# Will the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study be used against froggers?



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Call me a cynic, a sceptic or whatever you wish, but I wonder if the results of the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study will be used against private amphibian keepers?

As most of you know, there is a proposal before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that seeks to impose Chytrid testing on any amphibian before it is allowed to be imported into the U.S., exported out of the U.S. or transported between U.S. states. For those unfamiliar with this proposal, please read Fish and Wildlife Service Outlines Upcoming Regulations on Animal Trade

The stated purpose of this study is:



> There is a strong potential for our local environment to be contaminated by the disposal of untreated organic materials and waste water from enclosures which contain chytrid. The transport of captive amphibians (Xenopus) has been implicated in the distribution of chytrid currently impacting amphibians globally. Animals which appear to be healthy may still carry chytrid since some species of amphibians are known to be asymptomatic carriers. However, since treatment against chytrid is both easy and effective, there is no reason to worry about the condition of any chytrid-positive animals. Participants will be given the results of their test but all information and published statistical results will be kept anonymous.
> 
> Everyone is encouraged to let other Dendrobatid keepers know about the project as the only requirements are those listed below. This is a great opportunity to get a free chytrid test and contribute to a study aimed at increasing awareness of this important disease. Because the maximum number of participants for this study is 150, applicants who are members of the ASN will be given priority. The sign-up deadline is May 1, 2009.
> 
> ...


Even if this study is not directly related to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal, I believe this study will figure prominently in the discussions of the USF&WS proposal to follow.

I wonder who is funding this study?


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

I think your concerns are logical, but I'm much more interested to see the results (and potential legislation) used to the benefit of frogs. Stopping chytrid should be of interest to all of us- and a good first step is knowing what portion of the hobby populations are exposed to it.

I think chances are that we (the CB amphibian trade/hobby) are in good shape in comparison to the other amphibian transport sources- frogs for food markets, salamanders for bait markets, frogs transported with potted plants, and wild-caught frogs. This study gives us a chance to see if that's true.

Afemoralis


----------



## srrrio (May 12, 2007)

Afemoralis answered your main question spot on.

I believe the study is funded by Tree Walkers International which in turn means it is funded at least in part TWI memberhip dues, which means myself and other members.... 

I am cynical as well, but for another reason. It has been 6 months since the test kits went out and there are still not .. was it 100.. samples turned in. 

Sally


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

srrrio said:


> I am cynical as well, but for another reason. It has been 6 months since the test kits went out and there are still not .. was it 100.. samples turned in.


100 is the target, and we're only about halfway there...


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Web Wheeler said:


> I wonder who is funding this study?


A quick e-mail to anyone involved in TWI's committees (myself, Mike K, Ed, Oz, etc.) could have quickly answered that question directly for you. The Contact feature on the TWI website is another great way to get ahold of us if you don't know anyone personally involved.

But, as has already been answered: the study is being funded 100% by membership fees and donations.

As Afemoralis mentioned, the overall purpose of the study is for the benefit of amphibians. By being more aware chytrid's presence in the captive hobby (or lack thereof) we can hopefully also begin to detect possible vectors of its introducation and/or transmission.

How the data/results are used is hard to say....however, I would personally prefer any decision made by USFWS be based upon actual scientific data and analysis rather than fear and speculation. This study (and the subsequently published paper) will actually help provide some of that much needed data.

As far as the data being "used against" participants, TWI has stated from the very beginning that all results will remain confidential. Individual participants will be made aware of the results from their swabs, but names and/or identifiers will not be released for specific results. It is up to each individual participant to take whatever measures they deem necessary based on their results (further testing of specific frogs, entire collection, etc.).


----------



## christina hanson (Feb 16, 2004)

Hello,

This study is funded by Tree Walkers International and is in no way part of the petition brought to USFWS by Defenders of Wildlife, they have no affiliation with that group whatsoever. As you can see by the date of the deadline for kit return, this plan was conceived way before TWI knew such a petition existed. Knowledge of whether chytrid is present, prevalent or appears to be absent or very low is valuable knowledge to us as hobbyists. It was not intended to bolster the agenda of any group, but for the knowledge we would gain.

We have had several more kits returned over the last few weeks and I believe we are over the 60 mark. More kits will be available shortly for mailing. 

Thanks for your thoughtful concerns, I hope this helps.

Christina


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Afemoralis said:


> I think chances are that we (the CB amphibian trade/hobby) are in good shape in comparison to the other amphibian transport sources- frogs for food markets, salamanders for bait markets, frogs transported with potted plants, and wild-caught frogs. This study gives us a chance to see if that's true.


How so? Is there a Chytrid study for amphibians used for food, bait, etc.?



skylsdale said:


> But, as has already been answered: the study is being funded 100% by membership fees and donations.


Good to know... thanks!



skylsdale said:


> As Afemoralis mentioned, the overall purpose of the study is for the benefit of amphibians. By being more aware chytrid's presence in the captive hobby (or lack thereof) we can hopefully also begin to detect possible vectors of its introducation and/or transmission.


How so? Is there a Chytrid study for amphibians used for food, bait, etc.?



skylsdale said:


> How the data/results are used is hard to say....however, I would personally prefer any decision made by USFWS be based upon actual scientific data and analysis rather than fear and speculation. This study (and the subsequently published paper) will actually help provide some of that much needed data.


I also would like to see any decision made by USFWS be based upon actual scientific data and analysis rather than fear and speculation. But isn't the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study only for Dendrobatids? This seems to limit any results of the study to only Dart Frog hobbyists/professionals.



skylsdale said:


> As far as the data being "used against" participants, TWI has stated from the very beginning that all results will remain confidential. Individual participants will be made aware of the results from their swabs, but names and/or identifiers will not be released for specific results. It is up to each individual participant to take whatever measures they deem necessary based on their results (further testing of specific frogs, entire collection, etc.).


Even if no one is personally identified, this study seems to target Dart Frog enthusiasts.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Web Wheeler said:


> How so? Is there a Chytrid study for amphibians used for food, bait, etc.?


You mean like Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Chytrid testing on amphibians used for food have been referenced before on this board and elsewhere. 




Web Wheeler said:


> I also would like to see any decision made by USFWS be based upon actual scientific data and analysis rather than fear and speculation. But isn't the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study only for Dendrobatids? This seems to limit any results of the study to only Dart Frog hobbyists/professionals.
> 
> 
> Even if no one is personally identified, this study seems to target Dart Frog enthusiasts.


It also makes the dendrobatid hobby look much more responsible..if we are taking a proactive stance and looking at this first it is better for the hobby as a whole. The other option is to stick our heads in the sand and hope no one does anything... well that option has been neatly taken out of our hands by the petition... 

In addition if you read through a lot of the studies and articles, the authors of those studies have the ability to make suggestions and recommendations and authors of well done studies are able to also give a testimony that may be weighted more heavily.. 

Personally I think a proactive stance is much better than sticking my head in the sand. 

If you want to fund a much wider second study targeting other amphibian sectors, TWI would be happy to consider the proposal and donation. 

Ed


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

Ed said:


> If you want to fund a much wider second study targeting other amphibian sectors, TWI would be happy to consider the proposal and donation.


Just for the sake of curiosity, how much would such a study cost?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Mike I think can give a best cost assessment of the current study. 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Thanks for the link, Ed. From the limited info in the abstract, I'm surprised that percentages for Tiger Salamanders used as bait, then released, is provided, but curiously not the percentage of Tiger Salamanders screened for having Bd or ranaviruses. Perhaps that info is included in the full text?

In order to be proactive, it's not necessary to conduct a "study" (looks more like a survey to me). One could simply provide a PCR test as a benefit to ASN/TWI members, while releasing no info to the public. After all, the members are paying for it - right?

Would it not be better to conduct a comprehensive study of all amphibians, re. invasive infectious disease, in commercial trade as opposed to this piecemeal approach?


----------



## sbreland (May 4, 2006)

Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it VERY unlikely that any of these tests will turn up positive results? The reason I ask is that from what research done on chytrid (personal study plus a capstone project on it for my bachelor's degree) the disease seems pretty devastating and any collection that has it would likely be decimated fairly quickly. I know some species aren't as susceptible as others, but from what I've gathered pretty much all darts are very susceptible. Seems like most keepers would have an inkling if something like this "might" be in their collection and would know it pretty damn fast. I do like the proactive approach and the safety in knowledge but just not sure what the expected number of positive results will be, if any.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Web Wheeler said:


> Would it not be better to conduct a comprehensive study of all amphibians, re. invasive infectious disease, in commercial trade as opposed to this piecemeal approach?


The reason for targeting Dendrobatids is partially outlined in the original study announcement and has been discussed over the past 6-10 months in previous posts on here. The primary reason for focusing solely on Dendrobatids consists of a couple reasons:

1) Given that, at the time, most of TWI's membership consisted of Dendrobatid hobbyists, it was from that group that we had the biggest audience, could communicate with efficiently, and could get the largest amount of participation. Based on success in participation from this initial study, the plan was to evaluate whether or not to then target other amphibian taxa and groups in the captive herp hobby (tree frogs, caudates, etc.).

2) Given that it was our first attempt at this, starting small seemed appropriate and the most responsible way to use our funds. We are a small, volunteer organization and are being as efficient as possible with the logistical and financial resources we have available.



sbreland said:


> Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it VERY unlikely that any of these tests will turn up positive results?


The truth is we simply don't know, and with this study we will be able to set speculation/fear aside and get a definite answer.


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

skylsdale said:


> The truth is we simply don't know, and with this study we will be able to set speculation/fear aside and get a definite answer.


I'm sceptical that you'll get the answers you seek because IMO there are too many variables in this study for it to produce scientifically/statistically valid results. For example, suppose the majority of Dendrobatid keepers who return the test kit have had Bd in the past and just want to confirm that it's gone now. This would skew the results, would it not?

Is there a reason for publishing this study? Why not just perform the PCR test and notify the participants of the results. Why compile statistics that may be meaningless or give the wrong impression?

Please understand that I'm not asking these questions to be difficult, but they do need to be asked. And, my fear is that there will be unintended consequences to publishing this study.


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

sbreland said:


> Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it VERY unlikely that any of these tests will turn up positive results? The reason I ask is that from what research done on chytrid (personal study plus a capstone project on it for my bachelor's degree) the disease seems pretty devastating and any collection that has it would likely be decimated fairly quickly. I know some species aren't as susceptible as others, but from what I've gathered pretty much all darts are very susceptible. Seems like most keepers would have an inkling if something like this "might" be in their collection and would know it pretty damn fast. I do like the proactive approach and the safety in knowledge but just not sure what the expected number of positive results will be, if any.


Ed has talked about this a few times, I don't remember the exact threads or references but a search could probably turn up quite a bit. The gist of it was that the temperatures in the average frog room (75+) keep chytrid infections at a sublethal level, allowing frogs to carry it without any outward sign. At lower temperatures the fungus is much more active, which is why high elevation species are so much more susceptible in the wild.


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Tony said:


> The gist of it was that the temperatures in the average frog room (75+) keep chytrid infections at a sublethal level, allowing frogs to carry it without any outward sign. At lower temperatures the fungus is much more active, which is why high elevation species are so much more susceptible in the wild.


Yet another variable in this study!


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Web Wheeler said:


> Yet another variable in this study!


That's not a variable. It's just a set of conditions the fungus thrives in. Animals in warmer temps that have it will still test positive even if symptoms are not present.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

sbreland said:


> Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it VERY unlikely that any of these tests will turn up positive results? The reason I ask is that from what research done on chytrid (personal study plus a capstone project on it for my bachelor's degree) the disease seems pretty devastating and any collection that has it would likely be decimated fairly quickly. I know some species aren't as susceptible as others, but from what I've gathered pretty much all darts are very susceptible. Seems like most keepers would have an inkling if something like this "might" be in their collection and would know it pretty damn fast. I do like the proactive approach and the safety in knowledge but just not sure what the expected number of positive results will be, if any.


This would depend on a number of factors, including temperature ranges for the collection and the type of Chytrid involved (I believe there are several types that can cause varying degrees of mortality & infection). I too would guess that the prevalence within the dart hobby is low, but actual data to support that conclusion would be much better.


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

Web Wheeler said:


> I'm sceptical that you'll get the answers you seek because IMO there are too many variables in this study for it to produce scientifically/statistically valid results. For example, suppose the majority of Dendrobatid keepers who return the test kit have had Bd in the past and just want to confirm that it's gone now. This would skew the results, would it not?
> 
> Is there a reason for publishing this study? Why not just perform the PCR test and notify the participants of the results. Why compile statistics that may be meaningless or give the wrong impression?
> 
> Please understand that I'm not asking these questions to be difficult, but they do need to be asked. And, my fear is that there will be unintended consequences to publishing this study.


I wasn't involved in the statistical design of the study, so maybe someone who was will chime in. That said, the issue of "variables" is a matter of the precise phrasing of the question, and the sample size. And a power analysis (hopefully done as a part of of the initial design) would address your concerns. When dealing with any of these issues though, the best approach is always to increase your sample size. So folks should send in their kits.

As to why to publish, I would say that scientific knowledge is an accumulative in nature- and if we make sure the information we find out is available to everyone who is interested, the next question can be that much more precise, comparisons more accurate, and the whole process more informative.

I think your fears about publication are largely unfounded- if there is bias, or if the sample size is too low, the results will merely be uninformative- not necessarily damning.

As my advisor likes to point out "the best statistical test is the "damn fool test"- where any damn fool can look at the data and understand what is going on." And that is the situation we can hope for here: Low to Zero occurrence of Cd in cb dendrobatids, regardless of conditions, or species, or other variables. And the side benefit of that (as pointed out by others) is the view of the dendrohobby as a science driven entity with serious enough interest in amphibian conservation to fund and organize it's own studies. And THAT will put us in good light with any group of conservation scientists, federal or otherwise.

Afemoralis


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Afemoralis said:


> I think your fears about publication are largely unfounded- if there is bias, or if the sample size is too low, the results will merely be uninformative- not necessarily damning.


I'm founding my fears upon four years of fighting exotic animal bans - the most recent and notable being the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service proposal to add nine species of constrictor snakes to the Lacy Act; the same act that is involved in the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) petition involving Chytrid testing of all amphibians. I've listened to dozens of hours of Congressional Hearings and committee meetings; I've read hundreds of articles in newspapers, editorial commentary, internet blogs, Facebook pages and forum posts; and I've watched dozens of YouTube videos, etc. regarding this proposal.

I can assure you this ASN Chytrid study, if published, will be scrutinized to the most minute detail during the coming investigation by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, into the DOW petition, and that if there is anything amiss, this study will be dismissed as bad science by Dart Frog keepers and/or those who are against the private sector keeping of Dart Frogs. If this study is not 100% defensible then, in my opinion, ASN could have a very difficult time staying credible to anyone on what could become a very contentious debate.

Of course, I could be wrong. I have nothing more to add to this issue. I've expressed my opinion, and thanks to all who have responded.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dane said:


> This would depend on a number of factors, including temperature ranges for the collection and the type of Chytrid involved (I believe there are several types that can cause varying degrees of mortality & infection). I too would guess that the prevalence within the dart hobby is low, but actual data to support that conclusion would be much better.


There are several strains but all of the strains (to my knowledge) do not cause mortality in metamorphic and adult anurans unless the temperature is less than 75 F. 

Ed


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Tony said:


> Just for the sake of curiosity, how much would such a study cost?


For a rough estimate, this study (enough materials for 150 test kits, pooled sample testing of 5 swabs per batch, postage and return postage) cost a bit over $3000.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Web Wheeler said:


> I'm founding my fears upon four years of fighting exotic animal bans - the most recent and notable being the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service proposal to add nine species of constrictor snakes to the Lacy Act; the same act that is involved in the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) petition involving Chytrid testing of all amphibians. I've listened to dozens of hours of Congressional Hearings and committee meetings; I've read hundreds of articles in newspapers, editorial commentary, internet blogs, Facebook pages and forum posts; and I've watched dozens of YouTube videos, etc. regarding this proposal.
> 
> I can assure you this ASN Chytrid study, if published, will be scrutinized to the most minute detail during the coming investigation by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, into the DOW petition, and that if there is anything amiss, this study will be dismissed as bad science by Dart Frog keepers and/or those who are against the private sector keeping of Dart Frogs. If this study is not 100% defensible then, in my opinion, ASN could have a very difficult time staying credible to anyone on what could become a very contentious debate.
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong. I have nothing more to add to this issue. I've expressed my opinion, and thanks to all who have responded.


Currently all of the data out on the amphibian pet trade is based on the information collected at the point of import or at the distributions level of the jobber or large collections in institutions... and that data is not very supportive of our side of the arguement. There is a really good chance that not only is this the only study being conducted by the hobby but currently the only study that could be supportive of the point that the hobby isn't that big of a risk.... however if that premise isn't tested there is only the other studies to go on that show the hobby is a bigger risk of spreading chytrid.... 

Ed


----------



## savethefrogs (Feb 21, 2009)

Hi,
The best paper on chytrid in the food trade is by Schloegel et al 2009:
Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American
bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) 

It is downloadable on:
The Problem With Frog Legs
(Go to the "Frog Legs and the Spread of Infectious Diseases" section)

The best paper on infectious diseases in the bait trade is
Picco AM, and Collins JP (2008). Amphibian commerce as a likely source of pathogen pollution. Conservation Biology

**************
Dr. Kerry Kriger
Save The Frogs - Founder, Executive Director, Ecologist
SAVE THE FROGS!
Kerry Kriger


----------



## savethefrogs (Feb 21, 2009)

The title of this thread is extremely interesting:
"Will the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study be used against froggers?"

Shouldn't it be:
"Will the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study be used to benefit frogs?"

The former suggests that the enjoyment of froggers is more important than the health and well-being of the frogs (the subject of the froggers' enjoyment).

The latter suggests the frogs are more important than the froggers. As froggers and their species are nowhere near extinction (except perhaps the self-imposed kind) but the frogs are already rapidly going extinct, I would certainly hope that the long-term well-being of the frogs takes priority over the short-term enjoyment of the froggers. 

It should also be clear that the term "froggers" also includes those who enjoy seeing frogs in their native habitat. In many places in the world, frog populations have been decimated by chytridiomycosis, a disease that has spread around the world due to the massive trade in amphibians, the vast majority of which receive no disease testing or quarantine. As Virginia Governor Tim Kaine stated in his official declaration of Save The Frogs Day: "we believe in the right of children to see, hear and catch amphibians in their native habitat". 

That is the right we should all be working our hardest towards protecting. 

Sincerely,
Dr. Kerry Kriger
Save The Frogs - Founder, Executive Director, Ecologist
SAVE THE FROGS!
Kerry Kriger


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

While I stated that I've voiced my opinion about the 2009 ASN Chytrid study, Dr. Kerry Kriger does raise some interesting points to which I would like to respond:



savethefrogs said:


> The title of this thread is extremely interesting:
> "Will the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study be used against froggers?"
> 
> Shouldn't it be:
> "Will the 2009 ASN Chytrid Study be used to benefit frogs?"


It is obvious to me that everyone here is greatly concerned about the dismal state of the world's frogs, but my original post title was to raise an important question - not state the obvious.

I can see where you're coming from, Dr. Kriger, from your website. It is also obvious to me that you agree with the conclusions of Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) in their "Broken Screens" report. I do not agree with that report, Dr. Kriger, much for the same reasons I do not agree with this:



savethefrogs said:


> In many places in the world, frog populations have been decimated by chytridiomycosis, a disease that has spread around the world due to the massive trade in amphibians, the vast majority of which receive no disease testing or quarantine.


Surely you must have heard of the "Origin of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus"? Even if you don't agree with the results of this study, in my opinion, it's very deceitful of you to lump the trade of all amphibians into one category, as if there is no difference between the international trade of frogs for pets and the international trade of frogs for food. Is that not what you're doing with what you've stated above?

Furthermore, I happen to agree with Trenton W. J. Garner, Ian Stephen, Emma Wombwell, and Matthew C. Fisher: "The Amphibian Trade: Bans or Best Practice?" who state:



> ...the approaches proposed by Kriger and Hero seem somewhat idealistic and impossible to implement when confronted with the realities of wildlife trade.


I do commend you, though, for posting the above PDF on your website.


----------



## savethefrogs (Feb 21, 2009)

Web Wheeler,

You state:
"I can see where you're coming from, Dr. Kriger, from your website."

It sounds like you don't see where I'm coming from. I'm coming from a lot of places in the world where amphibians populations have been decimated due to a disease that spreads by the anthropogenically-driven shipments of sick amphibians around the world. A disease caused by a fungus named Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Note the species name "dendrobatidis". It means it inflames dendrobatids. It was first cultured from a sick dendrobatid in Washington DC. Several papers have been published on how pathogenic it is to dendrobatids, and there exist several published reports of infected amphibians in the pet, zoo, bait, laboratory and food trades. It would be naive to think that other modes of shipment spread the disease, but not the pet trade, solely because you HOPE the pet trade doesn't. 

You then state:
"It is also obvious to me that you agree with the conclusions of Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) in their "Broken Screens" report."

I do agree with their conclusion that invasive species cause untold and irreparable damage to native US ecosystems, flora and fauna. That is quite clear.

You then state:
"Surely you must have heard of the "Origin of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus"? Even if you don't agree with the results of this study, in my opinion, it's very deceitful of you to lump the trade of all amphibians into one category, as if there is no difference between the international trade of frogs for pets and the international trade of frogs for food. Is that not what you're doing with what you've stated above?"

Goka's recent paper proved Weldon's Origin paper incorrect. Goka found chytrid in 1902 museum specimens, 36 years prior to Weldon's. That matters little though. Frogs are frogs, they get infected with the fungus; if they get shipped somewhere, then eventually - inevitably - some get set free on purpose, or they escape, or the water they were held in gets loose into the environment. Native frogs get infected, populations and sometimes even entire species go extinct. 

SAVE THE FROGS!
Chytrid Fungus


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

savethefrogs said:


> Goka's recent paper proved Weldon's Origin paper incorrect. Goka found chytrid in 1902 museum specimens, 36 years prior to Weldon's.


If the fungus has been spreading since at least 1902, how do you suppose that taking frogs away from the people who care most about them 100+ years after the fact will do anything to solve that problem? It is already widespread across the US, confiscating private collections will do nothing to help now. All you are doing is alienating the people that could be most helpful.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tony said:


> If the fungus has been spreading since at least 1902, how do you suppose that taking frogs away from the people who care most about them 100+ years after the fact will do anything to solve that problem? It is already widespread across the US, confiscating private collections will do nothing to help now. All you are doing is alienating the people that could be most helpful.


Tony,

Just to be clear here.. where did you get the information that private collections would be confiscated? 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

What are you going to do w/ them if your out to ban the amphibian trade? We all know it couldn`t be done(except Dr Kriger). Where did you get your information that they wouldn`t be confiscated?



Ed said:


> Tony,
> 
> Just to be clear here.. where did you get the information that private collections would be confiscated?
> 
> Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

savethefrogs said:


> I do agree with their conclusion that invasive species cause untold and irreparable damage to native US ecosystems, flora and fauna. That is quite clear.


Come on, don't be so shy. Why don't you tell everyone here what your agenda is, Dr. Kriger:



> Preventing disease spread into naive amphibian populations can only be accomplished by removing the source of the problem: the translocation of infected amphibians. Unlike zoos and laboratories, whose conservation services render the translocation of amphibians an occasional necessity, the amphibian pet and bait trades are for the large part disposable, that is, they are unnecessary, serving little benefit to society. Their nearly complete dismantling would benefit amphibian populations, not only by eliminating a primary source of disease transfer, but also by simultaneously reducing the over-harvesting of wild amphibian populations, which is largely unregulated in many parts of the world (Li and Wilcove, 2005; Schlaepfer et al., 2005). At a minimum, these trades should be restricted to local sales of captive-bred individuals.
> 
> Source: Chytridiomycosis, Amphibian Extinctions, and Lessons for the Prevention of Future Panzootics


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

savethefrogs said:


> I do agree with their conclusion that invasive species cause untold and irreparable damage to native US ecosystems, flora and fauna. That is quite clear.


Is there a single example of an invasive amphibian establishment that can be linked to the hobby? Xenopus and various ranids were introduced by the biomedical establishment. Eleutherodactylus and Cuban Treefrogs by the potted plant industry, Bullfrogs and wartyfrogs by food industries, and the one naturalization of a dendrobatid was done in the name of insect control- just like cane toads. 

I understand that we have to worry about transfer of the pathogen. I'm concerned too. But alienation of the one group of individuals that are supportive of amphibian conservation (meaning the Dendrohobby... did you think the guys who use salamanders as bait are really gonna care about what happens to frogs?) is reckless. 

Equally reckless is attacking a scientists 'agenda', when they are plainly working on a subject of great concern to all of us.

Cool heads must prevail in this conversation, or we all loose out on having amphibians in our lives- as pets or in the environment.

-Afemoralis


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> What are you going to do w/ them if your out to ban the amphibian trade? We all know it couldn`t be done(except Dr Kriger). Where did you get your information that they wouldn`t be confiscated?


From what the Federal Goverment (which is the ban under discussion) is allowed to enforce (it was already posted and subsequently discussed in post #133 and subsequent posts in thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...nes-upcoming-regulations-animal-trade-14.html ) http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/Injurious_Wildlife_Fact_Sheet_2007.pdf. 

Animals held in private collections are beyond the scope of the language in the petition and simple addition to the injurious wildlife provisions does not prohibit ownership within a state. For private collections to be confiscated it would require either the states to change thier laws to allow reasonable seizure or for congress to change the language in the Lacy Act. While some states are looking at restrictions (like New Mexico), none of those states are proposing confiscations of collections. 

*So I repeat it again, where are you (or Tony or anyone else) getting the information that private collections are going to be seized.* 

In addition *if passed* the change would only prohibit interstate transport of untested animals. The requirements for testing (and many other aspects) aren't even set as of yet as the comment period has not even opened. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tony said:


> If the fungus has been spreading since at least 1902, how do you suppose that taking frogs away from the people who care most about them 100+ years after the fact will do anything to solve that problem? It is already widespread across the US, confiscating private collections will do nothing to help now. All you are doing is alienating the people that could be most helpful.


Hi Tony,

The fungus does not appear to have been spreading since 1902. The evidence in the museum collections and the apparent lack of genetic variation in the strains showing up outside of Japan all point to a relatively recent genetic bottleneck (as it suddenly appeared outside of Asia back in the 1940s and 1950s and outside of Japan was not reported until recently). Check out the articles in this thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...nes-upcoming-regulations-animal-trade-14.html for a lot of the references. 

From what I hear there is some controvery over the Gota paper so it will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next couple of years. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Afemoralis said:


> Is there a single example of an invasive amphibian establishment that can be linked to the hobby? Xenopus and various ranids were introduced by the biomedical establishment. Eleutherodactylus and Cuban Treefrogs by the potted plant industry, Bullfrogs and wartyfrogs by food industries, and the one naturalization of a dendrobatid was done in the name of insect control- just like cane toads.


We actually do not know for sure that Xenopus were established due to the biomedical industry. Xenopus has a track record in the pet trade as long as it does in the biomedical industry.. 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Ed said:


> We actually do not know for sure that Xenopus were established due to the biomedical industry. Xenopus has a track record in the pet trade as long as it does in the biomedical industry..
> 
> Ed


Ed, it would be interesting, to me at least, if you could dig out the info that supports your assertion, "Xenopus has a track record in the pet trade as long as it does in the biomedical industry.."

Thanks!


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

> Even if this study is not directly related to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal, I believe this study will figure prominently in the discussions of the USF&WS proposal to follow.


So, whats it is? You seem to be paranoid that this study is set up to ban amphibians, which is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I`m not talking about the current law, I`m talking about Dr. Kriger`s agenda, which was told by this paper:
http://savethefrogs.com/kerry-kriger/pdfs/Kriger-2009-Future-Panzootics.pdf

Preventing disease spread into naive amphibian populations
can only be accomplished by removing the source of
the problem: the translocation of infected amphibians.
Unlike zoos and laboratories, whose conservation services
render the translocation of amphibians an occasional
necessity, the amphibian pet and bait trades are for the
large part disposable, that is, they are unnecessary, serving
little benefit to society. Their nearly complete dismantling
would benefit amphibian populations, not only by eliminating
a primary source of disease transfer, but also by
simultaneously reducing the over-harvesting of wild
amphibian populations, which is largely unregulated in
many parts of the world (Li and Wilcove, 2005; Schlaepfer
et al., 2005).
I guess I didn`t realize which thread I was in, this one or the ban or best practice thread. 



Ed said:


> From what the Federal Goverment (which is the ban under discussion) is allowed to enforce (it was already posted and subsequently discussed in post #133 and subsequent posts in thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...nes-upcoming-regulations-animal-trade-14.html ) http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/Injurious_Wildlife_Fact_Sheet_2007.pdf.
> 
> Animals held in private collections are beyond the scope of the language in the petition and simple addition to the injurious wildlife provisions does not prohibit ownership within a state. For private collections to be confiscated it would require either the states to change thier laws to allow reasonable seizure or for congress to change the language in the Lacy Act. While some states are looking at restrictions (like New Mexico), none of those states are proposing confiscations of collections.
> 
> ...


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Here's some info I found on the introduction of African Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis):



> Current Distribution: Feral populations of African clawed frogs outside their original distribution were first documented in the 1960's. They currently inhabit three of the world's five Mediterranean climate regions, including the Cape of Africa, Southern California, and Chile. In the United States, African clawed frog populations have been reported in 11 states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. There are also known populations in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Ascension Island.
> 
> Site and Date of Introduction: The African clawed frog was shipped around the world in the 1940's and 1950's for use in human pregnancy tests after it was discovered that female African clawed frogs begin laying eggs when injected with a pregnant women’s urine. To supply the high demand for African clawed frogs in pregnancy assays, techniques were developed to breed and rear large numbers of African clawed frogs in captivity. With the success of captive breeding techniques and because African clawed frogs are easy to care for and resistant to disease, a significant pet trade developed in the 1950's and 1960's. The African clawed frog is now the research vertebrate most widely used for developmental, cell and molecular biology.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Web Wheeler said:


> Ed, it would be interesting, to me at least, if you could dig out the info that supports your assertion, "Xenopus has a track record in the pet trade as long as it does in the biomedical industry.."
> 
> Thanks!


The references are in some old Innes tropical fish books which are packed away in my attic. If I remember correctly, there are also references in the early Tropical fish hobbyist magazine... but Wikipedia also comes to the rescue African clawed frog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

You realize your reference includes that it was also released from the pet trade without a time line, indicating that it was probably during the same period? 

Can you provide any references that it was not in the pet trade in that time frame? \\

As I said, with respect to Xenopus, there is no way to distinguish which party is actually responsible as the actual organizations that released the frogs are not documented to compare to those that disposed of them in other ways (such as selling them into the pet trade). 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Ed said:


> Can you provide any references that it was not in the pet trade in that time frame?


I thought I just did?



> Site and Date of Introduction: *The African clawed frog was shipped around the world in the 1940's and 1950's for use in human pregnancy tests after it was discovered that female African clawed frogs begin laying eggs when injected with a pregnant women’s urine.* To supply the high demand for African clawed frogs in pregnancy assays, techniques were developed to breed and rear large numbers of African clawed frogs in captivity. *With the success of captive breeding techniques and because African clawed frogs are easy to care for and resistant to disease, a significant pet trade developed in the 1950's and 1960's.* The African clawed frog is now the research vertebrate most widely used for developmental, cell and molecular biology.


Compare and contrast the dates in the above quote.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I`m not talking about the current law, I`m talking about Dr. Kriger`s agenda, which was told by this paper:
> http://savethefrogs.com/kerry-kriger/pdfs/Kriger-2009-Future-Panzootics.pdf
> 
> Preventing disease spread into naive amphibian populations
> ...


Gotcha.. 

Even with respect to this article, a best practices program results in little to no risk to the wild populations. If people engage in responsible disposable of unwanted animals, and materials as well as disinfect waste water then there is virtually no risk to wild populations. 

Simply put, disinfect waste water with bleach before discarding, double bag and properly dispose of all materials from an enclosure or enclosures (do not discard into the yard or compost) and do not release any animals. That pretty much moves the chance of thier being a problem to approaching zero. 

*IN reality*, a large segment of the more advanced hobby is not the greatest threat to native amphibians (particularly if they follow the practices listed above), instead it is the segments of the hobby that engage in headstarting and release of amphibians particularly if they house collections that are from mixed localities (native and/or non-native). This is where there is going to be a much greater risk of introduction of pathogens and parasites to the native populations. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Web Wheeler said:


> I thought I just did?
> 
> 
> 
> Compare and contrast the dates in the above quote.



When did the 1950s become two seperate and non-overlapping periods of time with respect to the pet trade and with the research holdings? It was in the pet trade in the 1950s, it was in the lab trade in the 1950s, it was released in the 1950s... there is no indication that any of the releases were not the result of the pet trade nor is there any way to tell which colonies were the result of releases by labs, the pet trade or both. 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Ed said:


> When did the 1950s become two seperate and non-overlapping periods of time with respect to the pet trade and with the research holdings? It was in the pet trade in the 1950s, it was in the lab trade in the 1950s, it was released in the 1950s... there is no indication that any of the releases were not the result of the pet trade nor is there any way to tell which colonies were the result of releases by labs, the pet trade or both.
> 
> Ed


I thought we were talking about the global distribution of the frog? As the quote I provided indicates, the African Clawed Frog was distributed globally during the 1940's and 1950's. The frog entered the pet trade during the 1950's and 1960's. That's a 10 year time frame during which the African Clawed Frog was in the biomedical industry that pre-dates its popularity as a pet.

Do you have any proof to the contrary, or are you just stating your opinion?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Honest mistake. 
I didn`t see any mention of a best practices in that article, only that fishing and pets didn`t serve any purpose and were disposable.


Ed said:


> Gotcha..
> 
> Even with respect to this article, a best practices program results in little to no risk to the wild populations. If people engage in responsible disposable of unwanted animals, and materials as well as disinfect waste water then there is virtually no risk to wild populations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Web Wheeler said:


> I thought we were talking about the global distribution of the frog? As the quote I provided indicates, the African Clawed Frog was distributed globally during the 1940's and 1950's. The frog entered the pet trade during the 1950's and 1960's. That's a 10 year time frame during which the African Clawed Frog was in the biomedical industry that pre-dates its popularity as a pet.
> 
> Do you have any proof to the contrary, or are you just stating your opinion?


Proof of what? 

There is no proof that the frog was released anywhere in the 1940s (even by your own citations)... Can you demonstrate otherwise? 

The frog was in the pet trade in the 1950s (and unless you can demostrate otherwise, it would have been in the European pet trade as well), it was used in the labs in the 1950s, 
the releases occured in the 1950s. Your own citation references the pet trade as a source of releases during the 1950s. 

Can you provide any reference to indicate the releases in the 1950s cannot have been part of the establishment of the frog? 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Honest mistake.
> I didn`t see any mention of a best practices in that article, only that fishing and pets didn`t serve any purpose and were disposable.


Hi Aaron,

there wasn't in that article, I was simply referencing it to show with a little effort how easy it would be to demonstrate the hobby is not a problem. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

But it says they were bred for research and then evolved into the pet trade, one spawned the other and you`d think that chytrid had been in country since the mid 40`s if most of the stock FOR the pet trade came from research.... Or are you saying that there were seperate imports for the pet trade. Even so, if research were importing for 10 years before the pet trade then my bet would be research at least brought it INTO the country.



Ed said:


> When did the 1950s become two seperate and non-overlapping periods of time with respect to the pet trade and with the research holdings? It was in the pet trade in the 1950s, it was in the lab trade in the 1950s, it was released in the 1950s... there is no indication that any of the releases were not the result of the pet trade nor is there any way to tell which colonies were the result of releases by labs, the pet trade or both.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ahh, Thanks Ed.


Ed said:


> Hi Aaron,
> 
> there wasn't in that article, I was simply referencing it to show with a little effort how easy it would be to demonstrate the hobby is not a problem.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> But it says they were bred for research and then evolved into the pet trade, one spawned the other and you`d think that chytrid had been in country since the mid 40`s if most of the stock FOR the pet trade came from research.... Or are you saying that there were seperate imports for the pet trade. Even so, if research were importing for 10 years before the pet trade then my bet would be research at least brought it INTO the country.


This was during the time period when animals were brought into the country with virtually no records (other than bills of lading/dealer's lists, if you can find any of them...). There are discussions in the fish books and magazines of that era of new killifish or other small fish being brought back to Europe or the US (again mainly Europe) by relatives in the merchant marines or from vacations. Aquarium plants (and other plants) were routinely sent through the mail with soil and other materials attached. 
The frogs were in the pet trade, and just like now, back then there was a demand for "new bloodlines"... and given the routine huge amounts of unregulated trafficing in fish and other animals, there is no documentation to indicate that all of the stocks were only from cb lab sources. 

The first documentation of chytrid in Xenopus was in an animal collected in 1938 with a low prevelance rate of infection (see http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/6265/1/6265_Weldon_et_al._2004.pdf) of 2.7%. One has to look at the absence of this pathogen in Xenopus in museum collections going back to 1879.... Now chytrid has been documented in amphibians in Japanese museum collections going back to 1902, the argument that Xenopus was the origin (which was already in strong doubt), has to be seriously reconsidered. 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

One could also make an argument that bullfrogs were the vector source (as they were being translocated and aquacultured by the 1920s in the US (JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie), in Cuba and China in the 1960s (http://ufwildlife.ifas.ufl.edu/pdfs/Liu-Biological Invasion-2008.pdf) and Brazil in the 1930s (Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies).. Italy in the 1930s.. http://www-leca.ujf-grenoble.fr/membres/fichiersPdf/miaud/miaudATT00009.pdf

And so forth..


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

In addition to human and host vectors, moist sand, migrating birds, international distribution of plants and produce, etc. can all spread the Chytrid Fungus infection. Here's a very good information resource on the Chytrid Fungus:

An Overview of Chytridiomycosis


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

Ed said:


> Tony,
> 
> Just to be clear here.. where did you get the information that private collections would be confiscated?
> 
> Ed


I don't have any specific indication, just following the logical progression of Dr. Kriger's ideas. If the amphibian trade is the source of chytrid, and amphibians in private collections inevitably spread chytrid to the native populations around them, then what happens to those private collections post-ban? I sincerely doubt that his plan stops at prohibiting interstate transport.


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

Ed said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> The fungus does not appear to have been spreading since 1902. The evidence in the museum collections and the apparent lack of genetic variation in the strains showing up outside of Japan all point to a relatively recent genetic bottleneck (as it suddenly appeared outside of Asia back in the 1940s and 1950s and outside of Japan was not reported until recently). Check out the articles in this thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...nes-upcoming-regulations-animal-trade-14.html for a lot of the references.
> 
> ...


I have read those, I was just going with Dr. Kriger's info for the sake of argument.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tony said:


> I don't have any specific indication, just following the logical progression of Dr. Kriger's ideas. If the amphibian trade is the source of chytrid, and amphibians in private collections inevitably spread chytrid to the native populations around them, then what happens to those private collections post-ban? I sincerely doubt that his plan stops at prohibiting interstate transport.


Given that any concerns can be resolved by simply following the practices I listed above also resolves the issue... 

However this is all very far off track from the OP. 

Ed


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

Ed said:


> Given that any concerns can be resolved by simply following the practices I listed above also resolves the issue...
> 
> However this is all very far off track from the OP.
> 
> Ed


I agree with you on "best practices" being a viable solution, or part of it, my concerns were directed at Dr. Kriger's apparent goal of dismantling the amphibian hobby.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tony said:


> I agree with you on "best practices" being a viable solution, or part of it, my concerns were directed at Dr. Kriger's apparent goal of dismantling the amphibian hobby.


Tony,

Science is an accumulation of data that allows for better interpretation and understanding of the prior collected data (and maybe even better explinations). This does not mean that it can't travel via weird little side paths based on the weight placed on certain items via personal interpretations by the author or authors of the paper, however if it is not supported by the overall research it will end up being discarded (or even disputed and/or refuted) for one reason or another.. 
Even some the of the best scientists change thier stand on positions that they have had for years based on new information (look at Steven Hawking and black holes for example). For some reason, there is a lot of people out there who think this discredits the entire research system which indicates a poor understanding of the entire system. Science is an accumulation of information... one does not toss out the entire collected data unless it can be shown to be in error in its entirety, if the entire section is not in error, then part in error gets refuted discarded. 

Ed


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

Ed,

I understand the scientific process, but the unfortunate reality is that government regulation is not based entirely on the scientific merit of collected data. The USGS large constrictor study was thoroughly discredited in the scientific community, but is still the driving force behind the various attempts at banning large snakes in private collections. It is far from guaranteed that discrediting Dr Kriger's assertion that the amphibian hobby must be dismantled to save wild frogs will prevent it from helping to drive related legislation.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tony said:


> Ed,
> 
> I understand the scientific process, but the unfortunate reality is that government regulation is not based entirely on the scientific merit of collected data. The USGS large constrictor study was thoroughly discredited in the scientific community, but is still the driving force behind the various attempts at banning large snakes in private collections. It is far from guaranteed that discrediting Dr Kriger's assertion that the amphibian hobby must be dismantled to save wild frogs will prevent it from helping to drive related legislation.


Hi Tony,

Lets be honest here.. the USGS study was not published or correctly reviewed before publishing, and the discrediting is being ignored by the special interest groups who have purchased (through support and donations) legislators to move thier agenda along. Unlike the constrictor issue, there are no sensationilized deaths of toddlers, etc caused by frogs that help to garner public support for the ban. Out of all of the amphibians, frogs have the greatest public support and that makes it not only a lot harder to ban but to take a position against thier ownership... (how many kids toys, pillows etc are frogs or toads....)

Ed


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

Ed said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> Lets be honest here.. the USGS study was not published or correctly reviewed before publishing, and the discrediting is being ignored by the special interest groups who have purchased (through support and donations) legislators to move thier agenda along.


No argument here, I agree 100%.




Ed said:


> Unlike the constrictor issue, there are no sensationilized deaths of toddlers, etc that help to garner public support for the ban. Out of all of the amphibians, frogs have the greatest public support and that makes it not only a lot harder to ban but to take a position against thier ownership... (how many kids toys, pillows etc are frogs or toads....)
> 
> Ed


You certainly have a good point there, but what harm does it do to address misinformation and actively work for the preservation of our hobby? I would prefer not to leave our future in the apathetic hands of the general public.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Tony said:


> You certainly have a good point there, but what harm does it do to address misinformation and actively work for the preservation of our hobby? I would prefer not to leave our future in the apathetic hands of the general public.


None, but which has a better effect on addressing the issue? Asking what will be done with all of the captive animals if confiscation occurs or simply saying that instituting an education and best practices situation of proper disinfection of waste water and disposal of enclosure materials results in virtually no risk? These could even be mandated as methods for importers exporters (waste water is collected in a large pvc sump (like a large water tank) and then disinfected when x number of gallons are collected.... 

Statements like "little or no benefit" can be addressed by a letter to the editor of the publishing organization provided it is written in a professional manner. This not only draws attention to the issue but will also serve to document the controversy over the point. 

One of the things that really concerns me is that the continual beating of the fear drum (animal confiscations, banning of ownership) will end up desensitizing people to the issue... instead addressing the problem in other ways will keep the people from becoming desensitized while allowing the issue to be challenged... 

Ed


----------



## Tony (Oct 13, 2008)

Fair points, and I would certainly support efforts toward education and the institution of best practices.


----------

