# Wild Caught vs Captive Bred and Conservation Efforts



## Dendrobatid

This is just a personal observation of the posts I have seen on here. I'm relatively new to this board and don't mean to stir things up. These are just genuine personal observations. To let you know quickly where I'm coming from. I have worked in the pet trade for over 30 years. I have worked as a professional Herpetologist for over 15 years. I have an advanced degree from SUNY ESF in Environmental Forest Biology. 
I honestly am not trying to upset anyone on here. I have noticed that there are individuals on here that are very intelligent and have a very good grasp on Conservation Biology, far better than myself. 
My question is that it seems that there are a lot of effort and discussions on here in regard to trying to keep frogs pure from a geographic standpoint. I have some questions about this.

1. Do people on here feel qualified to know 100% where individual frogs were collected?
2. Do we understand that these frogs, regardless of where they come from are the same species? (_D. tinctorius_)
3. Do we understand that the chances of our Captive Bred specimens being used for a reintroduction program are very remote?
4. Wouldn't in make more sense to spend effort in not allowing Wild Caught specimens into the hobby?
5. Maybe put more effort into habitat preservation? 

I could go on but will stop there. Admittedly this post in more for the newbies on here and not for the seasoned hobbyist. I'm aware that there are individuals on here that do a great deal for amphibian conservation. I would love honest, genuine feedback. Please if you can refrain from bashing people for just posting their opinions, that would be great!!

Sir Isaac Newton wrote, "If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants"

Thank again for your kindness and consideration.

Jim Giacobbe


----------



## EricIvins

The commercial trade in Wildlife is not a bad thing. Sustainable Harvest is a very real concept, and works incredibly well.......

Long story short - It allows people in this Country, as well as others to have a means of employment without having to resort to destroying the environment to so.......

Many "Conservation" projects are funded by Permits/Tags/and other "Commercialization" practices......It isn't a perfect Science, and it can be taken advantage of, but it is proven to work........

I'd rather pay someone to catch or Farm Frogs sustainably, then have those same People resort to slash and burn Agriculture to feed their families......One keeps a Frog population and habitat intact, the other.....ummmmm......doesn't.......

That is the cliffnotes version of a 200 page Thesis you can write on the subject......


----------



## EvilLost

I have to say reading many of the posts on really most special animal it comes up the same way. Chameleons are even worse than frogs for being kept "pure" bloodlines. On the other hand, Green Tree Pythons are quite readily bred across locales.

As for your questions..

1. Don't think anyone can really say that unless the frogs can distinctly be told apart. I am not familiar enough with darts, but amongst chameleons and GTPs diff locales can generally, but not always, be distinguished.

2. Of course. I think the point here is not that they are the same species. The issue is that many hobbyists who wish to breed need to know what genetics they have. If you start crossbreeding animals left and right, it will become much more difficult to determine your animals genetics. On the other hand, the Ball Python and Gecko trades don't seem to have been slowed down by this intermixing at all...

3. I think some people are a little dillusion on this one. There is very little to no chance of our specimens being used I agree with you 100%.

4. Again, I agree with you 100% and refuse to buy WC myself. The *ONLY* time I believe that WC specimens are acceptable is when the trade itself is new. However, PDFs are so prevalent that there simply is NO reason to buy a WC animal at this point....there are so many high quality breeders around.

5. Again, agreed 100%.

Overall, I have to say that I agree with you (and prob disagree with most) on the approach to our hobby (and I refer to that in terms of exotics in general not just frogs). 

The only point that I do strongly agree with is #2. I do feel that locales SHOULD be kept separate in breeding projects/etc to keep the gene pool controllable. Perhaps in the future when we have a much stronger control of genes, this point will become moot; however in today's age our best knowledge of an animals genetics comes from knowing its parents, and crossbreeding can mix that up real fast.. (although the BP and gecko trade always spit in the face of my argument, i think it is because these animals are much easier to care for and so the unwanted non-designer animals are far easier to pawn off onto pet shops and impulse buyers)

just my 2 cents


----------



## Woodsman

The wild-collecting of frogs and all other wildlife does have a negative impact on wild populations. This is true because we have absolutely NO scientific data suggesting what a "sustainable" number of animals collected would be. In addition to habitat loss and diseases such as chytridomycosis, the IUCN Red List almost always lists collection for the pet trade as a major reason for animals becoming endangered.

We can spin all the fantasies we want about how there are uncountable numbers of O. pumilio and other frogs in the wild. People used to say such things about O. lehmani and other species that are currently on the brink of extinction.

Whatever gene it is that is defective in us "collectors", I'm not sure, but it certainly allows us to delude ourselves into believing that collecting animals from the wide (and the incredible suffering this system creates) is perfectly fine and correct. I don't have wild-collected animals in my collection and I would hope that a few others in the hobby might take this "pledge" not to own wild frogs as well.

There are plenty of awesome frogs in the hobby right now. There is no need to continue in this archaic and nasty form of animal abuse.

Just my opinion, of course. Richard.


----------



## EvilLost

EricIvins said:


> I'd rather pay someone to catch or Farm Frogs sustainably, then have those same People resort to slash and burn Agriculture to feed their families......
> 
> .


Have to say I disagree with you on this one Eric. Why does it have to be one or the other? In my opinion, "catching frogs" (meaning from the wild) is only slightly better than slashing down trees...you are just destroying a different part of the environment. Now, farming frogs...diff story and I agree with you there.

I just want to point out that "catching frogs" belongs more with "slash and burn" rather than with the "farming frogs"


----------



## stemcellular

Good post and something that needs to be discussed much more frequently. I am, personally, of the belief that sustainable harvesting/farming of amphibians can be a good thing if properly regulated and/or managed. Understory is an amazing example of a business model that works for everyone involved. Devon's project in Madagascar is another potential model. However, as a hobby, I think we do very poorly when it comes to managing the frogs that we (a) do have already available and (b) managing those that do come in. Look at all the Panamanian species that have come in over the last couple of years, esp. pumilio and auratus. How many remain or have produced F1 offspring that are being tracked and properly managed? If what I've been hearing is true about Panama closing for good in the very near future, we may find ourselves struggling to maintain some of the more common species in captivity.

Now having said that, keeping species in captivity does not automatically equate to conservation. You can maintain, breed and distribute species, but in the end, there is pretty much a zero chance that they will be used in any sort of reintroduction effort. However, indirectly, I think captive management of dendrobatids and other amphibian species can play a major role in conservation efforts. 

Just take one example....if you were to purchase and breed one species of amphibian (Mantella aurantiaca, for example) and sell the offspring for $60 dollars with the stipulation that 20% of profits be used to support Mantella conservation efforts, well, that is the hobby indirectly supporting conservation. 

Anyway, I'll leave it up to others to continue... Ed, this is your prompt...


----------



## EricIvins

EvilLost said:


> Have to say I disagree with you on this one Eric. Why does it have to be one or the other? In my opinion, "catching frogs" (meaning from the wild) is only slightly better than slashing down trees...you are just destroying a different part of the environment. Now, farming frogs...diff story and I agree with you there.
> 
> I just want to point out that "catching frogs" belongs more with "slash and burn" rather than with the "farming frogs"


You still have to "catch" Frogs to "farm" Frogs.......In order for it to be viable, you still need to bring in X amount of wild Frogs for the "farming" process to work.....


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Ray,

Ed is at the Longwood Orchid Show today (lucky bastard!), so we'll have to wait to have the "adult" perspective on the topic. I know I'm way too emotional about how I feel here.

I do agree that it is important to separate "in country" projects like Understory from the wholesale collection of species directly from the wild. I think some people believe these imports are collected carefully, species by species. The reality is that the entire habitat is collected en masse, as many different animals are collected all at once and the collected animals often stored in unimaginable conditions. So, how the imports are conducted is a critical part of the equation.

Take care for now, Richard.



stemcellular said:


> Good post and something that needs to be discussed much more frequently. I am, personally, of the belief that sustainable harvesting/farming of amphibians can be a good thing if properly regulated and/or managed. Understory is an amazing example of a business model that works for everyone involved. Devon's project in Madagascar is another potential model. However, as a hobby, I think we do very poorly when it comes to managing the frogs that we (a) do have already available and (b) managing those that do come in. Look at all the Panamanian species that have come in over the last couple of years, esp. pumilio and auratus. How many remain or have produced F1 offspring that are being tracked and properly managed? If what I've been hearing is true about Panama closing for good in the very near future, we may find ourselves struggling to maintain some of the more common species in captivity.
> 
> Now having said that, keeping species in captivity does not automatically equate to conservation. You can maintain, breed and distribute species, but in the end, there is pretty much a zero chance that they will be used in any sort of reintroduction effort. However, indirectly, I think captive management of dendrobatids and other amphibian species can play a major role in conservation efforts.
> 
> Just take one example....if you were to purchase and breed one species of amphibian (Mantella aurantiaca, for example) and sell the offspring for $60 dollars with the stipulation that 20% of profits be used to support Mantella conservation efforts, well, that is the hobby indirectly supporting conservation.
> 
> Anyway, I'll leave it up to others to continue... Ed, this is your prompt...


----------



## Pumilo

If some properly controlled/managed sustainable harvest is not allowed, then smuggling *will* occur. When smuggling occurs, there is generally a lot of frog deaths associated with it.


----------



## Reptile Bob

Wild collecting of frogs, if done responsibly, is better for the hobby and for the wild populations IMO. One can look to reef fish for examples of good and bad collection practices. In the better scenarios, native people gain an appreciation for the economic benefits of a sustainable environmental policy. Because there is no other way to save wild habitat then to convince native people that it is in their best interests. Since no one is going to pay these people to not collect forest or do slash & burn agriculture, eco tourism and sustainable collection is the best bet. Yes it does some damage, but its better then losing everything. 

As for the frog hobby, new species and varieties help keep excitement and interest and fresh bloodlines keep existing populations genetically diverse (for people more knowledgeable then me to decide what to breed with what).

The key is that 90% or more of the frogs need to be captive bred and the remaining collected frogs need to be taken in a sustainable way.


----------



## MonarchzMan

Woodsman said:


> We can spin all the fantasies we want about how there are uncountable numbers of O. pumilio and other frogs in the wild. People used to say such things about O. lehmani and other species that are currently on the brink of extinction.


Oh? I'm working on a chapter in my thesis that estimates population sizes of some of the pumilio populations. It's actually not that difficult, just a lot of work.

I think that there really is two separate issues that the OP brings up and they're not mutually exclusive. There's the concept of breeding population specific frogs and not mixing stuff up. And then there is the concept of captive breeding to reduce demand of wild caughts. I don't think that to have one you can't have the other. I don't even think that the breeding locales and no cross breeding really slows the ability to CB and reduce the demand for wild caughts. Look at how many frogs a single pair can produce.

I do think that frogs can sustainably be harvested, but they really should be strongly regulated, especially with species like pumilio or tinctorius that have phenotypically distinct populations. Current standards can wipe out a population without much trouble at all. That all said, I still think that CB should be the focus of everyone.


----------



## mantisdragon91

People in thirld word countries will slash and burn most land for agriculture, unless it can be shown that more value can be obtained from the land via "eco-tourism" or sustainable harvesting of local wildlife. No matter how beatiful and unique the frogs are to us, to the locals they are no more exotic than squirrels and oppossums are in our world. And the question you have to ask yourself is how much land would we dedicate to squirrel and possum preservation?

If the frogs have no commercial value than they are useless to the local population and their land will be used for other purposes. It really is as simple as that.


----------



## skylsdale

Pumilo said:


> If some properly controlled/managed sustainable harvest is not allowed, then smuggling *will* occur. When smuggling occurs, there is generally a lot of frog deaths associated with it.


Currently, "controlled/managed" harvest is allowed and smuggling *already *occurs. If you compare the number of frog deaths to smugglers with those of wholesale collection...I'm not sure smuggling would seem to be the "bad guy" in the situation. This is not advocating smuggling in any way, simply saying that we need to look at all of the facts and variables involved in the situation. 

I personally don't believe the answer is as black/white or polarized as conversations like this often make it out to be--I think the issue is more complex and nuanced than that. However, I'm not yet convinced that the healthiest/most sustainable model even exists at this point. We could be arguing over whether or not A or B are the correct answers...when it's actually G, but nobody has yet implemented answer G into the market or situation.




stemcellular said:


> However, as a hobby, I think we do very poorly when it comes to managing the frogs that we (a) do have already available and (b) managing those that do come in. Look at all the Panamanian species that have come in over the last couple of years, esp. pumilio and auratus. How many remain or have produced F1 offspring that are being tracked and properly managed? If what I've been hearing is true about Panama closing for good in the very near future, we may find ourselves struggling to maintain some of the more common species in captivity.


Agreed. The trend seems to be that people rail and preach about how unobtainable species X should be collected, legalized, managed, etc...meanwhile species A-H (which we already have available to us in the hobby) fall through the cracks.


----------



## EricIvins

> Currently, "controlled/managed" harvest is allowed and smuggling already occurs.


In regards to what? Surinam, Panama, Brazil? Tinctorious/Pumilio/what?


----------



## poison beauties

Its really simple, the issues on why so many frogs are brought in are our own fault. If we as a hobby better tacked and managed what is here we would not have such a high demand for animals that are regularly imported. Every time you pull a frog out of the wild there is a consequence so maybe we should make sure its done for the one reason that would benefit everything and that is to mark it as new blood and manage it as so. 

You may not think its a big deal right now but look at Standard Lamasi, for a thumb species that does breed well in captivity we sure have stripped them clean from the wild and yet there are only enough known lines in the hobby to count off on one hand, why is that?

If you think regular imports of anything is needed than you do not see the big picture. We do have the numbers as far as hobbyists go and the capabilities to manage it all and keep known lines and locales from being lost or inbred for no reason. You cant blame it all on the smugglers, you cant blame it all on EU, we bring them in by the hundreds and thousands too.

How many frogs of one locale do you really think it takes to setup a sustainable population to where we can indefinitely breed and track them without going into F2, F3 and so on because it is possible. If you can properly care for your frogs and breed them regularly I see no reason to move onto the next generation for at least ten years of course if you didn't buy all your breeding stock from one line or one person it wouldn't matter as you could offer unrelated frogs to all who wanted them. This is the issue.

All I hear about is whats coming in next and what is too high priced or too hard to keep, why not talk about why they are not better managed. Do we really need to bring in other locales/ morphs or species when we cant get it right with whats here?

Michael


----------



## NathanB

Most of the frogs in the hobby are treated more like baseball cards than animals. Much less like animals in need of conservation. People just want the 'best' ones. While it pretends to be better than all the other herp hobbys and conservation based. Until that changes I dont see how anyone can expect the greater hobby to successfully manage animals. It will still come down to a small percent of dedicated individuals, like it is now.


----------



## poison beauties

It only takes a few to set a trend, This is a teaching hobby and if more of the experienced put the time in to explain it and lead by example it could get going.

The frogs are traded out like Baseball Cards but they multiply quickly and that is where the issue is. You cant just sell it as Imitator. People need to know how far down from the original imported line it is and if there are unrelated out there. As for now you will never know with alot of whats here.

Michael


----------



## skylsdale

EricIvins said:


> In regards to what? Surinam, Panama, Brazil? Tinctorious/Pumilio/what?


In regard to everything. Quotas are set for collection and export, collection happens, shipments, are checked...there are protocols for the entire process currently in place and massive numbers of different amphibian species are made available to hobbyists in a variety of countries. A 'closing of the doors' to collection and export won't necessarily incite smuggling, because it's already happening when the doors of collection and export are open. I believe Dendrobates auratus is one of the most commonly smuggled and confiscated frog species from Panamanian ex/imports, and it is even legal for collection, etc. (Ed can clarify this at some point if I'm incorrect).


----------



## Ed

Dang Jim, you couldn't have waited another week or so.. 

This is part one.. part two was going to address what hobbyists can do to actually support conservation.... 

Part One (note this is part one..) 

When does captive breeding become conservation? 

 Captive breeding and conservation are two intertwined but not necessarily linked topics. It is possible to have conservation that does not involve captive breeding just as it is possible to have captive breeding that does not have anything to do with conservation. A number of dialogs have demonstrated that a review is in order to resolve some of the misconceptions about the interconnection two issues. 
 Conservation can be broadly defined as “The artificial control of ecological relationships in an environment in order to maintain a particular balance among the species present” (Allabay). This definition covers the use of strict preservation policies (legal protection of ecosystems and/or animals) to sustainable use of ecosystems and/or animal and provides the direction for examining the role of captive breeding in conservation. 
 Captive breeding as a method of preserving species in captivity for release into the wild was a program that was embraced by institutions such as Zoos and Aquaria starting back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is known as the “Ark Paradigm”, and was the model used by zoos for several decades (Lee, Wilcken). Many hobbyists that work with breeding animals in home collections harbor the hopes that their animals could be either used in programs of this type. The reason(s) that these animals are usually unsuitable for these programs needs to be discussed as it plays a direct role in conservation. 
 The first major hurdle about using animals that have been captive bred by hobbyists is that the populations have not been managed for genetic diversity. This has more meaning than just the commonly assumed issue of inbreed animals but also includes genetic adaptation to captivity, and outbreeding depression. Of the three of these, genetic adaptation to captivity is probably the greatest contribution for failure of captive bred animals to not only survive post release but those that do survive and reproduce can reduce the fitness of the wild population as well (Frankham, 2008; Reisenbicheler et al). Genetic adaptation to captivity occurs when rare genetic variations and/or mutations that are not deleterious to survival in captivity accumulate in the population. These genetic changes can occur within a very short time in captivity as those animals that are predisposed to life in captivity not only tend to produce the greatest number of offspring, but the offspring that are best adapted to captivity also survive. As the number of generations in captivity increases so does the adaptations. Over time as the adaptations accumulate they may actually change the genetics of the captive population sufficiently to bring us to the second and third hurdles. The best way this can be controlled for animals destined to be released into the wild, is by minimizing the number of generations in captivity. 
 The second major hurdle is inbreeding depression, where the genetic makeup of the population becomes restricted enough that the population is no longer viable. Not only can inbreeding depression result in a lowered reproductive success but it has also been shown to reduce disease resistance, and/or ability to adapt to changes in their environment. For a long time, there was a lot of speculation within the hobby that anurans may not be as susceptible to inbreeding depression as other vertebrates, however this has since been shown to not be the case as more and more examples are being discovered across genera of frogs and toads (Anderson et al; Hitchings et al). As over generations, more and more related animals are interbred, the greater the probability that genetic diversity is lost and the greater risk that the population will not be viable in the long term. 
The third hurdle is outbreeding depression, which occurs when reproduction between different populations of an animal result in poor survivorship of offspring. Normally outbreeding depression in captive animals is most at risk from the interbreeding of two animals from separate populations, particularly when the species involved is not highly mobile. This is due to the differences in genetics from adaptation to the local environment(s). Issues from outbreeding can occur as soon as one generation after the breeding or as long as five generations after the initial reproductive event. Captive populations that have been bred for multiple generations are also at risk of outbreeding depression as this can result in significant variation from wild populations. 
The fourth hurdle relates to the boom and bust cycles that have been seen with the captive populations. These cycles result in the buildup and collapse of the populations in captivity as the populations are not being managed for genetic diversity prior to a collapse, this means that there is a significant probability that genetic diversity is lost in each cycle which will contribute to one or more of the first three hurdles. 
These hurdles can be overcome by proper tracking and management of the current population(s) as this enables the hobby to look to prevent inbreeding and outbreeding depression while genetic adaptation to can be minimized by knowing the generation of the frog’s in question. Now some will view this as an excuse to acquire new animals from the wild populations, with the idea that those animals would then be more acceptable. Unfortunately, this to date has not been the case as those animals and their offspring are not tracked for long-term sustainability in captivity. There have been several attempts to date to allow the hobby to track relatedness and how a population of frogs is faring in the hobby, and unfortunately all of them have issues due to a lack of participation and insufficient support from the hobby at large. 
So to this point we can readily demonstrate that frogs that have been captive bred in the hobby are not suitable for programs that can result in the release of the animals. As these animals are not being used for the” artificial control of ecological relationships in an environment in order to maintain a particular balance among the species present” we cannot actually claim that this is meets the defintion of conservation. Part two will address some more issues including what the hobby can actually do to help conservation.
Allaby, Michael; 1992; The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology; Oxford University Press, New York
Anderson, Lisolette W.; Fog, Kare; Damgaard, Christian; 2004; Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European treefrog (_Hyla arborea_); Proc. R. Soc. Lond 271: 1293-1302
Edmands, Suzanne; 2007; Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation management; Molecular Ecology 16: 463-475
Ficetola, Gentile Francesco; De Bernardi, Fiorenza; 2005; Supplementation or _in situ_ conservation? Evidence of local adaptation in the Italian agile frog _Rana latastei_ and consequences for the management of populations; Animal Conservation 8: 33-40
Fox, Charles W.; Sheibly, Kristy L.; Reed, David H.; 2008; Experimental evolution of the genetic load and its implications for the genetic basis of inbreeding depression; Evolution 62 (2): 2236-2249 
Frankham, Richard; 2005; Stress and adaption in conservation genetics; J. Evol Biology 18: 750-755
Frankham, Richard; 2008; Genetic adaption to captivity in species conservation programs; Molecular Ecology 17: 325-333
Hitchings, Susan P.; Beebee, Trevor J. C.; 1997; Genetic substructuring as a result of barriers to gene flow in urban _Rana temporaria_ (common frog) populations: implications for biodiversity conservation; Heredity 79: 117-127
Hitchings, S. P. and T. J C. Beebee. 1998. Loss of genetic diversity and fitness in Common Toad (Bufo bufo) populations isolated by inimical habitat. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 11:269–283
Hutton, Jon; Dickson, Barney; 2001; Conservation out of exploitation: a silk purse from a sow’s ear?; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York
 Lees, C. M.; Wilcken, J.; 2009; Sustaining the ark: the challenge faced by zoos in maintaining viable populations; International Zoo Yearbook 43: 6-18
Pearman, Peter B.; Garner, Trenton W. J.; 2005; Susceptibility of Italian agile frog populations to an emerging strain of Ranavirus parallels population genetic diversity; Ecology Letters 8: 401-408
Reisenbichler, R. R.; Rubin, S. P.; 1999; Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations; Journal of Marine Science 56: 459-466
Sagvik, Jörgen; Uller, Tobias, Olsson, Mats; 2005; Outbreeding depression in the common frog, _Rana temporaria_; Conservation Genetics 6: 205-211


----------



## Ed

Part two is going to take a few days for me to make a good first pass at it since I just finished the first past of part one posted above.... 

Ed


----------



## Woodsman

BAM!! That's what I'm talkin about!



Ed said:


> Dang Jim, you couldn't have waited another week or so..
> 
> This is part one.. part two was going to address what hobbyists can do to actually support conservation....
> 
> Part One (note this is part one..)
> 
> When does captive breeding become conservation?
> 
> Captive breeding and conservation are two intertwined but not necessarily linked topics. It is possible to have conservation that does not involve captive breeding just as it is possible to have captive breeding that does not have anything to do with conservation. A number of dialogs have demonstrated that a review is in order to resolve some of the misconceptions about the interconnection two issues.
> Conservation can be broadly defined as “The artificial control of ecological relationships in an environment in order to maintain a particular balance among the species present” (Allabay). This definition covers the use of strict preservation policies (legal protection of ecosystems and/or animals) to sustainable use of ecosystems and/or animal and provides the direction for examining the role of captive breeding in conservation.
> Captive breeding as a method of preserving species in captivity for release into the wild was a program that was embraced by institutions such as Zoos and Aquaria starting back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is known as the “Ark Paradigm”, and was the model used by zoos for several decades (Lee, Wilcken). Many hobbyists that work with breeding animals in home collections harbor the hopes that their animals could be either used in programs of this type. The reason(s) that these animals are usually unsuitable for these programs needs to be discussed as it plays a direct role in conservation.
> The first major hurdle about using animals that have been captive bred by hobbyists is that the populations have not been managed for genetic diversity. This has more meaning than just the commonly assumed issue of inbreed animals but also includes genetic adaptation to captivity, and outbreeding depression. Of the three of these, genetic adaptation to captivity is probably the greatest contribution for failure of captive bred animals to not only survive post release but those that do survive and reproduce can reduce the fitness of the wild population as well (Frankham, 2008; Reisenbicheler et al). Genetic adaptation to captivity occurs when rare genetic variations and/or mutations that are not deleterious to survival in captivity accumulate in the population. These genetic changes can occur within a very short time in captivity as those animals that are predisposed to life in captivity not only tend to produce the greatest number of offspring, but the offspring that are best adapted to captivity also survive. As the number of generations in captivity increases so does the adaptations. Over time as the adaptations accumulate they may actually change the genetics of the captive population sufficiently to bring us to the second and third hurdles. The best way this can be controlled for animals destined to be released into the wild, is by minimizing the number of generations in captivity.
> The second major hurdle is inbreeding depression, where the genetic makeup of the population becomes restricted enough that the population is no longer viable. Not only can inbreeding depression result in a lowered reproductive success but it has also been shown to reduce disease resistance, and/or ability to adapt to changes in their environment. For a long time, there was a lot of speculation within the hobby that anurans may not be as susceptible to inbreeding depression as other vertebrates, however this has since been shown to not be the case as more and more examples are being discovered across genera of frogs and toads (Anderson et al; Hitchings et al). As over generations, more and more related animals are interbred, the greater the probability that genetic diversity is lost and the greater risk that the population will not be viable in the long term.
> The third hurdle is outbreeding depression, which occurs when reproduction between different populations of an animal result in poor survivorship of offspring. Normally outbreeding depression in captive animals is most at risk from the interbreeding of two animals from separate populations, particularly when the species involved is not highly mobile. This is due to the differences in genetics from adaptation to the local environment(s). Issues from outbreeding can occur as soon as one generation after the breeding or as long as five generations after the initial reproductive event. Captive populations that have been bred for multiple generations are also at risk of outbreeding depression as this can result in significant variation from wild populations.
> The fourth hurdle relates to the boom and bust cycles that have been seen with the captive populations. These cycles result in the buildup and collapse of the populations in captivity as the populations are not being managed for genetic diversity prior to a collapse, this means that there is a significant probability that genetic diversity is lost in each cycle which will contribute to one or more of the first three hurdles.
> These hurdles can be overcome by proper tracking and management of the current population(s) as this enables the hobby to look to prevent inbreeding and outbreeding depression while genetic adaptation to can be minimized by knowing the generation of the frog’s in question. Now some will view this as an excuse to acquire new animals from the wild populations, with the idea that those animals would then be more acceptable. Unfortunately, this to date has not been the case as those animals and their offspring are not tracked for long-term sustainability in captivity. There have been several attempts to date to allow the hobby to track relatedness and how a population of frogs is faring in the hobby, and unfortunately all of them have issues due to a lack of participation and insufficient support from the hobby at large.
> So to this point we can readily demonstrate that frogs that have been captive bred in the hobby are not suitable for programs that can result in the release of the animals. As these animals are not being used for the” artificial control of ecological relationships in an environment in order to maintain a particular balance among the species present” we cannot actually claim that this is meets the defintion of conservation. Part two will address some more issues including what the hobby can actually do to help conservation.
> Allaby, Michael; 1992; The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology; Oxford University Press, New York
> Anderson, Lisolette W.; Fog, Kare; Damgaard, Christian; 2004; Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European treefrog (_Hyla arborea_); Proc. R. Soc. Lond 271: 1293-1302
> Edmands, Suzanne; 2007; Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation management; Molecular Ecology 16: 463-475
> Ficetola, Gentile Francesco; De Bernardi, Fiorenza; 2005; Supplementation or _in situ_ conservation? Evidence of local adaptation in the Italian agile frog _Rana latastei_ and consequences for the management of populations; Animal Conservation 8: 33-40
> Fox, Charles W.; Sheibly, Kristy L.; Reed, David H.; 2008; Experimental evolution of the genetic load and its implications for the genetic basis of inbreeding depression; Evolution 62 (2): 2236-2249
> Frankham, Richard; 2005; Stress and adaption in conservation genetics; J. Evol Biology 18: 750-755
> Frankham, Richard; 2008; Genetic adaption to captivity in species conservation programs; Molecular Ecology 17: 325-333
> Hitchings, Susan P.; Beebee, Trevor J. C.; 1997; Genetic substructuring as a result of barriers to gene flow in urban _Rana temporaria_ (common frog) populations: implications for biodiversity conservation; Heredity 79: 117-127
> Hitchings, S. P. and T. J C. Beebee. 1998. Loss of genetic diversity and fitness in Common Toad (Bufo bufo) populations isolated by inimical habitat. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 11:269–283
> Hutton, Jon; Dickson, Barney; 2001; Conservation out of exploitation: a silk purse from a sow’s ear?; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York
> Lees, C. M.; Wilcken, J.; 2009; Sustaining the ark: the challenge faced by zoos in maintaining viable populations; International Zoo Yearbook 43: 6-18
> Pearman, Peter B.; Garner, Trenton W. J.; 2005; Susceptibility of Italian agile frog populations to an emerging strain of Ranavirus parallels population genetic diversity; Ecology Letters 8: 401-408
> Reisenbichler, R. R.; Rubin, S. P.; 1999; Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations; Journal of Marine Science 56: 459-466
> Sagvik, Jörgen; Uller, Tobias, Olsson, Mats; 2005; Outbreeding depression in the common frog, _Rana temporaria_; Conservation Genetics 6: 205-211


----------



## Roadrunner

So supplying frogs from cb instead of from the wild isn't conserving certain groups in the wild? 
Even if they aren't tracked, pets are still coming from cb sources instead of the wild. Even if small wc groups are needed to sustain the population from time to time, they still aren't coming from the wild 100% as pets.
We simply can not control the import of wc frogs. That is what leads to the boom and bust of some animals. When they are sold for less than cb can be sold at and people lie about where they came from, people stop breeding said frogs and then we scramble to keep them around when the import stops. Without stability we can't really do anything about it. Hobbyists aren't around long enough to keep a stable collection and business can't stay in business if they keep the same stable collection, not that they'd be able to keep enough genetic diversity regardless.

My thoughts are that they'd be around even after they've disappeared in the wild for people to see what we've lost to possibly hit home about conservation. It just seems like too big of a task w/out organization and dedication. The customers would have to demand the info to get everyone on board and we can't even agree about mixing and the like let alone registration. 

Any thoughts on how to implement this to do "real conservation"?

And doesn't conserving lands need a stable government and land stewards to have any effect?


----------



## Ed

Aaron, 
if that is in response to what I posted then.. as noted will be in part 2 (or maybe part 3 if part 2 gets too long).. note that was part 1...


----------



## Roadrunner

Gotcha, thanks.


Ed said:


> Aaron,
> if that is in response to what I posted then.. as noted will be in part 2 (or maybe part 3 if part 2 gets too long).. note that was part 1...


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> Gotcha, thanks.


I want to get it all summarized and in one spot. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

Kewl, part 1 sounds just like I always preach that keeping the frogs alive as long as possible is one of the most important things. I personally see no way to keep frogs from adapting to captivity but I'll be waiting for the next installments. If wc genes don't play into doing well in captivity, they simply won't do well or breed. If frogs have to be always diving for cover and don't do well w/ large mammals around they simply don't make it. Look at Lucy? and the poachers when she was let back out. 

I understand if you don't want to discuss it, I can wait for future installments.
Thanks.



Ed said:


> I want to get it all summarized and in one spot.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Dendrobatid

Dang Jim, you couldn't have waited another week or so.. 

This is part one.. part two was going to address what hobbyists can do to actually support conservation.... 

Part One (note this is part one..) 


Wow! Great Work Ed.

Thanks for the post.

Jim


----------



## edwardsatc

Nice work Ed. I'm looking forward to future installments!

**Off topic**

Anyone else get tired of posts quietly being removed on this forum? At least two have disappeared from this thread alone.


----------



## Roadrunner

Ya, what the heck happened to my posts?

Never mind I think that was the only one I posted


----------



## ryangreenway

*Disclaimer* These are just the thoughts of a high school senior, so take them as you may.

I've always thought that one of the best possible ways for frogs to avoid, or at least lessen, the impact of demand swings is for individual hobbyists to dedicate themselves to one or two species/locales. I think it should be the duty of every truly dedicated hobbyist to do this. I'm not saying they should focus solely on this/these species, just that they should set aside more room and time to focus on breeding and maintaining said species. This might at least help in the CB side of things, by lessening the desire for more WC frogs to be brought in once we "run out" of said species in the hobby. 

This concept could perhaps be applied in a conservation sense as well, almost like a miniature Understory Enterprises. When frogs are imported hobbyists could acquire 2-3 pairs of these WC frogs and continue to breed them, ignoring market swings. Then if that population started to fail in the wild the F1 generations from these pairs might be able to be used to bolster these populations, seeing as they'd have the least genetic change. Isn't this similar to what zoos and conservations projects do? Or am I completely wrong?


----------



## Ed

Part 2 When does captive breeding become conservation 

The second portion of this discussion revolves around the idea that the commercialization of captive breeding is a form of conservation. This idea is a variation on the “ark paradigm” has a wide appeal as many people like the idea that by producing and rearing animals for their own enjoyment they are acting to preserve the animals in the wild. On the surface this seems like a plausible concept but each case needs to be evaluated individually at to see if it actually does support conservation. In part one I established a definition for conservation which I will continue to use for the rest of this essay. 

The first model is that the massive amount of captive breeding by the hobby will reduce demand for wild caught animals. This is a logical conclusion but ignores a host of factors that place conditions on the idea. The first hurdle is that the captive bred animals need to be as desirable as the wild caught animals. This issue is seen in species that show decreased coloration in captivity, those that are perceived as “poorly bred”, are considered inbred, are less expensive as wild caught animals, and/or lack specific locality data. This hurdle is further raised by marketing that targets captive populations as inferior which drives up demand for wild caught organisms while devaluing captive produced organisms. The premise that captive bred is more desirable doesn’t hold up for many taxa ranging from American ginseng (where the value of wild collected ginseng is much more valuable than farmed ginseng), to locality specific herps (dart frogs, grey banded kingsnakes, rosy boas), or wild collected animals (wild caught Oophaga pumilio being less expensive than captive bred O. pumilio). All of which drives demand for wild caught sources. 

The second hurdle to this idea is that the supply has to be high enough that it is able to satisfy the demand for the animal(s) in question. This means that not only does the number of animals need to equal or exceed demand; it has to be able to compete with the cost of the wild caught animals. This runs into a couple of issues as often the cost of the wild caught animals is low enough that captive bred animals cannot be supplied at a price that is economically competitive (example farmed ball pythons versus captive bred ball pythons), and when demand is close to supply, the saturation causes people to get out of producing those animals resulting in a collapse of the captive populations (examples of collapsing populations due to supply can be seen by the captive history of Epipedobates tricolor/anthyoni). The collapse of the captive population is usually followed by a period of low supply and then a rebound of captive population, which in some cases drives demand for wild caught animals to supply new genetics to the population. As a further complication, captive produced animals tend to only supply demand on a regional versus global scale, which means other markets do not benefit or only benefit slightly from captive produced stock. 

The third hurdle is that captive populations in the majority of the hobby are not managed for long-term sustainability. This means over time, the risk of inbreeding depression, adaptation to captivity, population swings, and outbreeding depression put the captive population at risk. For the captive population to be sustainable would require that the population be managed by sustaining the maximal genetic diversity of the target population. If this was done, then a relatively small number of founders can sustain the population for more than 100 years however it should be noted that breeding for specific morphological traits (such as fine spot azureus), reduces the viability of the captive population in the long run particularly if those frogs become the dominant form seen in the hobby. 


If we look at these issues, we can see that it is very difficult to resolve the demand for wild caught animals simply through captive breeding. This idea is based on the idea of protectionism where the attempt is made to prohibit the take of the animals and/or damage to its environment. This method of conservation is really only effective when large amounts of money and resources are devoted to the protection of the animal and its habitat as this method tends to be very unpopular with the local population and often the local politicians. A method that is often more acceptable and successful is to develop a program in which the local population can sustainably harvest either the animal and/or its habitat. The problem is that the science to support sustainable harvesting is often lacking resulting in either little or no protection to the population(s) or an extreme conservative response totally prohibiting harvesting of the animal and/or its habitat. Both of these extremes while very common are not popular with many people interested in usage and/or conservation. So what can the average hobbyist do to support conservation? The first thing they can do is to either join or donate to an organization⃰ that actually supports conservation of species in which they have interest. The second thing they can do is to work to sustain the captive populations in the long term by managing the relatedness of their animals. The third thing they can do support breeders/importers/exporters that are working sustainably with wild populations and the fourth and final thing is to not purchase animals that are smuggled or have a high probability of being smuggled. 


⃰Examples of conservation organizations include but are not limited to 
Tree Walkers International http://www.treewalkers.org/
Costa Rican Amphibian Research Center http://www.cramphibian.com/
Association Mitsinj http://www.mitsinjo.org/
Understory Enterprises http://www.understoryenterprises.com/

Programs for Population Management
Frog Tracks http://frogtracks.net/GlobalInfo.aspx
Amphibian Stewardship Network (ASN) http://www.treewalkers.org/amphibian-steward-network



Allaby, Michael; 1992; The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology; Oxford University Press, New York
Courchamp, Frank; Angulo, Elena, Rivalan, Phillippe; Hall, Richard J.; Signoret, Laetitia; Bull, Leigh; Meinard, Yves; 2006; Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic allee effect; PLoS Biol 4(12): 
Fraser, Dylan J.; 2008; How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids; Evolutionary Applications 1-52

Hutton, Jon; Dickson, Barney; 2001; Conservation out of exploitation: a silk purse from a sow’s ear?; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York

Lande, Russell; 1998; Anthropogenic, ecological, and genetic factors in extinction and conservation; Res. Pop. Ecol.; 40(3): 259-269 

Lees, C. M.; Wilcken, J.; 2009; Sustaining the ark: the challenge faced by zoos in maintaining viable populations; International Zoo Yearbook 43: 6-18

Sanderson, Steven, 2001; Getting biology right in a political sort of way; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York

Smith, Jennie Erin; 2011; Stolen World: a Tale of Reptile, Smugglers, and Skullduggery; Crown Publishers, New York

Williams, Sara E.; Hoffman, Eric A.; 2009; Minimizing genetic adaptation in captive breeding programs: A review; Biological Conservation 142: 2388- 2400

Wilshusen, Peter R.; Brechin, Steven R.; Fortwangler, Crystal L.; West, Patrick C.; 2002; Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation; Society and Natural Resources 15: 17-40

Yowiak, S. 1993. Rosy boa's future on red alert: hunters reap profits from rare snakes. _Desert Monitor._ 23(4):23-24


----------



## mingeace

Ed said:


> Part 2 When does captive breeding become conservation
> 
> The second portion of this discussion revolves around the idea that the commercialization of captive breeding is a form of conservation. This idea is a variation on the “ark paradigm” has a wide appeal as many people like the idea that by producing and rearing animals for their own enjoyment they are acting to preserve the animals in the wild. On the surface this seems like a plausible concept but each case needs to be evaluated individually at to see if it actually does support conservation. In part one I established a definition for conservation which I will continue to use for the rest of this essay.
> 
> The first model is that the massive amount of captive breeding by the hobby will reduce demand for wild caught animals. This is a logical conclusion but ignores a host of factors that place conditions on the idea. The first hurdle is that the captive bred animals need to be as desirable as the wild caught animals. This issue is seen in species that show decreased coloration in captivity, those that are perceived as “poorly bred”, are considered inbred, are less expensive as wild caught animals, and/or lack specific locality data. This hurdle is further raised by marketing that targets captive populations as inferior which drives up demand for wild caught organisms while devaluing captive produced organisms. The premise that captive bred is more desirable doesn’t hold up for many taxa ranging from American ginseng (where the value of wild collected ginseng is much more valuable than farmed ginseng), to locality specific herps (dart frogs, grey banded kingsnakes, rosy boas), or wild collected animals (wild caught Oophaga pumilio being less expensive than captive bred O. pumilio). All of which drives demand for wild caught sources.
> 
> The second hurdle to this idea is that the supply has to be high enough that it is able to satisfy the demand for the animal(s) in question. This means that not only does the number of animals need to equal or exceed demand; it has to be able to compete with the cost of the wild caught animals. This runs into a couple of issues as often the cost of the wild caught animals is low enough that captive bred animals cannot be supplied at a price that is economically competitive (example farmed ball pythons versus captive bred ball pythons), and when demand is close to supply, the saturation causes people to get out of producing those animals resulting in a collapse of the captive populations (examples of collapsing populations due to supply can be seen by the captive history of Epipedobates tricolor/anthyoni). The collapse of the captive population is usually followed by a period of low supply and then a rebound of captive population, which in some cases drives demand for wild caught animals to supply new genetics to the population. As a further complication, captive produced animals tend to only supply demand on a regional versus global scale, which means other markets do not benefit or only benefit slightly from captive produced stock.
> 
> The third hurdle is that captive populations in the majority of the hobby are not managed for long-term sustainability. This means over time, the risk of inbreeding depression, adaptation to captivity, population swings, and outbreeding depression put the captive population at risk. For the captive population to be sustainable would require that the population be managed by sustaining the maximal genetic diversity of the target population. If this was done, then a relatively small number of founders can sustain the population for more than 100 years however it should be noted that breeding for specific morphological traits (such as fine spot azureus), reduces the viability of the captive population in the long run particularly if those frogs become the dominant form seen in the hobby.
> 
> 
> If we look at these issues, we can see that it is very difficult to resolve the demand for wild caught animals simply through captive breeding. This idea is based on the idea of protectionism where the attempt is made to prohibit the take of the animals and/or damage to its environment. This method of conservation is really only effective when large amounts of money and resources are devoted to the protection of the animal and its habitat as this method tends to be very unpopular with the local population and often the local politicians. A method that is often more acceptable and successful is to develop a program in which the local population can sustainably harvest either the animal and/or its habitat. The problem is that the science to support sustainable harvesting is often lacking resulting in either little or no protection to the population(s) or an extreme conservative response totally prohibiting harvesting of the animal and/or its habitat. Both of these extremes while very common are not popular with many people interested in usage and/or conservation. So what can the average hobbyist do to support conservation? The first thing they can do is to either join or donate to an organization⃰ that actually supports conservation of species in which they have interest. The second thing they can do is to work to sustain the captive populations in the long term by managing the relatedness of their animals. The third thing they can do support breeders/importers/exporters that are working sustainably with wild populations and the fourth and final thing is to not purchase animals that are smuggled or have a high probability of being smuggled.
> 
> 
> ⃰Examples of conservation organizations include but are not limited to
> Tree Walkers International http://www.treewalkers.org/
> Costa Rican Amphibian Research Center http://www.cramphibian.com/
> Association Mitsinj http://www.mitsinjo.org/
> Understory Enterprises http://www.understoryenterprises.com/
> 
> Programs for Population Management
> Frog Tracks http://frogtracks.net/GlobalInfo.aspx
> Amphibian Stewardship Network (ASN) http://www.treewalkers.org/amphibian-steward-network
> 
> 
> 
> Allaby, Michael; 1992; The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology; Oxford University Press, New York
> Courchamp, Frank; Angulo, Elena, Rivalan, Phillippe; Hall, Richard J.; Signoret, Laetitia; Bull, Leigh; Meinard, Yves; 2006; Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic allee effect; PLoS Biol 4(12):
> Fraser, Dylan J.; 2008; How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids; Evolutionary Applications 1-52
> 
> Hutton, Jon; Dickson, Barney; 2001; Conservation out of exploitation: a silk purse from a sow’s ear?; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York
> 
> Lande, Russell; 1998; Anthropogenic, ecological, and genetic factors in extinction and conservation; Res. Pop. Ecol.; 40(3): 259-269
> 
> Lees, C. M.; Wilcken, J.; 2009; Sustaining the ark: the challenge faced by zoos in maintaining viable populations; International Zoo Yearbook 43: 6-18
> 
> Sanderson, Steven, 2001; Getting biology right in a political sort of way; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York
> 
> Smith, Jennie Erin; 2011; Stolen World: a Tale of Reptile, Smugglers, and Skullduggery; Crown Publishers, New York
> 
> Williams, Sara E.; Hoffman, Eric A.; 2009; Minimizing genetic adaptation in captive breeding programs: A review; Biological Conservation 142: 2388- 2400
> 
> Wilshusen, Peter R.; Brechin, Steven R.; Fortwangler, Crystal L.; West, Patrick C.; 2002; Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation; Society and Natural Resources 15: 17-40
> 
> Yowiak, S. 1993. Rosy boa's future on red alert: hunters reap profits from rare snakes. _Desert Monitor._ 23(4):23-24



Sorry to quote the whole thing I didnt know how to quote the last bit I am most interested in..



OK So I am new to this all and hate to be so ignorant and essentially lazy but really would love to know how to help but need a bit more explaining...

1- I can and will donate to said organizations, and thanks for the list.
2- Please tell me, in lay mans terms, how I can "manage the relatedness of [my] animals".
3- I know this is a bit lazy but I want to help NOW and would rather not have to waste time in seeking out what others may already know. What "breeders/importers/exporters" should I "support"? Could someone provide a list or link to a list of these "breeders/importers/exporters". Is there any way for me to know who these "breeders/importers/exporters" are?
4- Who are these "smugglers"? I understand that if I only buy from the above list of "breeders/importers/exporters" I should be ok but is there any way for us new or uneducated frog lovers to know how to identify "smugglers" or smuggled frogs?

I really just want to do my best to stop the desecration of wild frogs and their habitat as well as help the CB population as best as I can as soon as I can so all help will be much appreciated.

Thanks so much ED. Your the man.

Andrew


----------



## Ed

mingeace said:


> 2- Please tell me, in lay mans terms, how I can "manage the relatedness of [my] animals".


The best thing would be to develop a TMP for the frogs you are interested in and look for those frogs that are as unrelated as possible but still within the population (for example you may not want to cross different morphs of tinctorius). I suggest reading about ASN at TWI (but I'm biased there), alternatively talk to Robb at Frogtracks. 





mingeace said:


> 3- I know this is a bit lazy but I want to help NOW and would rather not have to waste time in seeking out what others may already know. What "breeders/importers/exporters" should I "support"? Could someone provide a list or link to a list of these "breeders/importers/exporters". Is there any way for me to know who these "breeders/importers/exporters" are?


To list those would actually violate the TOS of the site as it constitutes vendor feedback. The best thing you can do is learn about the frogs and where they come from... many countries where these frogs originate may not be open for export. As a result, if someone offers new bloodlines of Costa Rican Blue Jeans Pumilio, I would be very suspicious of them as Costa Rica has not been open for export for quite awhile.. 




mingeace said:


> 4- Who are these "smugglers"? I understand that if I only buy from the above list of "breeders/importers/exporters" I should be ok but is there any way for us new or uneducated frog lovers to know how to identify "smugglers" or smuggled frogs?


See my comment about about TOS. The best thing is to learn as much as you can about the frogs you are interested in.. the search button on here has a lot of good discussions about legalities.


----------



## skylsdale

mingeace said:


> 2- Please tell me, in lay mans terms, how I can "manage the relatedness of [my] animals".


In regard to TMPs, see here: Taxon Management Plans | Tree Walkers International


----------



## mingeace

Thanks to both of you for the help. I will simply continue to research and learn about the different animals I enjoy keeping (thats half the funny anyway ha) in order to help.

Thanks again for the help and vast knowledge,

Andrew


----------



## jbherpin

I would be happy to continue the discussion on illegal Cuban frogs here...

( http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/70392-rarest-frog-you-keep-11.html#post617080 )

JBear


----------



## Noel Calvert

frogfarm said:


> Any thoughts on how to implement this to do "real conservation"?
> 
> And doesn't conserving lands need a stable government and land stewards to have any effect?


I have thoughts on this subject that may actually work if hobbyist got behind it. 

Obviously the trade is going to receive wild caught frogs & other animals. Why could we not simply mate those wild caught frogs (rhetorical question) & divest half of the progeny to be returned to where they were originally collected, or at least donate those frogs to conservation efforts... This completely sidesteps every single hurdle mentioned. the shop where you bought the frogs or other animals could even get involved by helping us get the progeny back where they belong in the wild... They have the connections we do not have. 

For populations that have been hunted & collected to the point of no longer being any wild frogs the point of the hurdles is mute. Putting captive breed animals in the area where they originally evolved with certain setbacks via captive breeding hurdles is better than leaving the areas completely devoid of their rightful lifeforms, & the contribution is a small effort considering what it could potentially give us.


----------

