# Smuggling News



## FrogNick (May 3, 2009)

came across this today.


Manoa resident arrested for smuggling poison-dart frogs | More Local News - KITV Home

Authorities raid Manoa home for illegal poisonous frogs | KHON2


----------



## Armson (Sep 8, 2008)

ok, who has been sending frogs to Hawaii? 

-B


----------



## Armson (Sep 8, 2008)

Ok after reading the second article.... 


What PDFs are established on Maui? 

I thought the only PDFs were Auratus on Oahu? 

-B


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

FrogNick said:


> came across this today.
> 
> 
> Manoa resident arrested for smuggling poison-dart frogs | More Local News - KITV Home
> ...


Interesting, especially this part...

_"“I made a mistake, but the results of it, I was pretty shocked, yeah, because I’ve always had the permits and everything,” Nishihara said. “The sad thing is that the ones they took were all legally obtained.”_

Is that even possible? Maybe research purposes? I also wonder if he imported them from S. America, or if he bought them from people in the states, EU or Japan. Assuming they really were illegally obtained, that also means someone was willing to ship illegal animals. I wonder who? 

*Oh here is another story link with a different vid...*
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/25096282/poisonous-dart-frogs-seized-at-manoa-home


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Armson said:


> Ok after reading the second article....
> 
> 
> What PDFs are established on Maui?
> ...


Google came up with some results for Maui auratus, like in 2002 etc..

And there is this...
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=49


----------



## fieldnstream (Sep 11, 2009)

Sorry to hear this Chuck!


----------



## Hayden (Feb 4, 2007)

Man this guy lived not far from where I just moved from! I didn't have to give up the dart frog hobby while I was in Hawaii after all!!!! (kidding of course)


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Yes Chuck is a great guy and done many of us favors including a ton of rare plants we have as a result of his efforts.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

haha its sad how the police dropped a tank and a pair of frogs almost escaped, which couldn't started a whole new exotic species infestation.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Damn Chuck. Sorry to hear this.


----------



## dendrothusiast (Sep 16, 2010)

While Chuck has introduced several neat and awesome plants to the trade he's also a very knowledgable guy when it came to the animals - whether it be health issues or other specific information, I just hope he gets through this with minimal hassles.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

**Hey guys, just a friendly reminder to not start "wondering aloud" and making assumptions about things here.** 

Many of us know Chuck and I'm sure there is much more to the story here... and I'm sure the news articles are sensationalizing things a bit too. So just be mindful of what you say and be respectful. Don't make assumptions and please wait for more facts before you pass any sort of judgement.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

carola1155 said:


> **Hey guys, just a friendly reminder to not start "wondering aloud" and making assumptions about things here.**
> 
> Many of us know Chuck and I'm sure there is much more to the story here... and I'm sure the news articles are sensationalizing things a bit too. So just be mindful of what you say and be respectful. Don't make assumptions and please wait for more facts before you pass any sort of judgement.


I was thinking the same thing.He said he had permits,so I wouldn't jump to conclusions.Hopefully this will all be worked out through the government after they realize that he's been paying for permits and clear him of all charges.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Really, things like this happen to the best of us. No big deal for me.
I`ve done plant transactions with Chuck and will continue to do so.

On a side note some time back he gave me some very useful information with my son`s learning disability and he checked back with me.


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

I wonder if there are any repercussions for the person who sent the frogs to Hawaii?


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

And this is certainly not a smuggling situation as this hobby defines smuggling, more of a breaking local wildlife regulation law if he is even found of doing that. This is the same Chuck that took great pains and time to clear a local area of P Guimbeaui before it was developed and those same animals would have been destroyed. A good guy that has forgotten more about dart frogs than many will ever know....or rainbow fish, or plants.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

markpulawski said:


> And this is certainly not a smuggling situation as this hobby defines smuggling, more of a breaking local wildlife regulation law if he is even found of doing that. This is the same Chuck that took great pains and time to clear a local area of P Guimbeaui before it was developed and those same animals would have been destroyed. A good guy that has forgotten more about dart frogs than many will ever know....or rainbow fish, or plants.


I would say this is a smuggling situationif any cites plants and animals were shipped inviolation of law, another term they like to use is conspiracy.The authoritiesdo enjoy reading this site and the othersfor leads and evidence . Alawys consider investigations can take long and short periods of of time.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

Sadly, if he broke any state laws bringing them in from out of state, it would be a federal Lacey Act violation for those who sent them to him, as well as for him. I hope that they don't go that route for such a minor issue (if this is a legit issue).


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

I wonder is the recent post about "Where can I buy dart frogs locally in Hawaii" had anything to do with the investigation?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

This is a serious offense that was committed.

Hawaii is already battling an infestation of exotic species which is causing major ecological repercussions. Hawaii doesn't allow dart frogs to be brought into the islands for this reason. I don't know what kind of permits the offender had, but it's pretty clear that the frogs are illegal to posses or transport under state law, both of which he was doing.

These frogs should never have been in Hawaii, and a pair of them nearly escaped. This was a real jerk move on the offender's part, as he was clearly disregarding local laws.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

hypostatic said:


> This is a serious offense that was committed.
> 
> Hawaii is already battling an infestation of exotic species which is causing major ecological repercussions. Hawaii doesn't allow dart frogs to be brought into the islands for this reason. I don't know what kind of permits the offender had, but it's pretty clear that the frogs are illegal to posses or transport under state law, both of which he was doing.
> 
> These frogs should never have been in Hawaii, and a pair of them nearly escaped. This was a real jerk move on the offender's part, as he was clearly disregarding local laws.





carola1155 said:


> **Hey guys, just a friendly reminder to not start "wondering aloud" and making assumptions about things here.**


Seriously? "It's pretty clear"? you don't know that at all. Don't jump to conclusions and lets wait till more detailed information comes out ok? You said you don't know what kind of permits he had... Assumptions and accusations like this going forward will be removed.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

hypostatic said:


> This is a serious offense that was committed.
> 
> Hawaii is already battling an infestation of exotic species which is causing major ecological repercussions. Hawaii doesn't allow dart frogs to be brought into the islands for this reason. I don't know what kind of permits the offender had, but it's pretty clear that the frogs are illegal to posses or transport under state law, both of which he was doing.
> 
> These frogs should never have been in Hawaii, and a pair of them nearly escaped. This was a real jerk move on the offender's part, as he was clearly disregarding local laws.


Way to jump to conclusions. Nothing is clear, only allegations, and an ONGOING INVESTIGATION. A serious offense *MAY* have been committed.

What part of:



carola1155 said:


> **Hey guys, just a friendly reminder to not start "wondering aloud" and making assumptions about things here.**


Wasn't clear?

So you are privy to all the details?

Has he been convicted yet?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Do you know Chuck and the kinds of things he is involved in?

You can bring Dendrobatids into Hawaii, I called and checked. You do need permits. 

How do you know it was a pair? 2 frogs is not a pair. 

You don't know that he was ignoring any local laws anymore than anyone else knows he wasn't. I think your rush to judgement in the case is speculative and irresponsible.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> This is a serious offense that was committed.
> 
> Hawaii is already battling an infestation of exotic species which is causing major ecological repercussions. Hawaii doesn't allow dart frogs to be brought into the islands for this reason. I don't know what kind of permits the offender had, but it's pretty clear that the frogs are illegal to posses or transport under state law, both of which he was doing.
> 
> These frogs should never have been in Hawaii, and a pair of them nearly escaped. This was a real jerk move on the offender's part, as he was clearly disregarding local laws.


You may want to think about what you are saying especially since you don't have the facts.He had permits,Which kind who knows for sure(you certainly don't).Calling someone a jerk when you don't know if he had them legally or not is just ignorant on your part.What ever happened to your innocent until PROVEN guilty.If he had gotten the permits and frogs before the law was enacted,that could be an issue that was over looked by the government,(and a loophole), and until we know further FACTS this thread needs to be toned down a bit on accusations or it will be closed! If you read the thread the officials removing the (possibly legal)animals are the bone heads that nearly caused the escape,not the "offender".Please have consideration and some respect if you don't know what you're talking about ,have hard facts and read the entire thread!Thanks everyone for understanding.


Edit**You guys beat me to the post button.


----------



## JayMillz (Jun 27, 2012)

What usually happens to the animals in cases like this? Is there a chance he will get them back after some official plays frog sitter for a while or do you guys think that things usually look pretty grim? I don't know Chuck but it sounds like whoever has the frogs, has some tough shoes to fill.


----------



## Elphaba (Aug 26, 2007)

Best of luck with this, Chuck. I am so sorry.

You've done so much for me (and for the hobby) over the years. If there's anything I can do for you now, please let me know.

Best,
Ash


----------



## NM Crawler (Jan 23, 2012)

phender said:


> I wonder is the recent post about "Where can I buy dart frogs locally in Hawaii" had anything to do with the investigation?
> 
> Wonder if there's a rat posing as a froggers? Just a thought, seen it done before. Had many conversation with Chuck, very helpful and stand up guy. Hope You gets this situation worked out with minimal expense out of your pocket.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Poisonous dart frogs seized at Manoa home - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

PURE SPECULATION here, but this article makes it seem as if Chuck was investigated in relation to some frogs he received, not necessarily the ones he had already. That would jive with his statement that he made a mistake but that all his legally owned frogs were taken from him.

Regardless, I'm sorry to see this. My experiences with him have always been super positive and I genuinely believe he's one of the good guys. 

I always take reports like these with a grain of salt, especially when the media can report on POISON frogs. In my life I've been involved, usually peripherally, with a half dozen events that got reported in the news and I've always been amazed at how distorted and sensationalized the story got by the time it aired. They are not above completely misrepresenting the facts if it keeps you watching until the next commercial. 

Hope things get better, Chuck. Good luck.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Ok, I clearly upset many people because I am lacking if facts. So, I decided to find some facts on this subject.

Here is the article about the incident in question, straight form the Hawaii department of agriculture:
Department of Agriculture | Illegal Animals Seized in U.S. Mail



> The illegal animals included four poison dart frogs that were contained in a shipment through the U.S. Mail and about 20 additional frogs that were seized at the residence. ... *the frogs are illegal to possess or transport to or within Hawaii.*


The article comes directly from the Hawaii Dept of Agriculture, which is the entity that regulates the import of non-domestic animals.

If you're looking for the letter in the law which describes it, you can also find this information on the Hawaii Dept of Agriculture's website.
Plant Industry Division | PQ – Non-Domestic Animal and Microorganism Lists

The whole family of dart frogs (dendrobatidae) is basically banned from the islands. The law is pretty clear on this. It is found both on the List of Restricted Animals – For Private and Commercial Use, and on the List of Prohibited Animals
. So according to this, it is pretty clear that not only are the animals prohibited to own, but it's also illegal to own for commercial or private use (I'm no lawyer, but to me it looks like its doubly illegal).

But maybe you could get a permit for these guys somehow, so I called the Hawaii Dept of Agriculture to ask (if you want to do so yourself their number is 808-832-0566, and they are very friendly). I inquired about the subject, and they assured me, that under no circumstances would a permit be granted for an animal that was on this list.
I also asked if I was part of a research institute or a zoo. This is where it gets a little uncertain. The inspector I talked to said that under special circumstances, a permit might be granted to a zoo or a research institute, but the animal specialist who would know about this (I think his name is spelled Kivan Minami) wasn't available to ask.

So, I don't know if he was the middle man for a research institute or a zoo, but if they were taken from his home and he was keeping them for personal use, then what was done was clearly against the law.



JayMillz said:


> What usually happens to the animals in cases like this? Is there a chance he will get them back after some official plays frog sitter for a while or do you guys think that things usually look pretty grim? I don't know Chuck but it sounds like whoever has the frogs, has some tough shoes to fill.


I would imagine that the animals either get destroyed, or they get sent to a zoo. I gather this from a quote from the article I linked:
"The State’s Amnesty Program allows illegal animals to be turned in and provides immunity from prosecution. Illegal animals may be turned in to any HDOA Office, Honolulu Zoo, Panaewa Zoo in Hilo or any Humane Society – no questions asked and no fines assessed."


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Regardless, he remains innocent UNTIL proven guilty , in a court of law, by a jury of his peers.

EDIT: Did you ask about the possibility that Chuck was grandfathered, possibly having the animals pre ban?

EDIT #2 And, why are you asking? Is it that important for you to be right? This is our friend and fellow hobbyist. He deserves, at least, the assumption of innocence provided by our Bill of Rights.



hypostatic said:


> Ok, I clearly upset many people because I am lacking if facts. So, I decided to find some facts on this subject.
> 
> Here is the article about the incident in question, straight form the Hawaii department of agriculture:
> Department of Agriculture | Illegal Animals Seized in U.S. Mail
> ...


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/files/2012/12/AR-71.pdf

§4-71-6.5


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

His attorney, knowing we are all minimally acquaintances, may say we are not helping any. Unless you were at his house, none of us even know he had the animals in question. We are all speculating here, and speculation is not supportive.


----------



## cml1287 (Mar 29, 2012)

next thing you know, people commenting and wishing him luck will be served subpoenas to testify on their knowledge of his relationship to the hobby.

probably not, but this seems blown out of proportion.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

As I understand it, Chuck had his collection grandfathered and had permits . So I think any attempts to fix any blame is more than a little premature. 


some comments 

Ed


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

hypostatic said:


> Ok, I clearly upset many people because I am lacking if facts. So, I decided to find some facts on this subject.
> "


The whole point is that you are lacking the facts in Chucks case. You don't know the facts. You didn't find any specific facts as it relates to the case. We can all read the press release and the HDOA website all day until our eyes bleed, but without specific facts that are directly related to chucks case, it is irresponsible to speculate. 

Chuck said it was a misunderstanding and that he has permits. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

I bare no ill will to Chuck. I've never met the guy. And from what I've read on this thread he was a pretty standup guy.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

hypostatic said:


> was a pretty standup guy.


Is a stand up guy.

(just sayin)


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

hypostatic said:


> These frogs should never have been in Hawaii, and a pair of them nearly escaped. This was a real jerk move on the offender's part, as he was clearly disregarding local laws.





hypostatic said:


> I bare no ill will to Chuck. I've never met the guy. And from what I've read on this thread he was a pretty standup guy.



You do see why we all reacted the way we did, right?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

hypostatic said:


> These frogs should never have been in Hawaii, and a pair of them nearly escaped. This was a real jerk move on the offender's part, as he was clearly disregarding local laws.


I voiced this opinion because I have very strong feeling about Hawaii and its wildlife.

Hawaii is the most isolated chain of islands on the entire planet. Due to it's isolation around half of the wildlife found in Hawaii is endemic (found nowhere else on the planet). As a biologist, I feel like this makes Hawaii special place that should be preserved and protected. However, due to human activity a large portion of Hawaii's endemic species are either endangered or extinct. And this makes me sad as a biologist, and an environmentalist. I feel like anyone bringing exotic species into Hawaii is playing with fire, and potentially putting the local ecology at risk.

I apologize for calling anyone a jerk. It seems Chuck was a great guy. And again, I never met him and I bare him no ill will -- I don't hope he goes bald or gets an itch in a place he can't scratch.

But I still feel the way I do about someone who imports exotic species into a fragile ecosystem that is being rapidly destroyed by invasive exotic species.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

hypostatic said:


> It seems Chuck was a great guy.




Is a great guy!



Dude he`s not dead.


----------



## jckee1 (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm sure that as a resident, Chuck probably feels very strongly about Hawaii as well. As said before, all this speculation is bad. I think it is nice to hear the positive affect Chuck has had on so many people on DB

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

aspidites73 said:


> EDIT #2 And, why are you asking? Is it that important for you to be right? This is our friend and fellow hobbyist. He deserves, at least, the assumption of innocence provided by our Bill of Rights.


I'm not asking to be right or not.

I called because I wanted to find out what the law is on the subject. The subject of frogs and Hawaii has been asked several times, so I thought it would be nice to have a definite answer on the subject. Which is why I went through the trouble of talking to an inspector. Now anyone who is wondering whether or not they can own dart frogs in Hawaii has the information laid out for them, and even have a number to call and ask an official if they wish.


----------



## Gamble (Aug 1, 2010)

My question is ... 
If this was all a misunderstanding on the government's part & Chuck gets his frogs back ... 

What happens if any frogs die while in the government's care?
Or that tank they broke? ... etc ... 
Does he get financial reimbursement or allowed to replace them? Or will the government just give him the middle finger?

Also, if his permits are grandfathered, a grandfathered permit only pertains to a preexisting collection I would assume.
So aren't the newest acquisitions an illegal purchase technically?


----------



## Michael Shrom (May 20, 2004)

I regularly export salamanders to Hawaii. For them I need to have dept of Ag permits and everything needs to be properly labelled. In recent years the Dept. of Ag. has become more restrictive and attentive to details.

Chuck is a stand up guy.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Gamble said:


> My question is ...
> If this was all a misunderstanding on the government's part & Chuck gets his frogs back ...


I really hope so. If I remember right those Giant Oranges that he has are of a particular pre-GO/Regina split line that not a lot of folks have.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> I voiced this opinion because I have very strong feeling about Hawaii and its wildlife.
> 
> Hawaii is the most isolated chain of islands on the entire planet. Due to it's isolation around half of the wildlife found in Hawaii is endemic (found nowhere else on the planet). As a biologist, I feel like this makes Hawaii special place that should be preserved and protected. However, due to human activity a large portion of Hawaii's endemic species are either endangered or extinct. And this makes me sad as a biologist, and an environmentalist. I feel like anyone bringing exotic species into Hawaii is playing with fire, and potentially putting the local ecology at risk.
> 
> ...



Thanks for explaining what endemic means because no one else knows what that means 

Hawaii is so special because it's the "MOST" isolated Islands,what about Madagascar,or the Galapagos, all "special" Islands too,No? The animals there are "ENDEMIC" too,no? You can look that up too if you'd like. I'd have to say that everyone on this board cares about such habitats and are passionate about them at least as much as you and that is not the issue here.


----------



## KRich Frogger (Feb 15, 2013)

That is crazy, I remember seeing that post the other day with someone looking for darts in Hawaii, and it was the first thing I thought of when I started reading this thread......I smell a rat....snitches get ditches where I'm from


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

oddlot said:


> Thanks for explaining what endemic means because no one else knows what that means
> 
> Hawaii is so special because it's the "MOST" isolated Islands,what about Madagascar,or the Galapagos, all "special" Islands too,No? The animals there are "ENDEMIC" too,no? You can look that up too if you'd like. I'd have to say that everyone on this board cares about such habitats and are passionate about them at least as much as you and that is not the issue here.


I'd have to say that if you bring an exotic animal that is known to be invasive and destructive into a place like hawaii, madagascar, or the galapagos, conservation and preservation cannot be your top priority.


----------



## charlesbrooks (Oct 18, 2009)

Chuck, I like to thank you for all contributions you made to our hobby. I am very sorry this had to happen to you. I agree cold hardly with all the post saying you are an outstanding guy. No questions asked!
Knowing what type of person you are. I know you will bounce back from this.
In the meantime, you have the dedicated supporters here, like myself, and others on your side.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> I'd have to say that if you bring an exotic animal that is known to be invasive and destructive into a place like hawaii, madagascar, or the galapagos, conservation and preservation cannot be your top priority.


Did you read anywhere that I wrote that I did that?!?!? This is where reading comprehension comes in play. I am totally about conservation and preservation.


And if someone is responsible and has the permits,then regardless of what you THINK,Too bad! What's to say that a zoo in Hawaii couldn't have any escapees if say an earthquake damaged a building and animals got out.Does that mean that the zoos don't care about conservation or preservation.Maybe they should get rid of all the animals in all their zoos.Really dude!?!?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

hypostatic said:


> I'd have to say that if you bring an exotic animal that is known to be invasive and destructive into a place like hawaii, madagascar, or the galapagos, conservation and preservation cannot be your top priority.



Actually this is clearly false. Invasive animals or plants are only a problem if the person bringing them into that region are careless with them. Even a simple amount of care is all that is required. You also need to keep in mind that not all species are invasive if introduced even into areas like Hawaii, the Galapagos, Madagascar or even potentially Round Island. 

It is also improper to make the argument that invasive organisms are only a problem if brought to an island ecosystem. Invasive organisms that are not managed properly are a problem everywhere. If the concern about invasives is so great then you may want to reconsider participating in hobbies that engage in moving animals from one region to another one.... 

I don't understand the need to be so negative before the situation has been clarified and the whole story emerges. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

I personally find Hawaii's laws hypocritical and misguided. Domesticated animals are far more dangerous and invasive. So you can bring in a cat, which will hunt and kill native bird species, and domesticated rats and mice, which have all kinds of destructive tendencies.

But you can't bring in a dart frog? 

Of course we all know why this is, politics. They don't actually give a crap about environmental protection. They care about looking like they do, so they go after the little guys, the aquarium hobby, the exotics trade. But the dog, cat, and domestic animal trade with it's much larger economic impact and supporting lobby gets a pass.. Complete BS.

That said, I do think people are keeping non native species, however; because as is typical, we punish the many but for the stupidity of a few. A few people will act either irresponsibly or thru ignorance or perhaps even intention, and this ruins it for everyone. I would for example, have no problem with quite a few members here having frogs in Hawaii, but I wouldn't exactly want the Wascher's FedExing animals to anyone dumb enough to buy a frog from them in Hawaii.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Gamble said:


> What happens if any frogs die while in the government's care?
> Or that tank they broke? ... etc ...
> Does he get financial reimbursement or allowed to replace them? Or will the government just give him the middle finger?


If he is lucky, they won't charge him a per diem for the care of the animals while being held as potential evidence. This was the practice of several institutions that ended up holding animals for cases as this could take months to resolve. 



Gamble said:


> Also, if his permits are grandfathered, a grandfathered permit only pertains to a preexisting collection I would assume.
> So aren't the newest acquisitions an illegal purchase technically?


It depends on the permits. Some kinds of grandfathering doesn't prohibit the aquisition of new animals provided that the total number of animals remains the same, or it could that he is allowed to get new animals so long as they are a species that was previously approved. 

It is way too early to be speculating about any of this stuff. 

Chuck has always had a totally upstanding reputation from way back.... 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## charlesbrooks (Oct 18, 2009)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> I personally find Hawaii's laws hypocritical and misguided. Domesticated animals are far more dangerous and invasive. So you can bring in a cat, which will hunt and kill native bird species, and domesticated rats and mice, which have all kinds of destructive tendencies.
> 
> But you can't bring in a dart frog?
> 
> ...


I wish I could click "like" 100 times over!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

One of the points that really needs to be clarified before people engage in a witch hunt is whether the frogs were being shipped into or out of Hawaii. The articles I read only listed that it was in a shipment that went through the mail. If the shipment was going to Chuck, then it's also possible that the person who sent the frogs did something stupid like not labeling the box live harmless animals..... This is one of the reasons it's way too early to even speculate further. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Gamble (Aug 1, 2010)

Ed said:


> If he is lucky, they won't charge him a per diem for the care of the animals while being held as potential evidence. This was the practice of several institutions that ended up holding animals for cases as this could take months to resolve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So if it ends up that THEY screwed up & wrongfully confiscated his animals, they could still potentially make him foot the bill so to speak, even tho it was their fault?

That's BS.

He should be permitted some kind of restitution. 
Especially considering that his name & face was on the news due to their lack of evidence before stepping in.


Fyi ... I wasn't inferring anything about Chucks character or integrity. You're right ... He is a stand up guy.
I was just asking for my own personal curiosity of laws hypothetically using this situation as an example.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Gamble said:


> Fyi ... I wasn't inferring anything about Chucks character or integrity. You're right ... He is a stand up guy.
> I was just asking for my own personal curiosity of laws hypothetically using this situation as an example.


Sorry didn't mean to imply that you did... I was just addressing some of the tone that was progressing in the thread. 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

carola1155 said:


> **Hey guys, just a friendly reminder to not start "wondering aloud" and making assumptions about things here.**
> 
> Many of us know Chuck and I'm sure there is much more to the story here... and I'm sure the news articles are sensationalizing things a bit too. So just be mindful of what you say and be respectful. Don't make assumptions and please wait for more facts before you pass any sort of judgement.





markpulawski said:


> And this is certainly not a smuggling situation as this hobby defines smuggling, more of a breaking local wildlife regulation law if he is even found of doing that. This is the same Chuck that took great pains and time to clear a local area of P Guimbeaui before it was developed and those same animals would have been destroyed. A good guy that has forgotten more about dart frogs than many will ever know....or rainbow fish, or plants.


Just for the record, I have at best a vague idea of the laws there, and no idea what "Chuck" we are even talking about  

It sounds like at worst he had some animals shipped to him he wasn't supposed to get in that state, not actual smuggling of animals that are illegal period. Not awesome, but unless he lets them go in the Hawaiian jungle there isn't much danger or practical concern.


----------



## pdfDMD (May 9, 2009)

Like a lot of people, I'm shocked to see that a good member of this board got snared in this. I can relate a bit to what Chuck is going through. 

A few years ago, during my residency, I purchased some plants for a terrarium from a seller on eBay who said they were in California and the plants were greenhouse raised. I'm pretty careful where I purchase from, like many people here, so I didn't think anything of it. I never received the plants and the seller basically vanished from eBay. After unsuccessfully trying to get my money back, I chalked it up to a lesson learned and moved on. 

One day, about nine months later, I came home a bit early for my schedule. I wasn't in the door more than a few minutes, so I was curious I didn't see whomever it was when I was entering my place. I opened the door and there were two very large, muscular men. "Are you so and so?" "Yes", I replied. The produced badges, and as they did so, I could' help notice their shoulder holsters. They were USDA agents and they meant business. They asked if they could come inside, and since I have nothing to hide, I let them in. They explained that the USPS intercepted a package addressed to me from Thailand that contained a number of plants, two of which lacked CITES paperwork and were protected, a fact I was not aware of. They produced the actual shipping label, the paperwork inside the box, and photographs of the plants. I recognized the transaction: it was the missing eBay purchase from months prior. They explained CITES, the Lacey Act, and that they had been scoping my place for months (no joke, folks) but had a hard time 'catching me' due to my long hours and that I could be potentially in A LOT of trouble with the federal government. Before moving forward with any investigation, they wanted to speak with me first in case I was a hapless citizen with benign intensions (I was) and thus avoid a costly investigation. I told them why I had ordered the plants, that I thought they were greenhouse grown in California, and they were for a captive bred dart frog terrarium. After a thorough search of my place, and some 'ooh's and aaaah's' over the frogs, they told me that they believed me. They said there was concern that I was running a "clandestine illegal and endangered plant trade" out of my home and that was clearly not the case. I dug around in my computer and printed out the original message stream and listing (I had it due to trying to get my money back from eBay, which I didn't…) and gave it to the agents.

After this, they kind of let their guard down and became more cordial. They said that the case wasn't officially closed yet and that it would take a blessing from their superior to close it, but if I don't hear anything within the next eight weeks I could consider the matter resolved. The agents explained that illegal imports are increasing and it's becoming a very tangible and costly problem, both in terms of the ecological damage that's done in the home habitats when animals and plants are ripped from their native ecosystems, but also the havoc they and anything hitchhiking on them can cause when introduced in a new environment. It's a serious enough threat that the government has been expanding the ranks of investigators and agents (as a side, I chatted with them as they didn't look like they would have been forestry majors in college - one was ex-military and could snap your neck with his thumb and the other one came from law enforcement, I believe. They said the job paid well and the benefits couldn't be beat.) 

They produced paperwork dealing with the Lacey Act, USDA guidelines, a couple of brochures and a document stating that I had ordered the plants but was not aware of their origins, the laws, etc. I signed it as any legal trouble, other than a speeding ticket, on my record can be professional suicide; I was genuinely remorseful and truthful in that I believed I was purchasing legitimate plants. As they left, the agents also told me that I was basically on their radar for life and not to violate any wildlife import/export laws otherwise I'd be in a world of hurt. Strike one. Thus far, I haven't heard anything further about the matter so I assume it was closed.

The takeaway, and why I'm posting this here, is that the government does NOT mess around with these matters AT ALL, domestic shipments included. For example, I've seen Ed post on here multiple times about how to mark domestic shipments of frogs, and not just merely putting "live harmless amphibians" and others cautioning about the risk of importing things as mundane as Indian almond leaves without paperwork. It may seem trivial, but the risks and consequences are real, folks. It was a bit of a shock having armed UDSA agents knock on my door, months after the fact, and more of a shock the potential fines and punishments that could ensue if any prosecution was successful, and not to mention the direct cost to myself for my defense. Lawyers aren't cheap, folks.

I really do hope things turn out well for Chuck and I think it best we give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Dendro Dave said:


> Just for the record, I have at best a vague idea of the laws there, and no idea what "Chuck" we are even talking about



I hesitate to post this but am doing so to illustrate the degree to which the media will sensationalize this and other stories. The headlines read "Honolulu Police End Frog Smuggling Ring" and the frogs are referred to as "Cold blooded and against the law". A smuggling ring? Kinda silly even with the little that we know at this point. Don't believe everything you read. It also contains video of the cops dropping a tank. *eyeroll*

Honolulu police end frog-smuggling ring – HawaiiStream


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

oddlot said:


> Did you read anywhere that I wrote that I did that?!?!? This is where reading comprehension comes in play. I am totally about conservation and preservation.
> 
> 
> And if someone is responsible and has the permits,then regardless of what you THINK,Too bad! What's to say that a zoo in Hawaii couldn't have any escapees if say an earthquake damaged a building and animals got out.Does that mean that the zoos don't care about conservation or preservation.Maybe they should get rid of all the animals in all their zoos.Really dude!?!?


Sigh.

There is a big difference between a zoological institution that keeps animals for conservation and public education, and an individual that keeps animals for personal pleasure. I am arguing against the individuals.




Ed said:


> Actually this is clearly false. Invasive animals or plants are only a problem if the person bringing them into that region are careless with them. Even a simple amount of care is all that is required. You also need to keep in mind that not all species are invasive if introduced even into areas like Hawaii, the Galapagos, Madagascar or even potentially Round Island.
> 
> It is also improper to make the argument that invasive organisms are only a problem if brought to an island ecosystem. Invasive organisms that are not managed properly are a problem everywhere. If the concern about invasives is so great then you may want to reconsider participating in hobbies that engage in moving animals from one region to another one....
> 
> ...


I'm not making the argument that invasive organisms are only a problem in island ecosystems. Large ecosystems like Australia can be equally devastated by invasive species. But small island ecosystems, Hawaii being one example, tend to be very delicate. A small island ecosystem usually has less players involved in its balance, and small changes can more easily upset the balance than a larger ecosystem with more players. As someone who is extremely familiar with population genetics, I'm sure that you would agree with this.

"You also need to keep in mind that not all species are invasive if introduced"
Also, I don't understand how introducing a new animal into a food web isn't an issue.





The point that I've been trying to make is that Hawaii doesn't allow dart frogs to be shipped into Hawaii. Hawaii has no native amphibians. Hawaii has a problem with invasive amphibians destroying the native wildlife. For all these reasons, no individual should be bringing frogs into Hawaii.

These are my feelings on the subject. If I offended anyone I'm sorry, and I didn't mean to. If this is an unpopular then I guess I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the majority.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> Sigh.
> 
> There is a big difference between a zoological institution that keeps animals for conservation and public education, and an individual that keeps animals for personal pleasure. I am arguing against the individuals.



What what what!?!?!? So if a zoo had a mishap and caused a problem with the ecosystem,that would be ok!?!?!? Yeah,that's my conservation expert! Now how does that make any sense?You may want to go back and reread and comprehend the stuff that you wrote


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

hypostatic said:


> Sigh.
> 
> There is a big difference between a zoological institution that keeps animals for conservation and public education, and an individual that keeps animals for personal pleasure. I am arguing against the individuals.


Is there? The Monaco Aquarium was responsible for releasing Culerpa taxifolia into the Mediterranean.



> The point that I've been trying to make is that Hawaii doesn't allow dart frogs to be shipped into Hawaii. Hawaii has no native amphibians. Hawaii has a problem with invasive amphibians destroying the native wildlife. For all these reasons, no individual should be bringing frogs into Hawaii.


Why not? If they can be properly cared for and are not released, there is minimal risk. I'm sure we could argue some extreme cases. And As I mentioned before, singling out just frogs is useless when other far worse species are routinely allowed on the island. I'd be far more domfortable if you made the ideological arguement that no non native species should ever be allowed on the island.

Also, you keep mentioning dart frogs being shipped into Hawaii. We don't know if that is the case. None of the articles I've read state that he was receiving the animals. It is entirely possible that he was shipping out. That may also be a problem.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Lou. You are repeatedly putting words in my mouth. I never said that if a zoo caused an ecological problem, that I'd be OK with it.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

hypostatic said:


> These are my feelings on the subject. If I offended anyone I'm sorry, and I didn't mean to. If this is an unpopular then I guess I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the majority.


I don't think anyone disagrees with you that Hawaii has a tiny, delicate ecosystem that has been jeopardized enough and needs to be protected. I believe your unpopularity lies in the fact that you came into this thread personally insulting a guy that has been around for many years and who people on the forum are willing to give the benefit of the doubt until some facts come forward. They are making that decision based on the character of the man they have come to know. You've based your statements on a few biased paragraphs and some huge assumptions.

I also think people that go to the trouble to type "sigh" in an internet argument sound like sanctimonious turds who talk a lot and listen a little.

These are my feelings on the subject.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Why not? If they can be properly cared for and are not released, there is minimal risk. I'm sure we could argue some extreme cases. And As I mentioned before, singling out just frogs is useless when other far worse species are routinely allowed on the island. I'd be far more domfortable if you made the ideological arguement that no non native species should ever be allowed on the island.


Because. While many people like yourself are extremely cautious, there are people who aren't so cautious. The more people that do it, the greater the risk. This is one of the reasons invasive species like pythons are running amok in Florida.

I can't understand why everyone is so riled up about my views on Hawaii's laws.

Are we talking about different things here...? I really can't believe that the restriction of wildlife importation into Hawaii is so unpopular....




ZookeeperDoug said:


> Also, you keep mentioning dart frogs being shipped into Hawaii. We don't know if that is the case. None of the articles I've read state that he was receiving the animals. It is entirely possible that he was shipping out. That may also be a problem.


I keep mentioning it because I'm not persecuting Chuck. I'm not talking about Chuck at all. I am talking about my views on the importation or restricted animals (frogs) into Hawaii.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Boondoggle said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees with you that Hawaii has a tiny, delicate ecosystem that has been jeopardized enough and needs to be protected. I believe your unpopularity lies in the fact that you came into this thread personally insulting a guy that has been around for many years and who people on the forum are willing to give the benefit of the doubt until some facts come forward. They are making that decision based on the character of the man they have come to know. You've based your statements on a few biased paragraphs and some huge assumptions.
> 
> I also think people that go to the trouble to type "sigh" in an internet argument sound like sanctimonious turds who talk a lot and listen a little.
> 
> These are my feelings on the subject.


Then why are we fighting??!?

I posted way back on page 3 that I bare no ill will towards Chuck, and that he seems to be a pretty standup guy.


----------



## JasonE (Feb 7, 2011)

Stop being a troll. You've stated your opinion. You don't think any individual should be able to have frogs in Hawaii. Got it.

Now, we don't give a shit about your opinion. You insulted someone who the community here has a lot of respect for. Your opinion on importing animals into Hawaii have no more relevance here. Just stop.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Geez, sorry. I wasn't trying to be a troll.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Gamble said:


> My question is ...
> If this was all a misunderstanding on the government's part & Chuck gets his frogs back ...
> 
> What happens if any frogs die while in the government's care?
> Or that tank they broke? ... etc ...


With the government? lol you are out of luck. For some immigration stuff I would have to make copies of everything I would send in because sometimes they would just lose half or all of it. And they took zero responsibility for it you would still have to go get all the stuff again.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

hypostatic said:


> I voiced this opinion because I have very strong feeling about Hawaii and its wildlife.
> 
> Hawaii is the most isolated chain of islands on the entire planet. Due to it's isolation around half of the wildlife found in Hawaii is endemic (found nowhere else on the planet). As a biologist, I feel like this makes Hawaii special place that should be preserved and protected. However, due to human activity a large portion of Hawaii's endemic species are either endangered or extinct. And this makes me sad as a biologist, and an environmentalist. I feel like anyone bringing exotic species into Hawaii is playing with fire, and potentially putting the local ecology at risk.
> 
> ...


I get where you are coming from, but this isn't just some guy whose gonna get bored and start throwing his frogs into his garden. Chucks been in the hobby way longer than most of us have, and He's a great guy. You didn't know that, so I can understand you being upset. If it had been someone NONE of us had ever heard of, a lot of people would have had different reactions. 




oddlot said:


> Thanks for explaining what endemic means because no one else knows what that means
> 
> Hawaii is so special because it's the "MOST" isolated Islands,what about Madagascar,or the Galapagos, all "special" Islands too,No? The animals there are "ENDEMIC" too,no? You can look that up too if you'd like. I'd have to say that everyone on this board cares about such habitats and are passionate about them at least as much as you and that is not the issue here.


Well, Hawaii is still more isolated than those islands. It's a bit different from Madagascar (which is amazing in it's own ways) which split off from India with a bunch of species already on it. Everything native to Hawaii flew there, or floated there, or got blown in during a storm. So I think his point is how unique Hawaii is, and how messed up it has become from people. More so than other islands, amazingly.


Chuck I hope this all works out for you. Don't let the media get you down.


----------



## dartsanddragons (Jun 6, 2004)

Chuck has been in this hobby longer than most members here on Dendroboard and longer than some members have been alive. He is a stand up guy, has contributed so much for so many years he deserves much better then speculation as to what he did or did not do. I have a great deal of respect for this man and hope he gets his collection home soon and in tact. As has been stated in other post be respectful and wait until the smoke clears and you will see how overblown the Media and Authorities have made this.


Chuck if you need anything when things are resolved let us know


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Boondoggle said:


> I hesitate to post this but am doing so to illustrate the degree to which the media will sensationalize this and other stories. The headlines read "Honolulu Police End Frog Smuggling Ring" and the frogs are referred to as "Cold blooded and against the law". A smuggling ring? Kinda silly even with the little that we know at this point. Don't believe everything you read. It also contains video of the cops dropping a tank. *eyeroll*
> 
> Honolulu police end frog-smuggling ring – HawaiiStream


Ya that's was a sensationalistic headline. 4 frogs being shipped and no mention of any other people involved doesn't in my mind constitute a "smuggling ring" 
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, for everyone...
Hypo may have spoke a little too soon/out of turn, and I totally understand people rushing to the defense of their friend... but I think the point has been made, how bout we ease up now? I agree with *TheDude*, had many people here not known this guy there likely would have been some different reactions, and probably less harsh response to Hypo's comments. 

Anyways, I still don't know which Chuck this is!  ...But he sounds like an awesome guy. Personally I'm a lot more interested in what is right, then what is legal, but often the two go hand in hand... sometimes they don't. I have no problem with responsible people having darts in hawaii, especially if they are grandfathered in with permits. Hell as long as they weren't smuggled out of the country of origin and/or laundered in the EU/Japan before they came here I could care less about the law as long as they don't got to someone irresponsible enough to set em free... The problem is not everyone is responsible, so a law does make some sense in a place like Hawaii (even if some of us (Possibly myself included) think it is a dumb law, or at least a dumb version of this kind of law). So I don't think someone being against individuals keeping potentially invasive animals in someplace like Hawaii is a terribly unreasonable position to have. I may or may not agree with all the details, or even the entire position, but I can at least respect that opinion.


----------



## charlesbrooks (Oct 18, 2009)

Dendro Dave said:


> Ya that's was a sensationalistic headline. 4 frogs being shipped and no mention of any other people involved doesn't in my mind constitute a "smuggteachg ring"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Anyways, I still don't know which Chuck this is!  ...But he sounds like an awesome .


Yes he is,... He introduced a lot of the rare sp. plants with have in our trade today. He started some of most popular threads here years ago, that we are still using today, to learn from, and to teach others. Whenever someone pm him, he is never to busy to busy to respond with a positive response. Being a Sr. member here, I guarantee touched or read something he started .


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

charlesbrooks said:


> Yes he is,... He introduced a lot of the rare sp. plants with have in our trade today. He started some of most popular threads here years ago, that we are still using today, to learn from, and to teach others. Whenever someone pm him, he is never to busy to busy to respond with a positive response. Being a Sr. member here, I guarantee touched or read something he started .


*LoL,* Charles what did you do to my quote  ...I thought I misspelled a bunch of stuff  ...but my original text was ok. I usually don't write like that, (""smuggteachg ring") unless the ambien has kicked in (and I haven't taken it today)

Anyways, someone finally PM'd me who "Chuck" is, and my inbox is at 93% so no need for anyone else to unless they wanna chat about some other stuff . 

So now that I know the screen name associated with the real name, have my own experiences and others testimonials... I'm not terribly worried this is someone who'd be letting potentially invasive species go outside.

So even if he _*may*_ have bent the law a little by getting some frogs that would be legal in most states shipped there, or was shipping from there, I could really give 2 poops in this specific case. (As long as it was nothing worse then that)


----------



## R1ch13 (Apr 16, 2008)

charlesbrooks said:


> Yes he is,... He introduced a lot of the rare sp. plants with have in our trade today. He started some of most popular threads here years ago, that we are still using today, to learn from, and to teach others. Whenever someone pm him, he is never to busy to busy to respond with a positive response. Being a Sr. member here, I guarantee touched or read something he started .


Echoing whats already been said. I have sent a few PM's to Chuck over the past couple of years asking a plethora of question re plant care, propagation etc. Each and every time I was replied to within a couple of hours (amazing considering the time difference with UK and Hawaii). I was always graced with very informative and "unsparing" replies answering every little question in as much depth and detail as he could.

I am really saddened to see this happen to someone with such a caring and nutritive mentality...

I hope this all pans out favourably for you Chuck.

Regards,
Richie


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> keeping potentially invasive animals in someplace like Hawaii is a terribly unreasonable position to have. I may or may not agree with all the details, or even the entire position, but I can at least respect that opinion .


Dave,

As I have in many other cases, I have issues when the truth isn't being observed or isn't being accurately portrayed. I'm going to use you as the main reason I have issues with the claims. 

So to start the discussion let's define invasive species.... 
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf

Now that we have a definition of invasive species I can move onto the issues where I'm having problems... 

First off are the assumptions being made to back up the opinion are not valid. For example, the presence or lack of a native species genera or even phylum in a specific niche doesn't mean that a non-native species that is introduced and fills that niche doesn't mean that non-native species is going to be invasive. 

Second Claims like this


> I'd have to say that if you bring an exotic animal that is known to be invasive and destructive into a place like hawaii, madagascar, or the galapagos, conservation and preservation cannot be your top priority


Are not supported with respect to Hawaii and D. auratus.... Invasion Biology Introduced Species Summary Project - Columbia University

Third, the following quote is highly problematic


> Also, I don't understand how introducing a new animal into a food web isn't an issue


This is easy... it's because the resources for the niche aren't in competition with another animal. For example, Dendrobates auratus are restricted to areas that are highly degraded by human activities... so it's not likely they are in competition with native species, degrading native habitat (if they use native tank plants, they could easily be providing nutrients to that tank plant)... 

Fourth the position that the ecosystems of islands is more fragile. This is an stretch of the facts as island ecosystems can occur anywhere including on larger land masses and occurs more and more frequently as people fragment ecosystems. Australia for example could be considered an island ecosystem given the high rates of endemic animals and plants. 

Fifth.. While Hawaii had to have it's animals rafted or flew or blown to the islands in the past, this does not mean that people cannot be a vector for future non-invasive colonizers. It's not like this hadn't occured in the past... for example the Polynesians that colonized the island introduced a number of species of plants and animals like Taro... 

Interestingly enough, the three invasive Eleuthrodactylus species are displacing other species like the introduced day geckos. 

It is okay to be passionate about things like this, but people have to prevent passion from encouraging them to ignore the facts

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Complete side note here. 

I've read in several places that Auratus were introduced to Oahu in 1932 for mosquito control, and have found their way to Maui. I'm curious if anyone can tell me their actual status there. I've read everything from "flourishing" to "in danger and probably gone in 20 years". 

Anyone know?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Dave,
> 
> As I have in many other cases, I have issues when the truth isn't being observed or isn't being accurately portrayed. I'm going to use you as the main reason I have issues with the claims.
> 
> ...


Hmm does DB have a bug (seriously)? 2nd time someone has quoted me and it didn't show up as what I actually typed 

Here is what it really was...
"So I don't think someone being against individuals keeping potentially invasive animals in someplace like Hawaii is a terribly unreasonable position to have."

Weird...
---------------------------------

Anyways, Ed...As always I have tremendous respect for your knowledge and opinions, and yet again find myself in agreement with basically every thing you just said. So I'm not exactly sure how/why I'm being used as a reason you have issues with the claims. Can you clarify? ...I'm slightly confused   

Those last 2 quotes aren't from me 

Oh this part does apply to that quote that was from me... 
_*"Fourth the position that the ecosystems of islands is more fragile. This is an stretch of the facts as island ecosystems can occur anywhere including on larger land masses and occurs more and more frequently as people fragment ecosystems. Australia for example could be considered an island ecosystem given the high rates of endemic animals and plants."*_ - ED

So let me address that... 
Good point, I did not address instances of "island ecosystems" that can occur inland like where part of a rain forest is broken up by man made or natural barriers, or other instances like your Australia example.

I still respect the feeling that we need to exercise more caution in an "island ecosystem", perhaps even need a law in some instances (one that makes sense), but like most things with me... To form a firm personal opinion in any specific instance, I'd take it on case by case basis. Then (usually) I'd form a firm opinion only if I felt informed enough to come to a conclusion. 

So basically I have no argument, and I don't necessarily mind being used (Nothing dirty Ed!!!), I'm just confused at how/why I'm being used


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Dendro Dave said:


> Hmm does DB have a bug (seriously)? 2nd time someone has quoted me and it didn't show up as what I actually typed


They aren't hyperlinked to you because they are quotes from entries of mine lol


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

hypostatic said:


> They aren't hyperlinked to you because they are quotes from entries of mine lol


ah, I was wondering why the first one said Dendro Dave, and the other 2 didn't have a name with them.

I'm still not clear on why the first one showed up as something different then I typed though. That happened when Charles quoted me also. I thought he just accidentally edited it, but then when it happened in Ed's post I thought maybe a bug 

Probably the NSA tinkering with my forum posts... I think I just saw a black helicopter fly over, better get my tinfoil hat !!!!


----------



## dsaundry (Sep 29, 2011)

Ok, I don't know the man and until such time as everything is said and done in court, I certainly won't be judging. I do know that "yes" dart frogs will definitely survive in Hawaii, which would possibly have a detrimental effect on the native species. I also know that they have dart frogs by the university in Oahu. To me this was nothing short of TV stations trying to grab extra ratings. The one reporter giving all these warnings, was silly. I am surprised she didn't say handling these frogs would trigger a zombie apocalypse. While I agree that smuggling animals is a serious problem, eg: look what is happening in Florida. If a guy was breeding dart frogs in Alaska, would the officials in Alaska be worried that they would survive the winters and reproduce? I believe that intelligence and proper information should be weighed correctly before passing some of the laws are passed. The media is half the problem in some of these stories so I don't always put a lot of faith in what I hear from TV or radio.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Ed said:


> Fourth the position that the ecosystems of islands is more fragile. This is an stretch of the facts as island ecosystems can occur anywhere including on larger land masses and occurs more and more frequently as people fragment ecosystems. Australia for example could be considered an island ecosystem given the high rates of endemic animals and plants.


This is not a stretch of the facts.

The equilibrium of any population is directly linked to the size of the population and the distance of that population from other populations that might breed with it. In contrast to fragmented "island" habitats, Hawaii has a much greater distance to other potential breeding populations, and is therefore much more insulated. In contrast to Australia, the area of Hawaii is much smaller, and as a result it can't support populations that are as large.

Because they are smaller and farther away than mainland populations, there is usually a high amount of inbreeding on island populations, and a lower amount of genetic diversity compared to mainland populations. This results in island populations being much more prone to extinction. The topic is described more fully and in better detain in this paper:
Heredity - Abstract of article: Do island populations have less genetic variation than mainland populations?

The equilibrium theory of island populations is talked about to a good in extent in the following paper:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/mbinf...Simberloff_1974_ETIB_annurev.es.05.110174.pdf
It describes how more distant islands have a lower equilibrium than islands that are closer to the mainland, shown in the following figure:









What I'm trying to get at with all this is that small populations are intrinsically fragile, and the farther away that the population is from the mainland, the more fragile it is. Or at least that's what I can gather from the literature. (if I misinterpreted it, please correct me)



> "Also, I don't understand how introducing a new animal into a food web isn't an issue"
> This is easy... it's because the resources for the niche aren't in competition with another animal. For example, Dendrobates auratus are restricted to areas that are highly degraded by human activities... so it's not likely they are in competition with native species, degrading native habitat (if they use native tank plants, they could easily be providing nutrients to that tank plant)...


I still don't understand.

If you add a predator into a food web, doesn't it affect the whole food web? You would be adding an animal that is eating the native animals, which might not have had a predator like that previously. Isn't this a disturbance in the web? I'm pretty sure that adding a predator would cause a strong selective pressure in the different local species populations. And I don't think it would be absurd to assume that they might out-compete or displace local arthropods that are preying on the same populations? I'm not just asking this about auratus, but basically any introduced species.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> This is not a stretch of the facts.
> 
> The equilibrium of any population is directly linked to the size of the population and the distance of that population from other populations that might breed with it. In contrast to fragmented "island" habitats, Hawaii has a much greater distance to other potential breeding populations, and is therefore much more insulated. In contrast to Australia, the area of Hawaii is much smaller, and as a result it can't support populations that are as large.
> 
> ...


Haha,You just don't learn...........Wait for it........


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

hypostatic said:


> The equilibrium of any population is directly linked to the size of the population and the distance of that population from other populations that might breed with it. In contrast to fragmented "island" habitats, Hawaii has a much greater distance to other potential breeding populations, and is therefore much more insulated. In contrast to Australia, the area of Hawaii is much smaller, and as a result it can't support populations that are as large. Because they are smaller and farther away than mainland populations, there is usually a high amount of inbreeding on island populations, and a lower amount of genetic diversity compared to mainland populations. This results in island populations being much more prone to extinction. The topic is described more fully and in better detain in this paper:


Okay let me try this again… First off, you are making a claim that island ecosystems that occur on islands are inherently more fragile than island ecosystems that occur on the mainland or elsewhere. This is a very broad generalization (and one of my major points for stating you are stretching the facts). You are making broad generalizations for a position on a specific species with little evidence. The distance for colonization really needs to take into consideration the ability of a species to encounter the second population. You can have “island” populations on mainlands that are at just as great of a risk as those on Hawaii. For example, populations of chaparral requiring birds that are fragmented are at very high risk of population extinctions see for example http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitst...761/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00337.x.pdf?sequence=1 
This is because the species of chaparral requiring birds are unable to disperse through developed areas…. Hence one of the reasons, I pointed out that your stretching the facts.. 

Second, the argument on colonization has some important caveats that are missing in your argument. There are some interesting studies out there, for example a study on extinction and colonization of avifauna on islands showed some interesting effects… for example, even islands that are close to the mainland, the study showed that 90% of the avifauna did not colonize an island 60 yards away. This indicates that the failure to colonize can also be due to behavioral as opposed to distance. http://www.pnas.org/content/69/11/3199.full.pdf 
We also see a loss in alleles in populations that are separated by as little as a highway see for example http://www.helsinki.fi/biosci/egru/pdf/2006/Ecoscience2006.pdf 

So the premise that some population is at greater risk of going extinct simply because it lives on Hawaii has to be called into question given what we know about fragmented (or “island”) ecosystems. [We also see some very significant bottlenecking in some widely dispersed animals, for example, cheetahs are so bottlenecked that you can transplant skin from one cheetah to another with little or no risk of rejection. This is a widely dispersed species that could be wiped out by a mutation in a common parasite or pathogen.] The whole risk to a population has undergone some significant advances since the 1970s…. 




hypostatic said:


> What I'm trying to get at with all this is that small populations are intrinsically fragile, and the farther away that the population is from the mainland, the more fragile it is. Or at least that's what I can gather from the literature. (if I misinterpreted it, please correct me)


See my breakdown above. 



hypostatic said:


> If you add a predator into a food web , doesn't it affect the whole food web? You would be adding an animal that is eating the native animals, which might not have had a predator like that previously. Isn't this a disturbance in the web ? I'm pretty sure that adding a predator would cause a strong selective pressure in the different local species populations. And I don't think it would be absurd to assume that they might out-compete or displace local arthropods that are preying on the same populations? I'm not just asking this about auratus, but basically any introduced species.


Right off the bat, you are making the incorrect assumption about the food web in question. As was noted in the previously linked analysis on whether or not that D. auratus was invasive, auratus are only found in close conjunction with human settlement in what is listed as degraded habitat. This is a different ecosystem and food web. What animal do you think was in the niche currently inhabited by the frogs in the degraded habitat? We know that the most of the island native birds do not do well in the degraded habitat in part due to the changes and more so due to the lack of resistance to avian malaria. In addition, even in the degraded habitats, the auratus are not achieving high densities like is being seen with the coquis and other Eleuthrodactylids. This is another indication that the auratus are having little impact on the food web. Don’t be surprised to eventually find out that the Eleuthrodactylids have driven the auratus into extinction (they are already seeing introduced gecko populations crashing to unsustainable levels). 

You may also be interested in reading http://dlugoschlab.arizona.edu/pubs/Dlugosch_Parker_2008_ELE.pdf

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

oddlot said:


> Haha,You just don't learn...........Wait for it........



.................And here it is !




Ed said:


> Okay let me try this again… First off, you are making a claim that island ecosystems that occur on islands are inherently more fragile than island ecosystems that occur on the mainland or elsewhere. This is a very broad generalization (and one of my major points for stating you are stretching the facts). You are making broad generalizations for a position on a specific species with little evidence. The distance for colonization really needs to take into consideration the ability of a species to encounter the second population. You can have “island” populations on mainlands that are at just as great of a risk as those on Hawaii. For example, populations of chaparral requiring birds that are fragmented are at very high risk of population extinctions see for example http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitst...761/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00337.x.pdf?sequence=1
> This is because the species of chaparral requiring birds are unable to disperse through developed areas…. Hence one of the reasons, I pointed out that your stretching the facts..
> 
> Second, the argument on colonization has some important caveats that are missing in your argument. There are some interesting studies out there, for example a study on extinction and colonization of avifauna on islands showed some interesting effects… for example, even islands that are close to the mainland, the study showed that 90% of the avifauna did not colonize an island 60 yards away. This indicates that the failure to colonize can also be due to behavioral as opposed to distance. http://www.pnas.org/content/69/11/3199.full.pdf
> ...


----------



## Charlie Q (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't know if this is possible, but I would like to keep up with the actual news related to the arrest of Chuck, and it would be nice if the peripheral discussions could be split into another thread.

Thanks,

Charlie Q


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Charlie Q said:


> I don't know if this is possible, but I would like to keep up with the actual news related to the arrest of Chuck, and it would be nice if the peripheral discussions could be split into another thread.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Charlie Q


It shouldn't be a problem, I'm going to be pretty busy for the next week. 

Ed


----------



## Charlie Q (Jul 13, 2013)

Ed said:


> It shouldn't be a problem, I'm going to be pretty busy for the next week.
> 
> Ed


awesome


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Thanks for the links and for answering my questions Ed


----------



## stu&shaz (Nov 19, 2009)

As someone that would hold his hand up to a mistake and also (and I'm sure I have this guy pinned down now,but sure I'll take a conformation PM) someone that has benefitted from Chuck's profound knowledge of plants,although I haven't yet spoken to him. I would like to wish you well through this Chuck.

As a simple guy looking in to the american hobby,I don't think Hypo was trying to agitate you guys,just cares about the habitats/ecosystems and sure I saw poor choice of words but also watched him trying to make that right!!Guys lets just leave this now and focus our thoughts on what Chuck is going through. It must be horrible and I for one give benefit of innocence until utterly proven guilty.I don't need laws for that it's my moral ethic,everyone deserves innocence until proven wrong. But guys please remember this is the web,words printed one way don't always come over, how we want !!

I have no real facts on this story but some stuff reported by reporters,whom I distrust to give me factual truth on a major level,it's their job to sell news,not give truth.

Again Chuck, I wish you well and the strength to get through this!!


For me, could someone please explain "grandfathering permits" please I just don't understand the concept I've not heard of this before

kind regards

Stu


----------



## Charlie Q (Jul 13, 2013)

a grandfather provision is basically a provision in the law that allows people to keep doing what they were doing before the law was changed.

A great example is the assault rifle ban. People who already owned AK-47s were allowed to keep them, even though there was a ban on selling or buying.


----------



## stu&shaz (Nov 19, 2009)

Thank you Charlie ,very kind

best

Stu


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

I hate to speculate but it appears that by him saying "I made a mistake" and "The frogs they took were legal," he either shipped out frogs and got in trouble or got a new frog in which would be 'illegal.'

Either way, he has been around doing good things in the hobby for a long time and is probably a responsible guy. I feel bad for seeing him bashed in local news as if he was keeping venomous snakes tanks that were falling apart. He probably had his whole collection confiscated for a recent 'one group of frog shipment' mistake. I worry most not about his prosecution (though fines can be expensive... he was just charged with a misdemeanor) but that the 'legal' frogs they confiscated may die while being kept. They sometimes are not kept in the best way when confiscated and die off in the process. I hope they were transferred to someone who can keep them healthy. He would probably get the 'legal' frogs back but if they die he'll be frogless -_- and I get the impression for a guy keeping frogs for 20 years that could be pretty upsetting.

-Nish

P.S. This is another reason not to keep mysteriosus =P That is exactly what could happen to someone if USFW decided to prosecute. They'd likely take all your frogs and being they have to do their jobs in a timely manner they or the police may break stuff in the process (at least one of Chuck's tanks was broken when being removed from his house.)

P.P.S I'm not Chuck.


----------



## p51mustang23 (Mar 18, 2014)

Charlie Q said:


> a grandfather provision is basically a provision in the law that allows people to keep doing what they were doing before the law was changed.
> 
> A great example is the assault rifle ban. People who already owned AK-47s were allowed to keep them, even though there was a ban on selling or buying.


False, the assault rifle banned did not ban ak-47's, without going into detail it just banned new rifles from having a couple features (10+ round mags, flash suppressors, and folding stocks). We still live under the ban in MA, but we can still buy brand new AKs, ARs, etc so long as they lack the "evil features". We can still buy/sell/trade them. We can rebuild pre-1994 guns with brand new parts and "evil features", making what is functionally a brand new pre-ban gun. 

Point being that this really isn't a comparison. It sounds like the frog ban in Hawaii bans the sale / trading of frogs under any and all circumstances. Once the law was passed, there's no buying / selling / trading at all, unless you somehow manage to get a permit - a permit which they do not issue. 

I hope this guy Chuck fares well. Getting bullied by the state sucks. Oh, and sorry for the gun rant.


----------



## Charlie Q (Jul 13, 2013)

p51mustang23 said:


> False, the assault rifle banned did not ban ak-47's, without going into detail it just banned new rifles from having a couple features


yeah… all the good features. 

and like I said, as long as you had your weapons before the ban, you were fine. they were grandfathered in.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

*Alright guys let's keep it on topic please*

Sorry, I gotta cut it off at some point... Anything else off topic will be removed.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Has anyone heard from Chuck?
I sent him a couple of pm`s but haven't heard back.

Chuck, when or if you get to this thread it started out with the best of intentions.


----------



## joshbaker14t (Jun 11, 2012)

Does anyone know what the outcome of this was?


----------



## charlesbrooks (Oct 18, 2009)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> Has anyone heard from Chuck?
> I sent him a couple of pm`s but haven't heard back.
> 
> Chuck, when or if you get to this thread it started out with the best of intentions.


I guess Chuck wants distance himself from the hobby, at for awhile. I probably would do the same thing if I were in in his shoes. Hopefully one day he will return.
Chuck still actively sell plants on EBay. Thank God for that.


----------



## whitethumb (Feb 5, 2011)

Can you private message me his ebay name?


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

whitethumb said:


> Can you private message me his ebay name?


I would like a pm, too. I've heard a lot of good things about his plants, but I still don'5 know what he goes by on ebay.

It might be too much too hope this situation had a happy ending, but I hope it was at least a reasonable one. Good luck Chuck

John


----------



## FunkyDragon (Sep 13, 2010)

pdfDMD said:


> I can relate a bit to what Chuck is going through.
> 
> A few years ago, during my residency, I purchased some plants for a terrarium from a seller on eBay ...


Yes! I have finally found someone else who experienced this. I, too had a federal agent appear on an investigation. This was back when I ran a freshwater planted tank and was trying to get a plant (hygrophila polysperma, sunset variety) about 8 years ago that I had purchased years before in a pet store. I couldn't find it anywhere except ebay and went ahead with the purchase. The seller promised guaranteed live delivery, so after it didn't arrive, I emailed them. They agreed to send a second package, and the next day the first package arrived with a notice that the contents had been confiscated and destroyed. Then the second one hit the border (shipped from Thailand), so they sent the agent to inspect my residence. Most people I've told the story to probably don't believe it, but this does happen.

As for the "news" articles that prompted this thread, I've learned that the more you know about a subject, the more you realize the news has no idea what it's talking about. They shoot for entertainment and sensation, not valid information. I don't know Chuck, but I hope everything works out for him.

EDIT - And now I realize I responded to a necro thread. Hope everything worked out for him.


----------

