the possibility of crossbreeding... which is something that many people have issues with. Unfortunately though, zoos do have limited space and most people will only be really impressed by seeing several different morphs together hopping around, so they cater to that. 

as for precautions, the zoo would have to worry about removing and destroying eggs that are potentially cross-breeds among, monitoring aggression would be another priority, and im sure plenty of other things...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Given the lack of space in Zoo settings, typically animals are only reared if there is a demand for them or a request from another zoo so eggs and in some cases tadpoles are removed and euthanized. 

For the sake of argument, define crowding and please list where the spatial recomendations started.... 


Ed


----------



## EricT (Nov 10, 2007)

You didn't happen to take any pics of the exhibit did you?


----------



## RBroskie (Jan 21, 2007)

sometimes i wonder how much zoos actually know about the dart frogs they are displaying. the vivs that even newcomers design after a month or two of research on dendroboard blow away anything ive ever seen at a zoo for these frogs. granted, i havent been to every zoo and i have seen at least one good one(baltimore aquarium), but the others ive seen have been pretty bad.


----------



## Onagro (Jun 9, 2006)

The Nashville Zoo has nice displays for the dart frogs. The leucs took a HUGE enclosure built intially to house a Fer-De-Lance and seem be behaving fine (the last timeI was there, some tads were being transported). The only questionable one was the azureus/emerald tree boa exhibit. But the frogs breed in there so things must be great in there. Some zoos have a great herpetology department while others just view the "Reptile House" as a bonus attraction.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

i think by doing it and not saying anything about "don't do this at home" they are doing more harm than good.


----------



## irish (Apr 7, 2008)

Well, I would have to say that they did a pretty good job at the zoo as far as I could tell. The enclosure is in a large building set up as a rainforest. They had doors that seperated other sections of the building. The frogs were in a large section by themselves. Across from them was a large display (behind glass) of howler monkeys. But like previously stated, the PDFs were all open air. The plants were tall and lush and reached to the ceiling. The whole room was misted at least twice while I was in there. My family finally dragged me out of there. I was impressed overall, and the health of the frogs looked to be very good. I just couldnt believe that there were 4 different species in the same enclosure.

Irish


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

You may not realize this, but one of the best sources of information re: zoo settings is a member here....Ed is the lead amphibian keeper at the Philadelphia Zoo. So rather than speculate, ask him directly. Just my tuppence.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

The simple answer to the question of "why the mixing" is the same reason you will find almost zero zoo tanks with deep leaf litter, most zoos/aquariums/museums with pruned vivs vs. vivs that are let to grow in, clean, clean , clean glass and almost zero production of darts. They want to provide what the general , uneducated public wants to see. A bunch of pretty colored, easy to find frogs hopping around together. Room is also a limiting factor, but that is a factor for just about everybody I know.
Instead of seeing a big mess of this's and that's wouldn't it be really nice to see and hear a big old herd of terribilis (just one example) roaming around calling their heads off producing other terribilis in one of those big free range deals?

Rich


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Rich Frye said:


> Instead of seeing a big mess of this's and that's wouldn't it be really nice to see and hear a big old herd of terribilis (just one example) roaming around calling their heads off producing other terribilis in one of those big free range deals?


I once saw a Terribilis stampede, it was impressive. YEEHAW!

I have seen both, a comon tank of several species, and individual enclosures. The individual enclosures were probably 20 gallon verts (about). The point is, that these are display animals, usually not breeding stock, and often they are young like you pointed out, so breeding is less of an issue.



> For the sake of argument, define crowding and please list where the spatial recomendations started....


 No one wnats to take this up? I'm not going to. Ed told me once, but I forgot the exact details of who is was. Interesting topic though.


----------



## chibisan (Apr 4, 2008)

Not to really start an arguement since I'm new to frogs, but it seems that alot of zoos and places that display animals do kind of the bare minimum when caring for their animals. Unless they are an institution that has tons of funding so they can provide for the animals without any restrictions. I'm just pointing out my observations.

Since I know more about chinchillas than frogs, I can use them as an example. The zoo up here in Duluth MN has chinchillas in their education area. The chinchillas are in some tiny (in my standards) acrylic enclosure with hardly any perches or wood to chew on. They do the bare minimum maybe because the lack of knowledge or the lack of funding I don't know. Because to alot of pet people, their chinchillas live in huge multi level cages with perches and wood galore.
But then the National zoo, which I assume is not really wanting for money like the small Lake Superior zoo in Duluth, has a wonderful enclosure for their chinchillas. Has rocky ledges and looks like their native habitat. I was pleasantly surprised.

So I'm kind of saying that in alot of instances, pet people can go overboard in caring for their animals because they can. Because they made the choice to pick that animal and so use their money for that. Alot of zoos etc have many things to care for and some have restricted funding.

Not saying it's okay, but saying that alot of times people in the pet type realm have different standards than those in the professional realm. Atleast in my experience.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Onagro said:


> The Nashville Zoo has nice displays for the dart frogs. The leucs took a HUGE enclosure built intially to house a Fer-De-Lance and seem be behaving fine (the last timeI was there, some tads were being transported). The only questionable one was the azureus/emerald tree boa exhibit. But the frogs breed in there so things must be great in there. Some zoos have a great herpetology department while others just view the "Reptile House" as a bonus attraction.



ETBs are actually a pretty good choice as adults they have no interest in the frogs and the frogs don't care about them. I have RETF in with ETBs (and the RETFs are about 7 years old now) and I have come to work to find RETFs hunkering down on the head of the ETB like it was a big leaf... It can be done as long as you pay close attention to how you are setting up the enclosure. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

chibisan said:


> Not to really start an arguement since I'm new to frogs, but it seems that alot of zoos and places that display animals do kind of the bare minimum when caring for their animals. Unless they are an institution that has tons of funding so they can provide for the animals without any restrictions. I'm just pointing out my observations.
> 
> Since I know more about chinchillas than frogs, I can use them as an example. The zoo up here in Duluth MN has chinchillas in their education area. The chinchillas are in some tiny (in my standards) acrylic enclosure with hardly any perches or wood to chew on. They do the bare minimum maybe because the lack of knowledge or the lack of funding I don't know. Because to alot of pet people, their chinchillas live in huge multi level cages with perches and wood galore.
> But then the National zoo, which I assume is not really wanting for money like the small Lake Superior zoo in Duluth, has a wonderful enclosure for their chinchillas. Has rocky ledges and looks like their native habitat. I was pleasantly surprised.
> ...


This is why when people ask about getting behind the scenes I often tell them not to expect to much in the way of fancy set-ups. Even big reptile departments have to compete against mammals and birds for funding and when the public gives directed funding it is virtually never given to reptile departments. 
I would not be surprised to see some changes in a number of reptile departments in the near future with plantings etc. 

With respect to the Chinchilla example, a lot of the information regarding housing etc are items that were only recognized as potentially important issues in the late 1980s and early 1990s and is a rapidly expanding field of information. (I am referring to behavioral enrichment and sterotypical behaviors) which overall has greatly increased the welfare of animals not only in Zoos but in the hobby. This information is still not always well understood but is making inroads and as funds become available most Zoos are moving in that direction. 
For a good review of what is known about reptiles (and a lot of it can be applied to amphibians) check out Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## rhino5 (Nov 5, 2007)

I have to agree with ed, I work at the Cincinnati Zoo in the Ungulate department (hooved animals). The rate of funding between large mammals and herps is skewed. The main reason your going to see mixed exhibits is for the wow factor, most people that come to zoos are very fickle and don't spend much time per exhibit if they don't see an animal right away. By throwing eight to twelve pdf's in the same tank the public is likely to see the frogs. At this point they can become engaged with the animals and are more likely to spend time at the exhibit and may even read the educational material provided about the frogs. In order to educate people about the animals on display, they first must see them and become engaged by them. Its a fine line is zoos between entertainment and education, both zoo objectives. Zoo's with herp departments have keepers that specialize in the animals and what they can within means to the animals the highest quality life possible. At Cincinnati our mixed exhibits have juvies, while the breeding pairs are kept behind the scenes, If mixed breeding does go on, the eggs are culled.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

rhino5 said:


> By throwing eight to twelve pdf's in the same tank the public is likely to see the frogs. At this point they can become engaged with the animals and are more likely to spend time at the exhibit and may even read the educational material provided about the frogs. In order to educate people about the animals on display, they first must see them and become engaged by them. Its a fine line is zoos between entertainment and education, both zoo objectives.


I have to ask. What exactly is "taught" by a mixing a bunch of species that would never bump into each other in the wild? Plants not found where they live? Moss all over with zero leaf litter to be found? I could go on. The only info , as an uneducated layman PAYING to get in the door, I could possibly glean from a zoo tank like that is that a bunch of different frogs from the 'rainforest' live together. Interbreeding and fighting most likely. "Information" like that is exactly why we field a billion "what can I mix.....seen it at the zoo" posts all the time. Not the example I'd want to pass along , as a professional, if it were my job to work with these animals all day long. Disinformation is what ooozes from displays like those.



rhino5 said:


> Zoo's with herp departments have keepers that specialize in the animals and what they can within means to the animals the highest quality life possible. At Cincinnati our mixed exhibits have juvies, while the breeding pairs are kept behind the scenes, If mixed breeding does go on, the eggs are culled.


I have to disagree. There may (I know of at least a couple) be some zoos with great experts in Darts, but the vast majority do not and will not. I have visited, sold stuff, and donated stuff to zoos, museums, and aquariums. Not naming names. I have yet to see a single display that was really what i would consider even up to par. Many that were well below. Juvies of different species mature at different rates and sooner than thought (one species faster maybe than others) become adults. Now, has anyone ever missed a clutch? I highly doubt every mixed species tank has had every clutch produced culled.
Bottom line. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If the people don't want to look at the froggies, the froggies husbandry corners need to be cut to the point it is monetarily possible to keep them. 
Why does the free roaming mixed display work (culling CITES animals and all) when the giant herd of calling and producing terribilis not? Lack of education (employees) on the zoos part? Make no mistake, these animals do not have the "highest quality life possible". Not close.
I really hate to see most of what goes on in this hobby come down to money.

Rich


----------



## chibisan (Apr 4, 2008)

you know, I have to think that really, no matter which zoo/aquarium/museum, in all regards there is just a limit as to what can be done. Because in nature, none of the animals shown, whether it be pdf or a mammal are going to be found in that small of a compound or even in some cases in the numbers that are kept together. I think it's the nature of the business. Because if the animals were given the amount of room used in nature, you wouldn't ever see the animals. It'd have to be a safari type deal. 
Because you can't tell me that those pools they keep whales, dolphins etc in are adequate. When in the wild they have the whole ocean?
While I think most zoos etc. really are out there to educate, there is only so much that can be done.
Or perhaps I'm missing something...


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I guess when I see or hear of set-ups that are not up to par ( and no intentions of making things better)I have the same reaction , be they set-up by new comers, old timers, or zoos/schools/museums/aquariums. I don't like it. 
"If you don't have enough room to keep single species tanks, don't do it". Or "You really need to have tons of plants and hide spots". "Leaf litter is the (at least one of THE top factors) key to microfauna and other important aspects of Dart keeping". "Over cleaning is not needed and can stress the frogs" ."Study, study, study, read, study , read and know what IS the optimum setting you can afford". Why would I feel these statements good for the hobby but bad for established professional animal viewing locals?
Please, can anyone tell me the info being passed along by these view locals? What (positive) is being learned? Why do we assume that your local view joint uses husbandry practises superior than the average Dart keeper? I have zero doubt that in an hour or very much less I ( and/or many, many others in this hobby) could teach the average sub-teenager vastly more than is possibly learned at a pay-per-view. Why? Because teaching is not the major interest to the business. Business is.
As long as the conditions listed prevail in the 'pay to see the pretty colors' BUSINESSES, don't expect to use them as yardsticks as to what is good in the hobby. Please.

Rich


----------



## rhino5 (Nov 5, 2007)

Rich, Do your animals have THE very best possible situation? If you want to get to bare bones, can they roam freely in a ten gallon tank with one other frog? Is that natural? Is that what the animal wants? NO! All the leaf litter in the world doesn't make them wild. I wouldn't have known (or had a passion for) what a pdf is unless I went to the zoo as a kid. Unfortunetly, yes the underlying goal of most zoos is to make money, but no keeper gives a damn about that, because we don't make jack! Only a few zoo's have what would be considerd top notch herp departments. Why? Because few people have an intrest in reptiles and amphibians. Therefore any info about these animals is good and educational info! Last I checked, most people that go to Pay-To-View establishments don't know a thing about pdf's, let alone own them!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> I have to ask. What exactly is "taught" by a mixing a bunch of species that would never bump into each other in the wild?


For one example that there is a wide variety of color variation in diurnal frogs with toxic skin secretions that are native to a wide range of areas. 

So if the Zoos used species that are sympatric to one another would that make you feel better? 



Rich Frye said:


> Plants not found where they live??


So in all of the vivaria you set up you only use the exact species of plants found only where that species or morph of frog is native? You do not use non-native cultivars or hybrids of any of those plants? Given that very few people in the hobby use only the native species found in the habitat of the frogs why are you attempting to hold a zoo to a higher standard? 



Rich Frye said:


> Moss all over with zero leaf litter to be found???


The same as many of the hobby tanks... In the history of dendrobatid keeping it has long been shown that moss is a an acceptable substrate (Breeding Terrarium Animals Zimmerman TFH publications) provided that the frogs have sufficient retreats. Many of the very successful hobbyists who set up tanks do not have leaf litter in thier enclosures so again holding an institution to a higher standard when this type of setup has long been acceptable..... 



Rich Frye said:



> I could go on. The only info , as an uneducated layman PAYING to get in the door, I could possibly glean from a zoo tank like that is that a bunch of different frogs from the 'rainforest' live together. Interbreeding and fighting most likely.


Really How does the basic "uneducated" layman make that leap of assumption that they are interbreeding *and *fighting? .. That isn't even the idea that you convey when you referenced the supposed huge number of posts by new keepers wanting to recreate that mix.... 



Rich Frye said:


> Not the example I'd want to pass along , as a professional, if it were my job to work with these animals all day long. Disinformation is what ooozes from displays like those..


Really? Based on what? Given that you seem to miss the underlying premise to demonstrate the wide diversity of potential color variations in dendrobatids... 



Rich Frye said:


> I have yet to see a single display that was really what i would consider even up to par..


So how does this mean that the enclosures are well below par? This is an arbitrary standard? 



Rich Frye said:


> Now, has anyone ever missed a clutch? I highly doubt every mixed species tank has had every clutch produced culled...


And if the clutch is missed then the tadpoles or the metamorphs are culled. This is a known, established acceptable population management tool that has to fit specific guidelines. 



Rich Frye said:


> Bottom line. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ...


It depends on the funding base of the Zoo or other non-profit. There are Zoos where the entrance feel is nominal or free (Bronx has three free admission days a week) as they get sufficient support from endowments and/or city budgets.. So to attempt to blanket tar all Institutions this way is very misleading at best. 
In those that depend on the gate, the bottom line is to get sufficient funding to keep up the mission however if the entire exhibit of dendrobatids were removed it wouldn't affect the gate fees so to link this to the gate is more than a little inexact. 



Rich Frye said:


> If the people don't want to look at the froggies, the froggies husbandry corners need to be cut to the point it is monetarily possible to keep them. ...


If the corners needed to be cut to the point where it was monetarily possible to keep them then less is better. It costs less in terms of food, employee wages etc to keep the frogs at all. If bang for the buck was the goal then a snake gives more bang for the buck particuarly if it is a venomous species with "name recognition" like a cobra, or rattlesnake . 




Rich Frye said:


> Why does the free roaming mixed display work (culling CITES animals and all) when the giant herd of calling and producing terribilis not? Lack of education (employees) on the zoos part? Make no mistake, these animals do not have the "highest quality life possible"....


How do they not have the highest quality life possible? 
See my points above. 



Rich Frye said:


> I really hate to see most of what goes on in this hobby come down to money. ...


Rich, when you stop selling frogs for money, then you can take this position.... or when you personally inspect all future enclosures from prospective buyers and reject those that do not in your own words have only the plants found exactly where that frog could have originated, no moss, lots of leaf litter, etc and then and only then sell the frog to them. 

I have to go to work,

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Rich Frye said:


> I have to ask. What exactly is "taught" by a mixing a bunch of species that would never bump into each other in the wild?





Ed said:


> For one example that there is a wide variety of color variation in diurnal frogs with toxic skin secretions that are native to a wide range of areas.
> 
> So if the Zoos used species that are sympatric to one another would that make you feel better?


Answering the second question first. Yes. IF there were a large enough area representing a natural occurence. But that's not likely due in part to the space and $ limits.
So, a trade off to show that the animals actually exist vs. what would be best and proper for the frogs is the goal? How about a big group with a very nice poster style picture explaining what other frogs may be seen where the terribilis , for example, may also live? I don't think putting them together because they exist is a great lesson learned by anyone. 



Rich Frye said:


> Plants not found where they live??





Ed said:


> So in all of the vivaria you set up you only use the exact species of plants found only where that species or morph of frog is native? You do not use non-native cultivars or hybrids of any of those plants? Given that very few people in the hobby use only the native species found in the habitat of the frogs why are you attempting to hold a zoo to a higher standard?


Simply, I am holding zoos to a higher level when I read "zoos are out to educate AND make $". While I do try to answer as many questions as I can and teach what I can with limited intellectual tools, I do not present myself as a learning facility, as many (most?) zoos, museums , and aquariums do. So, while I tell people what plants I use and why, I don't see that happening at the learning view joints businesses.



Rich Frye said:


> Moss all over with zero leaf litter to be found???





Ed said:


> The same as many of the hobby tanks... In the history of dendrobatid keeping it has long been shown that moss is a an acceptable substrate (Breeding Terrarium Animals Zimmerman TFH publications) provided that the frogs have sufficient retreats. Many of the very successful hobbyists who set up tanks do not have leaf litter in thier enclosures so again holding an institution to a higher standard when this type of setup has long been acceptable.....


Tell me that the reason the institutions are not using leaf litter is because they think it is better husbandry vs. easier viewing. Please Ed. Anyone who thinks that moss is a better substrate cover that leaf litter please make note and we can start a whole new thread on that very short lasting debate. How do you personally feel about leaf litter in your tanks Ed?



Rich Frye said:


> I could go on. The only info , as an uneducated layman PAYING to get in the door, I could possibly glean from a zoo tank like that is that a bunch of different frogs from the 'rainforest' live together. Interbreeding and fighting most likely.





Ed said:


> Really How does the basic "uneducated" layman make that leap of assumption that they are interbreeding *and *fighting? .. That isn't even the idea that you convey when you referenced the supposed huge number of posts by new keepers wanting to recreate that mix....


You got me on the interbreeding thing. I'd have to ask employees about that fact. Fighting however is easily , and has been by myself, witnessed by the laymen.



Rich Frye said:


> Not the example I'd want to pass along , as a professional, if it were my job to work with these animals all day long. Disinformation is what ooozes from displays like those..





Ed said:


> Really? Based on what? Given that you seem to miss the underlying premise to demonstrate the wide diversity of potential color variations in dendrobatids...


If the "underlying premise to demonstrate the wide diversity of potential color variations in dendrobatids" is the thrust of the argument for accepting these under engineered, un-natural mixed tanks I think the zoos need to re-think and dig for a new premise. Again, showing that they just exist and CAN live in a glass cube is not education. 



Rich Frye said:


> I have yet to see a single display that was really what i would consider even up to par..





Ed said:


> So how does this mean that the enclosures are well below par? This is an arbitrary standard?


Arbitrary and my opinion. The lack of or addition to stated factors (and others I could tack on...) are the reasons I state them below par. 



Rich Frye said:


> Now, has anyone ever missed a clutch? I highly doubt every mixed species tank has had every clutch produced culled...





Ed said:


> And if the clutch is missed then the tadpoles or the metamorphs are culled. This is a known, established acceptable population management tool that has to fit specific guidelines.


This is only known and acceptable to those who belive tanks should be mixed to bring in cash. Killing frogs that should never be (due to very easily remedied husbandry practises) is NOT acceptable to me , and I would guess others also.



Rich Frye said:


> Bottom line. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ...





Ed said:


> It depends on the funding base of the Zoo or other non-profit. There are Zoos where the entrance feel is nominal or free (Bronx has three free admission days a week) as they get sufficient support from endowments and/or city budgets.. So to attempt to blanket tar all Institutions this way is very misleading at best.
> In those that depend on the gate, the bottom line is to get sufficient funding to keep up the mission however if the entire exhibit of dendrobatids were removed it wouldn't affect the gate fees so to link this to the gate is more than a little inexact.


 IF there is really no monetary concern (for some institutions) for the general population to view a mixed tank, why not one that is set up as we would instruct the hobbyist here we (me at least) preach to about not mixing and such? 



Rich Frye said:


> If the people don't want to look at the froggies, the froggies husbandry corners need to be cut to the point it is monetarily possible to keep them. ...





Ed said:


> If the corners needed to be cut to the point where it was monetarily possible to keep them then less is better.


Yes. Less species, more quality. I seem to have read that somewhere..... 




Rich Frye said:


> Why does the free roaming mixed display work (culling CITES animals and all) when the giant herd of calling and producing terribilis not? Lack of education (employees) on the zoos part? Make no mistake, these animals do not have the "highest quality life possible"....





Ed said:


> How do they not have the highest quality life possible?
> See my points above.


And see mine.
As an institution of education and animal husbandry I find the lives of Darts held by the MAJORITY of zoos and such sub-par by MY standards. 



Rich Frye said:


> I really hate to see most of what goes on in this hobby come down to money. ...





Ed said:


> Rich, when you stop selling frogs for money, then you can take this position.... or when you personally inspect all future enclosures from prospective buyers and reject those that do not in your own words have only the plants found exactly where that frog could have originated, no moss, lots of leaf litter, etc and then and only then sell the frog to them.


[/quote]

A few points you seem to miss. While I try to help answer questions every time I can, I am not and do not represent myself as a "learning institution" (that just happens to make $). Neither are MOST of my customers. A reason to be held to different standards.I have turned away many potential buyers who were not , in my mind, ready for certain frogs. I am a bad businessman which explains why I am broke all the time. Hell, I don't even charge an admission fee to see my basement. Imagine that. :wink: I am however fairly decent at my husbandry practises. 
If I were in it for the $ I would be right up there with those five big names that NEVER post anything but "FOR SALE" .Dragging in thousands of frogs to be sold to whomever answers the call. Why is it that those big guys don't post info and helpful tips? Secrets and such? I wonder........

Have a nice day at work Ed.


Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

rhino5 said:


> Rich, Do your animals have THE very best possible situation? If you want to get to bare bones, can they roam freely in a ten gallon tank with one other frog? Is that natural? Is that what the animal wants? NO! All the leaf litter in the world doesn't make them wild. I wouldn't have known (or had a passion for) what a pdf is unless I went to the zoo as a kid. Unfortunetly, yes the underlying goal of most zoos is to make money, but no keeper gives a damn about that, because we don't make jack! Only a few zoo's have what would be considerd top notch herp departments. Why? Because few people have an intrest in reptiles and amphibians. Therefore any info about these animals is good and educational info! Last I checked, most people that go to Pay-To-View establishments don't know a thing about pdf's, let alone own them!


Hi rhino5,
If you do some research you will find that I don't even own a ten gallon tank.
I'm glad that you saw a Dart when young and you now know they exist. Any other educational info that was passed along? Or that you can pass along to me via zoo practises?

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Rich Frye said:


> Moss all over with zero leaf litter to be found???





Ed said:


> The same as many of the hobby tanks... In the history of dendrobatid keeping it has long been shown that moss is a an acceptable substrate (Breeding Terrarium Animals Zimmerman TFH publications) provided that the frogs have sufficient retreats. Many of the very successful hobbyists who set up tanks do not have leaf litter in thier enclosures so again holding an institution to a higher standard when this type of setup has long been acceptable.....





Rich Frye said:


> Tell me that the reason the institutions are not using leaf litter is because they think it is better husbandry vs. easier viewing. Please Ed. Anyone who thinks that moss is a better substrate cover that leaf litter please make note and we can start a whole new thread on that very short lasting debate. How do you personally feel about leaf litter in your tanks Ed?


http://www.fryebrothersfrogs.com/page6.htm
Seriously, Rich? Even if none of these setups are currently in operation, what you're _portraying to the public_ from posting the images, as far as I can tell, is that it's perfectly acceptable (if not preferable) to have a substrate of moss for frogs.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

skylsdale said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Moss all over with zero leaf litter to be found???
> ...


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

The website I linked to was what I found by Googling "Frye Brothers Frogs"...if there's a new one out there, it's not popping up.

I understand you've learned and moved on in your understanding of captive husbandry and vivaria, but my point is that you are still portraying vestiges of shed beliefs you now deem as inadequate, whether you are doing so inentionally or not. I think the same view could be taken with zoos and their displays.

I also think you're overthinking this and forcing the conversation into a level it's not prepared to be at. The vast majority of people who go to zoos want to see animals and see them pretty instantly--it's the most basic level of appreciation (e.g. "There it is, in person. Cooler than the picture."). Given that the average person spends no more than 30 seconds in front of a display or enclosure, we're talking about _introducing_ people to an animal, which may (hopefully) lead down a path of more depth in appreciation and understanding. That's where the hobby (in general) and hobbyists (in particular) come into play. How many people on this board had a passion for PDFs originally ignited by seeing them in an enclosure at a zoo? What they remember was an amazing frog...not the paucity of the tank it was in. The educational level of most zoos (in my opinion, and based on why I think most visitors go) is at the most basic level of introduction and awareness. They just want to see a "wild" animal on display. Ripping on their quality of displays is like criticizing a training wheel for not being a full-blown bike tire: "You're so inadequate. Don't you know you're supposed to be big and have an inflatable tube to be a proper wheel?" They're obviously inadequate for someone trying to participate in the Tour de France (and may actually hinder a person riding in it), but they serve as an aid to the child who just wants to have the experience of riding a bike (and who knows, maybe those training wheels were what was needed to spark a passion for riding that someday propels them to the greatness of the Tour).

I recently visited a regional zoo. As I stared into an enclosure of D. auratus I was a bit disappointed by how bare and visually lacking it was. However, that display had more room and floor space for them to move around in and relate to each other than even my largest viv could provide, and like you, I'm a proponent of large tanks for keeping frogs. Does that mean all my vivs suck and are completely inadequate? No. It means both sides have more learning to do, and both sides could maybe stand to implement more tangibly and successfully what they've learned. But the conversation is a grey one...it's pointless to keep trying to make it so black and white.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

quote="skylsdale"]The website I linked to was what I found by Googling "Frye Brothers Frogs"...if there's a new one out there, it's not popping up.[/quote]
Not sure why that happens. The new site has a brown background . I have brought it up to Corey and hope to have it cleared up.



skylsdale said:


> I understand you've learned and moved on in your understanding of captive husbandry and vivaria, but my point is that you are still portraying vestiges of shed beliefs you now deem as inadequate, whether you are doing so inentionally or not. I think the same view could be taken with zoos and their displays.


While I have learned and moved on (and yes have old pics on my site) the is no intention for zoos to add leaf litter/change. Litter is not at all what they are looking for. Nor dirty glass, nor single species tanks, nor, nor , nor .Even if it is what is what is best for the FROGS. 
So if you want to label me a hypocrite or the like for preaching the benies of LL while having old pics on my site, I guess you got me on that one.  




skylsdale said:


> ..... The vast majority of people who go to zoos want to see animals and see them pretty instantly--it's the most basic level of appreciation (e.g. "There it is, in person. Cooler than the picture.").


We are in total agreement. So please let's not think that the zoo is the place to go get educated about Darts. Agreed? A business place to be entertained by seeing pretty animals. 



skylsdale said:


> Given that the average person spends no more than 30 seconds in front of a display or enclosure, we're talking about _introducing_ people to an animal, which may (hopefully) lead down a path of more depth in appreciation and understanding.


And this introduction MUST be taken with a tiny grain of salt because it should be understood that many husbandry practises used by zoos are not on par with what I , and many others, would set up if we had to foot the bill out of our own pockets.



skylsdale said:


> That's where the hobby (in general) and hobbyists (in particular) come into play.


Yes , by saying to those who often get the wrong ideas by viewing these tanks "....Please.....Don't use that mixed display you saw at the zoo as a yardstick. There are MUCH better ways of keeping Darts"...........



skylsdale said:


> How many people on this board had a passion for PDFs originally ignited by seeing them in an enclosure at a zoo?


I would guess less than 20%. We could do a poll I guess. It may be more judging by the huge number of beginner "what can I mix" threads out there. 



skylsdale said:


> What they remember was an amazing frog...not the paucity of the tank it was in.


Are you sure of that? I always , even as a child, looked just as much at the surroundings as the animals. I think many people note the fact that enclosures often are on a level of beauty and quality well below their inhabitants.



skylsdale said:


> The educational level of most zoos (in my opinion, and based on why I think most visitors go) is at the most basic level of introduction and awareness. They just want to see a "wild" animal on display.


Yes. Pay the fee, go in, see animals. I agree. The most basic possible . Maybe not even qualifying as education at times. Entertainment for sure. Education..........?




skylsdale said:


> Ripping on their quality of displays is like criticizing a training wheel for not being a full-blown bike tire: "You're so inadequate. Don't you know you're supposed to be big and have an inflatable tube to be a proper wheel?" They're obviously inadequate for someone trying to participate in the Tour de France (and may actually hinder a person riding in it), but they serve as an aid to the child who just wants to have the experience of riding a bike (and who knows, maybe those training wheels were what was needed to spark a passion for riding that someday propels them to the greatness of the Tour).


Good example. Let me give you my angle on that.
You have decided to do the Tour and have entered with a training wheel, no helmet, you are greatly out of shape, and you are wearing sandals. While the tour is a great undertaking, so can Dart keeping be.
Or, you are just starting out and have no helmet, and are wearing sandals. While the task is not the same as the Tour, the same basic safety issues, and laws of physics apply. Good riding needs and starts with "X", good Dart husbandry needs and starts with "Y". 
Start off the passion on the right foot and we need not correct training wheel issues down the line.



skylsdale said:


> I recently visited a regional zoo. As I stared into an enclosure of D. auratus I was a bit disappointed by how bare and visually lacking it was. However, that display had more room and floor space for them to move around in and relate to each other than even my largest viv could provide, and like you, I'm a proponent of large tanks for keeping frogs. Does that mean all my vivs suck and are completely inadequate? No.


No indeed. Size is ONLY one of the many, many husbandry issues. Having an empty aircraft hanger does absolutely nothing for the frogs if the space is not correctly utilized. 



skylsdale said:


> It means both sides have more learning to do, and both sides could maybe stand to implement more tangibly and successfully what they've learned. But the conversation is a grey one...it's pointless to keep trying to make it so black and white.


How does there being a big empty tank at a zoo mean that BOTH sides have learning to do? I agree they do, always, but your story or analogy do not mesh up here. Implementing toward furthering husbandy happens here in the hobby. Do you think if I contacted every zoo in the U.S. with my info they will start changing things? I doubt it. But what do I know. I have an outdated site and sell frogs for $. :wink: :wink: 
It is far , far from pointless to try to get the message out there that zoos are not the yardsticks to be used for Dart husbandry. Understand that I am not trying to slam any institution, keeper, lover of zoos, or any other operative of these establishments. This all started by a member posting of a "mixed" experience. Education came up and I simply asked what was learned by patrons from this habit and other husbandry issue utilized by the zoos. Anyone care to answer my question as to what else besides letting people know the Darts exist is going out as education? Zoos = entertainment. There are plenty of real educational tools accessible to the hobby.

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Answering the second question first. Yes. IF there were a large enough area representing a natural occurence. But that's not likely due in part to the space and $ limits.??


So how do you determine what is a large enough area? What about frogs found within in the exact same habitat like auratus and pumilio? How does this play out with hobbyists when some species like leucomelas have territories that maybe greater than 80 square meters? 

What is being ignored here is our ability to deal with the behavioral issues by manipulating not only the enclosure but the set up of the enclosure. Territories are set on resources, the density and availability of resources can be modified, sex ratios and age of inhabitants can be modified. All of these can resolve the supposed aggression issues. 




Rich Frye said:


> So, a trade off to show that the animals actually exist vs. what would be best and proper for the frogs is the goal? How about a big group with a very nice poster style picture explaining what other frogs may be seen where the terribilis , for example, may also live? I don't think putting them together because they exist is a great lesson learned by anyone.


So what if there was habitat conservation that came from that enclosure? How would that not be "best and proper" for those frogs? Sorry but the studies show that static displays do not create the involvement and interest in the animals that live animals create, especially given that less than 25% of all visitors to a zoo read any of the graphics ( Churchman, D. (1985). How and what do recreational visitors learn at zoos? Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 160-167.) (also of interest see Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1986). Understanding your visitors: ten factors that influence visitor behavior. Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 726-743., Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior. Environment and Behavior, 20 (4), 474-491., and Johnston, R.J. (1998). Exogenous factors and visitor behavior: a regression analysis of exhibit viewing time. Environment and Behavior, 30 (3), 322-347. )




Rich Frye said:


> Simply, I am holding zoos to a higher level when I read "zoos are out to educate AND make $". While I do try to answer as many questions as I can and teach what I can with limited intellectual tools, I do not present myself as a learning facility, as many (most?) zoos, museums , and aquariums do. So, while I tell people what plants I use and why, I don't see that happening at the learning view joints businesses. ?


Sorry Rich, once you start sharing information in a public forum particuarly one that is searchable, you are now acting as a educator or learning facility and given that you unlike the vast majority of institutions are for profit.. its a little hard to claim that zoos are out to "educate and make $" and you are not. 




Rich Frye said:


> Tell me that the reason the institutions are not using leaf litter is because they think it is better husbandry vs. easier viewing. Please Ed. Anyone who thinks that moss is a better substrate cover that leaf litter please make note and we can start a whole new thread on that very short lasting debate. How do you personally feel about leaf litter in your tanks Ed?


Actually I don't think it has anything to do with the "messiness or visibility" items and given the long history of success with it, (see the reference for Zimmerman above or Cover and Wisnieski Captive Maintenance and Propegation of Poison-dart frogs (Anura: Dendrobatidae) at the National Aquarium in Baltimore) it obviously doesn't negatively impact the reproduction or longevity of the frogs. There is some speculation that it *may* encourage more natural behaviors but this is speculation at this time. 
I can't use leaf litter in the tanks at work due to a Eisenia infestation. It wipes out the leaf litter as fast as I could add it. I would try mainly because it provides a better picture of the thier native habitat than for any other reason. 




Rich Frye said:


> You got me on the interbreeding thing. I'd have to ask employees about that fact. Fighting however is easily , and has been by myself, witnessed by the laymen...


So how is this any worse than same species competition? 




Rich Frye said:


> If the "underlying premise to demonstrate the wide diversity of potential color variations in dendrobatids" is the thrust of the argument for accepting these under engineered, un-natural mixed tanks I think the zoos need to re-think and dig for a new premise. Again, showing that they just exist and CAN live in a glass cube is not education. ...


The hobby also shows that they exist and *can live in a glass box. There isn't any difference in this point between the two. 
So what constitutes and under engineered exhibit if the frogs at that stage of thier life can do everything that the same frog would do in a different set up? All of the enclosures that are set up for the frogs in the hobby or elsewhere are unnatural mixed tanks as for example the correct invertebrate fauna is not used and virtually all of the microfauna is not native to the frog's natal enviroment.



Rich Frye said:



Arbitrary and my opinion. The lack of or addition to stated factors (and others I could tack on...) are the reasons I state them below par. ..

Click to expand...

So why is you opinion of greater value than Elke Zimmerman, Jack Cover or Anthony Wisnieski? So who are your nebulous supporting references? Is thier opinion of greater weight than the ones I cited? 



Rich Frye said:



This is only known and acceptable to those who belive tanks should be mixed to bring in cash. Killing frogs that should never be (due to very easily remedied husbandry practises) is NOT acceptable to me , and I would guess others also..

Click to expand...

Actually Rich this is really only an issue with the hobby as the institutions do not post on the forums "what morph/frog is this" and then breed them based on that designation. And given the difficulty and risks to spaying or neutering frogs as small as dendrobatids and that if allowed to retain eggs, the frogs can have medical issues like adhesions, prolapses, peritionitus, it maybe required to euthanize tadpoles or froglets which is why it is an acceptable population management practice that has nothing to do with the dollar. (unlike the hobby where known interbreedings would devalue lines and potentially morphs).. 




Ed said:



IF there is really no monetary concern (for some institutions) for the general population to view a mixed tank, why not one that is set up as we would instruct the hobbyist here we (me at least) preach to about not mixing and such?

Click to expand...

Beacause the diversity of the multiple species is an important educational item. Otherwise the public walks away with the the idea that there maybe only one species like that..... and if they have only ever really seen one species then they are unlikely to support others. 



Rich Frye said:



Yes. Less species, more quality. I seem to have read that somewhere..... .

Click to expand...

Actually Rich you ingnored the important point to try and seize on the small item that seems to support your position. 
If money is the issue then replacing it with a snake would mean less total costs and greater draw as it would cost less in exhibit maintenance (less feeding, less cleaning, less intensive decoration maintenance), lower food costs (feeding once or twice a week versus daily, culture maintenance, purchase of cultures) and bigger name recognition. If it was just less species then you could meet that goal with a bullfrog but this would still not be as cheap to maintain as a snake so less species does not mean more quality as a snake can be happy with a piece of cork over a sheet of newspaper... 





Rich Frye said:



And see mine.
As an institution of education and animal husbandry I find the lives of Darts held by the MAJORITY of zoos and such sub-par by MY standards. ...

Click to expand...

So back to why are your standards better? This isn't supported by the history of the captive maintence of the frogs... 



Rich Frye said:



A few points you seem to miss. While I try to help answer questions every time I can, I am not and do not represent myself as a "learning institution" (that just happens to make $). Neither are MOST of my customers. A reason to be held to different standards.I have turned away many potential buyers who were not , in my mind, ready for certain frogs. I am a bad businessman which explains why I am broke all the time. Hell, I don't even charge an admission fee to see my basement. Imagine that. :wink: I am however fairly decent at my husbandry practises. 
If I were in it for the $ I would be right up there with those five big names that NEVER post anything but "FOR SALE" .Dragging in thousands of frogs to be sold to whomever answers the call. Why is it that those big guys don't post info and helpful tips? Secrets and such? I wonder........

Click to expand...

Whether your represent yourself or not, you are a purveyer of information on the husbandry and upkeep of the animals which when provided via your website and/or other forums makes you not only a educator but one who is for profit (whether you actually make a net profit is immaterial). The fact that you do not police and require pictures of the future set ups of the frogs you sell (and your site seems to have a lot that use moss and no leaf litter) means that you are in very high probability supplying frogs to enclosures that are in your opinion substandard for profit. This is where I have the issue of holding institutions at a higher standard while claiming they are just doing it for money. 

Ed*


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Wow. I never knew my site had such a bad effect on the hobby. I'm going to try to fix that ASAP.
To be added to my site , at the very least,
"All tanks shown before adding nice thick layer of leaf litter."
Tough one. :wink: 
Now , for all those who think the majority of the zoos and such out there are doing a good job with both their Dart husbandry and their Dart education,and should remain as-is, we will have to strongly disagree.
I have not the keyboard nor room for more callouses on the ends of my two typing fingers.

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Now , for all those who think the majority of the zoos and such out there are doing a good job with both their Dart husbandry and their Dart education,and should remain as-is, we will have to strongly disagree.
> Rich



I don't think I took the postion at any time that they should remain static.. as I pointed out that with the leaflitter the value is speculative at this time as there hasn't been any efforts made to document the value in a quantifiable way. 

Ed


----------



## Bubble_Man (Nov 11, 2007)

The NC Zoo has the best dart frog exhibits I've ever seen. My favorite is their Panamanean gold dart frog exhibit. I hear these frogs are extinct in the wild due to some sort of spreading fungus in the original habitat. I snapped a pic of one last year:


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

Not to nit-pick too much, but _Atelopus zeteki_ is a toad- and the fungus that you speak of is called chytrid.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Being killed off by Chytrid , habitat destruction and over collection. Not a dart frog though.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

flyangler18 said:


> Not to nit-pick too much, but _Atelopus zeteki_ is a toad- and the fungus that you speak of is called chytrid.


Yup, Atelopus , like one of the three frogs pictured here.
BTW, the pic of these three was snapped at an institution behind a big 'rock' that allowed for zero patron viewing. Had I not been 'behind the scenes' I would never had seen these three. But , they seem to see and bump into each other all the time. Just one big healthy happy family I am sure.










Rich


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

I'd have to check out some resources, but don't _zeteki_, _auratus_, and _pumilio_ share habitat in Panama?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

flyangler18 said:


> I'd have to check out some resources, but don't _zeteki_, _auratus_, and _pumilio_ share habitat in Panama?


Panama , yes. Same exact areas, no. That is an Atelopus varius pictured though. Fairly sure you will not find all three on Basti Isle.
One thing I am quite sure of is that you don't see them all laying on top of each other in the wild like that. And even if it were what the public was crying for, they were un-viewable to the public the way the viv was engineered...........

Rich


----------



## tkromer (Dec 20, 2007)

Even though it is definitely not-natural, it's pretty neat to see those three in the same pic.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

tkromer said:


> Even though it is definitely not-natural, it's pretty neat to see those three in the same pic.


Good thing I was there to take a pic where paying patrons could not :wink: .
Photoshopping could provide the same neat wow.

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Panama , yes. Same exact areas, no. That is an Atelopus varius pictured though. Fairly sure you will not find all three on Basti Isle.
> One thing I am quite sure of is that you don't see them all laying on top of each other in the wild like that. And even if it were what the public was crying for, they were un-viewable to the public the way the viv was engineered...........
> 
> Rich



And what proof is there that there were negative interactions going on? Given that they are facing in three different directions is a good indication that they were not paying close attention to one another... 

While I don't advocate non-zoogeographically correct multispecies enclosures I have to question the automatic assumption that there is a issue based on that picture. Please supply proof of your assumption.. 

By the way you still haven't explained why your opinion about moss outweighs that of Jack Cover, A. Wisnieski or Elke Zimmerman.... 

Ed


----------



## Tim F (Jan 27, 2006)

You know, almost every public pdf exhibit I have seen in person over the last 5 years has been sub-par in my opinion, and by my own standards simply _based on what I now know_. From the whole mixed species in small enclosures to sparse furnishings for easy viewing. And somehow they expect people to be interested in the scared little creatures hiding in the corners.

Most people that visit my home are not hobbyists, and they will invariably ask what would happen if I put any of the frogs together. I tell them about some of the likely scenarios, and that has always been sufficient. No one has ever not understood. And no one has ever been less fascinated my frog room, and even non-froggers don’t want t leave. It seems to get people to think more about the circumstances under which animals evolve, and about habitat preservation. Ok, maybe I lead them to think about it. But in my frog room, I* am *an educator. I am *the* expert, and the presentations that I give have to be responsible because I could very well be talking to a soon-to-be hobbyist, enthusiast, or herpetologist or who knows what. 

Zoos and other Institutions that are only able to accommodate small rainforest environments might just as easily do the same, and/or have signage that explains their exhibits accurately. They should not be let off the hook. Just because they can make an exhibit work doesn’t mean that they should –especially one that has such a great potential for creating hobbyists. And we should all do better if we know better. 

My first introduction to pdfs was a picture in a book, so I know for a fact that creating a mixed species exhibit is not the only way to generate interest. If, for example, a zoo created a side by side exhibit of green/blk and blue/blk auratus, most observers could intuit why they had not been put together. Adequate signage explaining the exhibits would confirm what was suspected (not just hype like “D. auratus – deadliest amphibian in the world” Yes – I’ve seen this) and the color comparison would be no less spectacular side by side than had the animals been mixed, creating the potential for hybridization. I am very much of the opinion that mixed species enclosures are what the zoos and other institutions want to create for their own reasons (be it color, convenience, $$, space or whatever), and are not necessarily what people want to see. I doubt that there are many who would look at an exhibit of orange terribilis and say, “Gee, I’d be more interested in these frogs if they threw some blue ones in there!” And unlike seeing a mixed zebra / antelope exhibit, any enthusiastic person or potential newcomer to the hobby can probably own everything he/she sees in a mixed pdf exhibit since these tend not to be comprised of the more rare animals. The problem, of course, is that these newcomers will have to be re-educated right from the start – beginning with “well if the zoos think it’s ok…”. 

The bottom line is that these exhibits are like other marketing tactics in that revenues depend on generating interest by suggesting or straight out telling people what to think about a certain thing. I can't help but consider how nice it would be if the institutions to which I refer suggested that people really think things through. I just keep seeing missed opportunities. 

Speaking of opportunities, I was recently offered one to provide a variety of pdfs for an institution for a Year Of The Frog exhibit. A very knowledgeable guy came over, was very enthusiastic, and we talked about the specifics of the exhibit. It would be a mixed species exhibit in a relatively small enclosure. He was well aware of the pros and cons, but felt that it was what he needed to create to make it interesting. I declined the offer, but he did get a collection of frogs for that exhibit from another source.

Long-winded, I know. Just some things that I think about.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tim F said:


> You know, almost every public pdf exhibit I have seen in person over the last 5 years has been sub-par in my opinion, and by my own standards simply _based on what I now know_. From the whole mixed species in small enclosures to sparse furnishings for easy viewing. And somehow they expect people to be interested in the scared little creatures hiding in the corners..



Okay so on what foundation is your knowledge based? Where did it originate? It didn't arise from a vacumn and I'm willing to bet if its traced back it will lead back to names like Zimmerman, Cover etc... 



Tim F said:


> I tell them about some of the likely scenarios, and that has always been sufficient.


Likely does not mean absolute. This is an important distinction. 




Tim F said:


> No one has ever not understood. And no one has ever been less fascinated my frog room, and even non-froggers don’t want t leave. It seems to get people to think more about the circumstances under which animals evolve, and about habitat preservation. Ok, maybe I lead them to think about it. But in my frog room, I* am *an educator. I am *the* expert, and the presentations that I give have to be responsible because I could very well be talking to a soon-to-be hobbyist, enthusiast, or herpetologist or who knows what.


The phenomena about a direct interation with a person who has information conveys a much different method than that of an exhibit without a living interpreter standing right there. The difference between the two is astounding (see Povey, K.D. & Rios, J. (2002). Using interpretive animals to deliver affective messages in zoos. Journal of Interpretation Research. for one example) and is a well known phenomena. This is akin to comparing apples and oranges the impact is that great. 





Tim F said:


> And unlike seeing a mixed zebra / antelope exhibit, any enthusiastic person or potential newcomer to the hobby can probably own everything he/she sees in a mixed pdf exhibit since these tend not to be comprised of the more rare animals. The problem, of course, is that these newcomers will have to be re-educated right from the start – beginning with “well if the zoos think it’s ok…”.


As for what people can and cannot aquire, a very brief good search pulls up a lot of sites like this one 
http://www.hdexotics.com/ where all of those "rare" animals can be purchased. These can be aquired by anyone with littel effort. 



Tim F said:


> The bottom line is that these exhibits are like other marketing tactics in that revenues depend on generating interest by suggesting or straight out telling people what to think about a certain thing.


Actually this is not what typically generates revenue. The vast majority of visitors to the Zoo are there as a social outing not to learn about consevation. If this was the case then the Zoos would not have to solicit funding for programs as the exhibits would self generate it. 



Tim F said:


> I can't help but consider how nice it would be if the institutions to which I refer suggested that people really think things through. I just keep seeing missed opportunities. .


Again this misses how the Zoo is actually viewed by members of the public. Regardless of the mission statement to educate, the public views it as a social outing... see the references I posted above in a reply to Rich. 

Ed


----------



## irish (Apr 7, 2008)

This has turned into a very interesting discussion. It has also turned into a more "pro" or "anti" zoo discussion as well. The fact of the matter is this:
While I enjoyed (even though I knew better) the PDF exhibit in the zoo, other people MARVELED at the frogs. There were throngs of people around the enclosure snapping pictures, pointing out frogs to their children, and (my favorite) telling their children not to touch the frogs because they are poisonous and will make them sick. I knew better, but still, all of those people enjoyed themselves, and maybe had no idea about frogs before hand, or learned something in the process. Whats wrong with that?
I also enjoyed the rhino exhibit. Cant keep one of those though. But if I could, and had researched some, I could have found something to "bash" on how they were kept. But instead, I watched them, took pictures, and read what there was to read and went on. I believe that is what is intended.
As far as everyone else on here that wants to "bash" these zoos because they dont have leaf litter, or dont have species only enclosures, or whatnot, understand that a few factors go into these enclosures and they cannot all be what you want, because while they were designed for the public, they werent designed for YOU individually. That may be why you see such a difference in vivs on this board between keeper and keeper....

Irish


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I can tell by the weight on the atelopus and auratus that they aren`t fairing well. The basti looks plump though. Maybe they`re feeding only springtails. 
We all know animals can stress each other out w/out fighting.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> Sorry Rich, once you start sharing information in a public forum particuarly one that is searchable, you are now acting as a educator or learning facility and given that you unlike the vast majority of institutions are for profit.. its a little hard to claim that zoos are out to "educate and make $" and you are not.


Man I missed this thread for a while. Yes, but our education and posts are free, you only pay if you recieve an offspring. I think Rich and I have posted, to many people, a lot of advice, who didn`t pay. Slight difference there. We ACT as educators, we don`t get paid for it. You guys get paid to educate, or should. These animals shouldn`t be here for our personal recreation and displayed like that accordingly.
I haven`t been to the zoo lately but what about videos and the like. there are people on this board that don`t know what Chytrid is. I know that`s not specifically the zoos fault but the zoo shouldn`t cater to what people want to see they should tell the people what they want to see! The peoplke don`t even know darts are out there and one day they`ll be gone and the zoo saved zeteki and thet`ll be the one amphibian left for display unless they get them from us.
The more I think of it, the atelopus is from the hilands, the auratus could be hilands but most likely lolands that can migrate to a cool streambed in dry/hot seasons and bastis are in hotter island overgrowth and can deal w/ the hotter weather w/ no retreat. I bet it`s too warm in the viv for the atelopus and auratus. All from panama but 3 very different habitats.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I can tell by the weight on the atelopus and auratus that they aren`t fairing well. The basti looks plump though. Maybe they`re feeding only springtails.
> We all know animals can stress each other out w/out fighting.


One of the problems with Atelopus particularly this species and zeteki is that they only look fat if they have eggs or are bloated. 
If you are in the area on a day I'm working stop by and you can look at them up close. 

The auratus does look thin but again the issue is we can't automatically attribute it to interactions between the anurans. There could easily be other factors in play that are not conveyed by the picture. 

Ed


----------



## irish (Apr 7, 2008)

frogfarm said:


> Man I missed this thread for a while. Yes, but our education and posts are free, you only pay if you recieve an offspring. I think Rich and I have posted, to many people, a lot of advice, who didn`t pay. Slight difference there. We ACT as educators, we don`t get paid for it. You guys get paid to educate, or should. These animals shouldn`t be here for our personal recreation and displayed like that accordingly.
> I haven`t been to the zoo lately but what about videos and the like. there are people on this board that don`t know what Chytrid is. I know that`s not specifically the zoos fault but the zoo shouldn`t cater to what people want to see they should tell the people what they want to see! The peoplke don`t even know darts are out there and one day they`ll be gone and the zoo saved zeteki and thet`ll be the one amphibian left for display unless they get them from us.


So it falls to the zoos to educate the masses on things they may or may not care about? This money comes from where? Zoos are good for what they are: a doorway into the life of animals. If I go to the zoo and see a particular animal that I am interested in, I research it. But there are plenty I could care less about.
Lets say that the zoos somehow found the money to educate the masses. What should be taught? Even if something like that was in place, them people would gripe that not enough was taught. Where does personal responsibility come in? If you find a PDF or anything else that interests you on a trip to a zoo, research it. Hell, I found a frog that YOU offer. I researched it. Even people coming on here and asking the same question over and over is better than those same people doing nothing, even if they dont want to keep frogs themselves.

Irish


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> > Sorry Rich, once you start sharing information in a public forum particuarly one that is searchable, you are now acting as a educator or learning facility and given that you unlike the vast majority of institutions are for profit.. its a little hard to claim that zoos are out to "educate and make $" and you are not.
> 
> 
> Man I missed this thread for a while. Yes, but our education and posts are free, you only pay if you recieve an offspring. I think Rich and I have posted, to many people, a lot of advice, who didn`t pay. Slight difference there. We ACT as educators, we don`t get paid for it. You guys get paid to educate, or should. .


Aaron, this is the disjunct where I was trying to make the point. In offering advice you are advertising your knowledge and wares. If people like the advise you are offering then you get sales. The sales are the pay and the advice the advertising. The cost of the advertising is time. 

Look at me offering advice on here. I am not allowed to do it from work, and in fact when they have everything working I cannot access the internet. If I am caught doing this at work, I could be disciplined up to and including termination. I don't get paid to offer the information or advice I offer here or on another forum. I'm not selling frogs, so what pay do I get for being here? Mainly I try to get people the information so they might be able to do a better job and to try and prevent a hobby I like from becoming bogged down in dogma. 



frogfarm said:


> These animals shouldn`t be here for our personal recreation and displayed like that accordingly..


Most of the people in the hobby have frogs as a form of recreation. There is nothing wrong with it. The hobby is just handling it differently and there is nothing wrong with it. The problem comes when each tries to measure the other by thier own private yardstick. People need to get away from that idea. 



frogfarm said:


> I haven`t been to the zoo lately but what about videos and the like. there are people on this board that don`t know what Chytrid is...


Aaron, think back, how long have I been on here beating the drum about chytrid (not to mention other issues)? Zoos have been talking about chytrid, but sadly if it is a graphic then very few of the people make the connection and most of the average public has the idea that Zoos can save all of the animals so its not a big deal. 



frogfarm said:


> I know that`s not specifically the zoos fault but the zoo shouldn`t cater to what people want to see they should tell the people what they want to see!...


The problem is that a lot of Zoos are in a lot of trouble financially. In the last 5 years a number of major Zoos have nearly closed (Baltimore (now Maryland), Detroit (including the Amphibian center)) or have suffered major layoffs (Philly.. (including one keeper position in the Herpetology Department)
so many are afraid to dictate all the exhibits. 



frogfarm said:


> The peoplke don`t even know darts are out there and one day they`ll be gone and the zoo saved zeteki and thet`ll be the one amphibian left for display unless they get them from us.


One of the reasons the Zoos are not concentrating on most dendrobatids is because they need the space for spray toads, wyoming toads, Puerto Rican Crested Toads, Atelopus zeteki and A. varius, hellbenders to name a few of the ones that are critical. If it came down to it, the Zoos would just exhibit Azureus as this is the flagship dart but luckily the hobby is doing a good job of breeding some of the dendrobatid species (but in a shot gun fashion) so the Zoos are letting the hobby handle most of that end..but we need to look to do it right. 



frogfarm said:


> The more I think of it, the atelopus is from the hilands, the auratus could be hilands but most likely lolands that can migrate to a cool streambed in dry/hot seasons and bastis are in hotter island overgrowth and can deal w/ the hotter weather w/ no retreat. I bet it`s too warm in the viv for the atelopus and auratus. All from panama but 3 very different habitats.


This could very well be correct but Atelopus can readily take temps up in the mid 70s and the pumilo can readily tolerate temps in the mids 70s so this is again speculation without data logger information. 

The hobby and the institutions are doing things for different reasons. Now does this mean that the two cannot learn from one another? No, it doesn't and both have information to bring to the table however both sides need to get away from condeming the other side. This was a long time complaint from the hobby that Zoos etc look down on them.. so now both sides look down on one another? How is this helpful overall? There are several Zookeepers on here that work with frogs but don't admit it because they don't want to deal with this sort of problem from the hobbyists. This means that there is less information sharing going on which hurts both sides. 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Rich Frye said:


> Panama , yes. Same exact areas, no. That is an Atelopus varius pictured though. Fairly sure you will not find all three on Basti Isle.
> One thing I am quite sure of is that you don't see them all laying on top of each other in the wild like that. And even if it were what the public was crying for, they were un-viewable to the public the way the viv was engineered...........
> 
> Rich





Ed said:


> And what proof is there that there were negative interactions going on? Given that they are facing in three different directions is a good indication that they were not paying close attention to one another...


Well Ed, funny that you should bring that up since it was never voiced by me while posting the pic. The "happy healthy family" jab was a bit of a sarcastic assumption that they may not be the most comfortable with each other crawling all over each other and , yes, there were skinny frogs in that specific tank that, guessing, held 30-40 frogs. Yes, 30-40 mixed frogs. 



Ed said:


> While I don't advocate non-zoogeographically correct multispecies enclosures I have to question the automatic assumption that there is a issue based on that picture. Please supply proof of your assumption..


What have you personally done to make your belief of not mixing know? How far has that gone?
Prove my assumption. Good one. Well, since neither you or I advocate mixed tanks, and that is a mixed tank, I assume there is an issue. At least one issue. 



Ed said:


> By the way you still haven't explained why your opinion about moss outweighs that of Jack Cover, A. Wisnieski or Elke Zimmerman....


[/quote]

I have not had the chance yet to go out and purchase the references you site, but if you have something you can point me to on the net I am glad to read it. I am not a tiny bit the research scientist you are Ed. Any help would be appreciated.
But, are you actually trying to say that these three are putting in writing that moss is better than leaf litter? From what I have read , you state they find it "acceptable". Lot of things are acceptable. Few things are superior. 
Again, if we want to start a debate "Moss VS. Leaf Litter" , I can start her up right after posting here. 
In my experience leaf litter is an absolute MUST as part of dart husbandry for success with many of the species we work with today. If you discredit my point of view due to the fact that I have not submitted papers for publication be prepared to to so for quite some time. Facts can be facts without actually having to be written down and reviewed by peers.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed said:


> The hobby and the institutions are doing things for different reasons. Now does this mean that the two cannot learn from one another? No, it doesn't and both have information to bring to the table however both sides need to get away from condeming the other side. This was a long time complaint from the hobby that Zoos etc look down on them.. so now both sides look down on one another? How is this helpful overall? There are several Zookeepers on here that work with frogs but don't admit it because they don't want to deal with this sort of problem from the hobbyists. This means that there is less information sharing going on which hurts both sides.


Ed, 
so how do we stop looking down upon practices we find sub-par? I think we all look down upon situations that we are not happy with. You have stated that there are in-fact issues that should be resolved in the institutions. How is that happening? I know how it happens here. We see something that is not what the hobby as a whole (generally) accepts as "not right" and we voice our opinions. How is it ,once again, that hobbyest should go one way and zoos get a pass ?
The helpful part comes in when the concerns of those that are a bit more Dart educated than the general public ,or maybe more Dart educated than even a zoo keeper who has thirty different species to care for, voice their discontent. In exact fashion as we do here to/with other hobbyists. 
I found it a bit funny that I was told that I was getting bad info out because my pics on my site were old and had no leaf litter as reference to what I currently use and advocate. But it was a valid (although reaching in my mind) point. I plan on fixing my mistake. What exactly is being done to fix the mistakes in the institutions? My fix is a quick and easy one..........


Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed said:


> Aaron, this is the disjunct where I was trying to make the point. In offering advice you are advertising your knowledge and wares. If people like the advise you are offering then you get sales. The sales are the pay and the advice the advertising. The cost of the advertising is time.


Hey Aaron, 
If the cost of advertising is time spent posting here, shouldn't we be due a credit of some sort :wink: :wink: ? I'm working for pennies an hour here..............


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

When I was a kid, I saw pictures of poison frogs and saw them on the occasional documentary and was fascinated by them. It wasn't until I saw them in a zoo that I realized it is possible to grow them outside of their natural habitat. That these seemingly untamable beauties could be kept in temperate north america really opened up my imagination. The tank I saw was a hex with moss and wood in a relatively open environment. There were at least 5 species in it. To me, it was wonderful. I would ask to go to the zoo, just so I could be mesmerized by that tank. Later, when I started considering creating a terrarium in my home, I contacted the keeper of the PDF display at the zoo, asking him about his setup. He said that he frequently get clutches of eggs. When I asked him if I could have some eggs, he said that they are all destroyed as soon as they are found, due to potential hybridization issues. I pleaded and pleaded and looked up the relevant literature about how he wouldn't need to fill out to many forms because is it ok to give the public spawn on fish and amphibians that would otherwise be destroyed. He was very clear about never raising the offspring.

And this gets to a fundamental difference between hobbyists and zoos. Hobbyists, no matter what they say, are always interested in breeding their animals. It's part of the excitement of having frogs. Zoos, on the other hand, are not in it to breed their PDFs (unless there is a breeding program going on, which is often behind the scenes). The purpose of a zoo as I see it, is to foremost inspire and entertain, and second to teach. I imagine the idea is that if you can't inspire, then you will never teach. As to the argument about whether a mixed species tank is necessary to inspire people, it sure doesn't hurt. Why does every potential PDF owner first ask which species can go together? Because, to the person unfamiliar with PDFs, it looks super cool to have different sizes and colors together in the same tank. Now when you learn more about the life histories of different species, one can come to appreciate the finer points of having single species tanks, but getting to that point requires a fair amount of education. Education that you will never get if you are not inspired first.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

And even w/in zoos and w/in hobbyists circles people do it for different reasons. Some are better or more dedicated than others. Posting what you know, from experience, does nothing for business. Like Rich said, he and I are terrible businessmen. 
On the up side I can site the Atlanta Botanical Gardens which has free roaming tricolor and imitator in the Fuqua Orchid Greenhouses and substantial behind the scenes work. I realize there are many more priority animals than dendros out there and some a lot closer to home. We already came to the conclusion that darts alone would be hard pressed to be maintained by all of dendroboard. With the avg hobbyists in it less than 2 years this is 10 owners for each pair throughout there life.
Personally I think the greatest advance will come when a billionaire realizes they can take 3-4 of us breeders and some economically depressed warehouse space and pay a good salary and have a frog conservatory w/ some of the staff of a zoo and the resources(staff vet, people to clean and sterilize things, etc) and move in on the pet market w/ conservative minded pets and also display incredible amphibian private zoo to the public. That coupled w/ the waterfront revival and convention space would do a lot of good for Buffalo, uh but I may have already said too much.... :twisted: :lol:


----------



## Tim F (Jan 27, 2006)

Ed said:


> Tim F said:
> 
> 
> > You know, almost every public pdf exhibit I have seen in person over the last 5 years has been sub-par in my opinion, and by my own standards simply _based on what I now know_. From the whole mixed species in small enclosures to sparse furnishings for easy viewing. And somehow they expect people to be interested in the scared little creatures hiding in the corners..
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Well Ed, funny that you should bring that up since it was never voiced by me while posting the pic. The "happy healthy family" jab was a bit of a sarcastic assumption that they may not be the most comfortable with each other crawling all over each other and , yes, there were skinny frogs in that specific tank that, guessing, held 30-40 frogs. Yes, 30-40 mixed frogs.


Rich, whether or not you directly stated it the inference was made very clear through the use of the sarcasm.. 

However lets discuss density here for a brief moment.. In a number of territorial species you can have issues with stress below a certain threshold number of animals but in an enclosure above that number, the stress disappears as the animals are unable defend a territory against potential rivals. This has probably been best documented in farmed crocodilians (where they kill one another below that threshold density) and bullfrogs in aquaculture facilites but has been a successful application in fish, and some other animals. I have not seen anything that indicates that this does not also occur in dendrobatids (which may simply be because no one has tried it yet as these are not a species people try to rear in those types of stocking densities). 



Rich Frye said:


> What have you personally done to make your belief of not mixing know? How far has that gone?
> Prove my assumption. Good one. Well, since neither you or I advocate mixed tanks, and that is a mixed tank, I assume there is an issue. At least one issue.


Actually Rich, I made that point well known in some of my first posts on this forum. (over three years ago (see beginner-discussion/topic4532.html ). 
The problem I have with non-zoogeographically correct exhibits is directly due to the issues seen in the native Gopher Tortoise genus with mycoplasma (which has also now been documented in Terrapene). Zoogeographically correct enclosures can be done and I have some that have been running for more than a decade (and one close to 13 years) now with reproduction in all species in the enclosure as well as animals showing signs of old age on necropsy. 




Rich Frye said:


> I have not had the chance yet to go out and purchase the references you site, but if you have something you can point me to on the net I am glad to read it. I am not a tiny bit the research scientist you are Ed. Any help would be appreciated.
> But, are you actually trying to say that these three are putting in writing that moss is better than leaf litter? From what I have read , you state they find it "acceptable". Lot of things are acceptable. Few things are superior.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Ed,
> so how do we stop looking down upon practices we find sub-par? I think we all look down upon situations that we are not happy with.


Well one of the first things is to try and accept that things are going to be done differently in different situations and that while you may do things differently neither may necessarily be "bad". For an example, we bred the same D. tinctorius in groups of 4-6 animals in 20 gallon long tanks for the better part of 15 years without any of the deadly issues commonly brought up by people on this forum. We did the same thing with auratus for the same period of time and I have an experiment running right now testing density, etc with D. ventrimaculatus both in tadpole rearing and reproduction (details when I complete my trials (which fair to warn you is going to take another year or two before I am comfortable that the hypothesis works). 
Look on page 601 in Poison Frogs, Biology, Species & Captive Husbandry at the density of O. pumilio in that picture. If either an institution or a hobbyist tried to recreate that density there would be flames all over the forum because of it. Why can't it be done artifically? 



Rich Frye said:


> You have stated that there are in-fact issues that should be resolved in the institutions. How is that happening?.


One is by the fact that there are keepers coming on here to check out the information here. This will translate back in some fashion or other. Much in the same way I share information here from what I get from work. 



Rich Frye said:


> I know how it happens here. We see something that is not what the hobby as a whole (generally) accepts as "not right" and we voice our opinions. How is it ,once again, that hobbyest should go one way and zoos get a pass ??


This is one the of the major issues with the hobby. The hobby as a whole has become rigid and set in a lot of beliefs and idealized items. How many of the more terrestrial species of dendrobatids are forced to live in vertically oriented heavily planted enclosures? Where virtually every inch of space is planted with something. This is acceptable to the hobby but is it really indicative of how they really live? Many people in the hobby in an attempt to maximize humidity and thus the frogs activity level virtually seal the enclosure to air flow.. this is also acceptable but should it be? The frogs have set activity periods in the wild. Shouldn't the hobby be attempting to replicate this instead? Neither side is perfect but keep in mind that neither side is really doing the same thing. 



Rich Frye said:


> The helpful part comes in when the concerns of those that are a bit more Dart educated than the general public ,or maybe more Dart educated than even a zoo keeper who has thirty different species to care for, voice their discontent. In exact fashion as we do here to/with other hobbyists.
> I found it a bit funny that I was told that I was getting bad info out because my pics on my site were old and had no leaf litter as reference to what I currently use and advocate. But it was a valid (although reaching in my mind) point. I plan on fixing my mistake. What exactly is being done to fix the mistakes in the institutions? My fix is a quick and easy one..........


See my comments about examples of potential issues in the hobby. One of the major differences in between the hobby and any institution is what I call bureaucratic inertia.. Any changes will take a long time compared to the changes that can be made by a person in the hobby. For example, if I want to use a different product with the frogs, I need to get the curator to approve it, then it has to go to the vets for approval, then it has to go to the purchasing agent for approval, then I can get it if there is money in the budget. If it is a food item or a supplement it has to go through the nutritionist as well while I at home I can order it and be done with it. By its very nature change in any institution is slow (and this goes for any institution not just Zoos). 

The best thing is to be supportive and not negative. This will get things to happen much more quickly. And also watch out for the dogma. Its very very easy for us to slip into it, and is one of the reasons that I look into the reasoning for some many things. (one of the greatest dogmatic ideas in the hobby is that a bigger cage automatically means more space per frog..) 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > Aaron, this is the disjunct where I was trying to make the point. In offering advice you are advertising your knowledge and wares. If people like the advise you are offering then you get sales. The sales are the pay and the advice the advertising. The cost of the advertising is time.
> ...


Write it off as a business expense.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tim F said:


> That's pretty funny Ed. But really, I don't need to run to my bookshelf to figure out where my every thought and impression originated. And what difference would it make if I did? One need not be a scholar to recognize the need for improvemant, and referring to literature is not necessarily a substitue for experience, simple observation, nor common sense.


So knowing the history of an idea or bit of information is unimportant? How does this prevent the hobby from repeatedly making the same "mistakes" over and over again? In the 20 plus years I have been around dendrobatids (this expands to more than 30 years if you count herps in general) I have seen "new" fads that were simply recycled material with the same results over and over again.. all based on "experience, simple observation and common sense" when a little research would have shown that it was just the old new again. For one example, tadpole feedings.. if you look back into the old literature you will see that in the early to mid 1980s, the use of nettle powder, algae and other plant based materials was popular as it didn't foul the water but there were other issues with it like some outbreaks of SLS or poor growth. The hobby then went to fish flakes and decided that Aquarian was the best, after fish flakes, there was some experimentation with the addition of live foods and after that it was back to algae powders (like Sera-micron) and now we are back to a high quality sinking pellet (tadpole bites) which are based on soft salmon pellets used in the aquaculture industry. The ability to look up information when combined with experience and observation is a very powerful tool that is too often traded in by people who prefer dogma based on " experience, simple observation, and common sense" (for one example, when dealing with standard size enclosures most people using common sense and the dogmatic 5 gallon/frog rule fail to make the connection that a larger enclosure does not give the frogs more room...) 




Tim F said:


> *ED wrote:*
> Likely does not mean absolute. This is an important distinction.
> 
> _Really? Why? Mixing species A w/ species B can result in hybridiazation. Why is it necessary to make a statement in absolutes? _


_

So if I mixed D. auratus with D. tinctorius in your opinion I am 100% guaranteed to get hybrids? What if I only used males in the enclosure given that these frogs can be easily sexed? That is why you cannot use absolutes. 



Tim F said:



So... in the absense of a curator, it would make sense to have an exhibit that is as self-explanitory as possible, and one that conveys accurate information and scenarios. A great exhibit can be worth more than a thousand words

Click to expand...

However it still does not come close to the message that is imparted by a person interacting with the viewer and explaining what there is to see. This is still an apples and oranges issue. 



Tim F said:



Speaking of apples and oranges. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I realize that nearly anything can be had fjor a price, but really, what are the chances that some kid is going to see a zebra, and then turn around an puchase one? Compare that with chances seeing a dart frog and picking on up in a pet store later that afternoon. "*The Difference between the two is astounding*." .

Click to expand...

Until the person sold out and closed his place, there was a place several hours north of Philadelphia that advertised big cats in the local paper. Primates of several species are routinely advertised in the local paper.. did you see this in the news? http://www.ajc.com/services/content/met ... 7&cxcat=13 

The last time I went into a Borders or a Barns and Noble, I could in the magazine section purchase finder's guides that showed me where to buy these animals. Not to mention there is an exotics section on kingsnake.com where some of these animals can also be located through dealers. Until the person sold out and closed his place, there was a place several hours north of Philadelphia that advertised big cats in the local paper. Primates of several species are routinely advertised in the local paper..We had to go and get a tiger (yes a Amur (aka Siberian) tiger from an apartment in Philadelphia. We routinely go out and collect confiscated venomous snakes (in fact one of the largest anything goes swaps is tomorrow (A number of years ago you could have purchased fruitbats there...) I am not arguing for the sake of arguing but to illustrate that within driving distance of many major cities, you can get these animals. 




Tim F said:



Ed, it doesn't really matter what brings people to a zoo or a museum of natural history, or whatever. Once they're there, an opportunity has been created. How they're ultimately viewed depends on what's been done with that opportunity. Some are better at this than others. No, I don't have references to site. Just some good ol' common sense observations

Click to expand...

This is why there has been a lot of research at Zoos. The vast majority of people do not look at any signage (less than 25% of visitors read any signage regardless of the level of interactivity and the average time spent at each exhibit is less than 1 minute) unless there is a live body directing them to it. This however becomes cost prohibitative very quickly. In some static displays in other museums (like natural history museums) you can do multiple small exhibits on the same theme and get people to pick up some of the information through (for lack of a better word) intuition but when this is tried with live animal displays it hasn't worked well at all (in part because these are not generally attended as a social outing). The problem is again in how much time the people spend at each exhibit. If the animal is not in plain view and moving, it gets passed by... 
Its not for lack of trying but the lay members of the public on a social outing don't want to pay attention to other items.... 

Ed_


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

It's been fun Ed. Thanks.
I would like to bow out with an Indian stylized Haiku favorite of mine,

fruit flies needs 'to flakes
my fingers have callouses
why not use litter ?


 

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Not dogma and coveys the message well. 

There isn't really any reason to not try leaflitter but if it doesn't work in your enclosure then it doesn't work in your enclosure. 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Thanks Ed, 
I was thinking about one of these two originally;

My frogs don't ribbit
I know they are happy though
Darts love leaf litter

Tolstoy's War and Peace
Everything ends sometime
My eyes hurt like heck

But the 'to flakes won me over on the first one.

Rich


----------



## MCampbell (Feb 10, 2007)

I'd like to add my two cents if anyone else is still reading this thread. Like Ed, I too work at a zoo and I keep darts and several other species of frogs and caudates at home. We only have one species of dart at the zoo I work at so hybridization has never been an issue. However, I have always believed that our dart enclosure was substandard in it's construction. When I started working for this zoo I didn't keep any darts at home and before that I had only kept the odd American Toad or Tiger Salamander or raised newts, or reared up WC tadpoles. Anyway, point is I didn't know much about dart husbandry in captivity but I did know what makes a good enclosure and this particular enclosure was a disaster. The frogs were always hard to see, it was extremely difficult to clean, and it was made from poorly sculpted foam covered with painted fiberglass. Yech! Totally fake looking and a complete eye-sore. Now, finally the retired that exhibit (hopefully for good), and are now exhibiting the darts (D. tinctorius - Cobalts) in a much larger exhibit that while still not laid out that well is a vast improvement over the previous one.

There are many factors that play into how and why zoos design enclosures the way they do. The real reason why the crappy enclosure was built the way it was is because it had to be broken down and bleached every 6 months. You couldn't do that with a naturalistic enclosure. Some zoos set up naturalistic enclosures and they're fine, however our zoo apparently set up a naturalistic yet faulty enclosure when the building opened and all the frogs died from a bacterial infection. Their reasoning then became one of - "we need to be able to sterilize everything periodically to eliminate pathogen buildup." I tried in the past to get them to leave it up and running longer hypothesizing that the more natural they allow the system to get, the more stable it will become. However, as Ed mentioned, zoos are very slow to change and there are very few institutions where keepers can simply run things the way they want. Believe me, most of us (keepers) are pretty well enslaved by the limitations of bureaucracy. 

I even attended the AZA Amphibian Biology course recently and brought back loads of useful information, much of which has been disregarded by my supervisors who arranged for me to attend the week long training course. They simply believe that the way they've always done things is perfectly acceptable and are simply very stubborn and resistant to change. I get incredibly frustrated sometimes (in fact most of the time), yet my job can be rewarding so I slog through the bad days looking forward to the good ones. As far as educating visitors goes, Ed brought up several good points. Visitors go to the zoo to have fun and if they somehow accidentally get educated along the way that's about the best the zoo can hope for. Zoos are trying harder these days to promote themselves as conservators of wildlife but one of the key problems is still that the most money is spent on the highest profile animals. Some stats say that if every zoo eliminated one high profile species (Gorilla, Chimp, Panda, Elephant, etc.) they would then have the resources (money, time, space, keeper staff) to preserve one ENTIRE species! My own zoo spends more money the great apes than probably anything else in the zoo, but most of that money comes from grants because people want to spend money on charismatic megafauna and not slimy little frogs. I get asked far more times by visitors, "where are the gorillas," or "where are the elephants" or "where are the bathrooms" than I get asked, "where are your drab black colored axolotls" or "where can I find the non-descript brown frogs that look like dead leaves."

My belabored point is that as Ed mentioned you simply can't hope to teach people about animals simply from graphics or even a well designed exhibit. Most zoos have docent staff who will tell visitors about exhibits or individual animals, but that's often limited by the information available to the docents. Also, many zoos have keeper chats that may or may not have some structure to them. It's all fair game to talk about how zoos and zookeepers should be doing better than simply being a sideshow but you try getting out in front of 50 screaming kids and try to get their attention and tell them something useful about the animals in your care. It's not easy. Keepers in my building have to give keeper chats regularly and this year they're all supposed to be amphibian related because of Year of the Frog. I set out with good intentions every day to try to tell people about pesticide runoff or chytrid or habitat destruction and so much of the time I'm simply burning up my time pointing out frogs and explaining just what the heck an axolotl is why the dart frogs really aren't poisonous anymore. 

Sure a lot of zoos get it wrong and mix and match species that they shouldn't or set up exhibits that really don't look as appropriate as you'd like to see, or whatever... you could nitpick a million things with almost any zoo and almost any exhibit. I see lots of fantastic looking enclosures on this forum chock full of about a bazillion different species of plants in an 18" square cube all carpeted with a lush green mossy floor to boot. Talk about fake... When's the last time you've seen 14 different species of plant within a 1 1/2' square area? When's the last time you saw a bromeliad growing exactly six inches off the ground? When's the last time you saw Ficus pumilla growing in S. America? F. pumilla is an Old World plant, not New World. Man, I could probably go on and on trying to touch on other points that have been made. However, I hope in my own rambling way I've given yet another perspective from the "inside". 

Finally, I want to add that when I'm at work I do my job as my supervisors want me to do it according to their rules and their regulations. At home, when I want to work with a new species I research it and then I get it. No official bureaucratic channels or red tape hoops to jump through. If I want to try a new type of substrate I just do it. Keeping a variety of herps at home allows me to do things my own way which frankly, is very, VERY different from how I do things at work. I'm also active in my local herp society and I use every opportunity I can to try to educate the public about the dire situation facing amphibians today. So, I guess if there's anything I say to wrap this up or make some kind of point it'd be this - we can dispense info on here all day long but honestly we're just preachin' to the choir. People are here because they want to learn about frogs. Forget all this business about whether a zoo is mixing and matching darts or whether an exhibit has leaf litter or not. There's a lot more serious issue here folks and if we really want to make a difference we'll use every chance we have to share these beautiful frogs with people who otherwise might not get to see them and just maybe take that opportunity to teach them a little something about these wonderful frogs so that maybe they'll care a little more and maybe, just maybe we'll start to make a difference.


----------

