# Illegal frogs



## Ed

It seems like it is time again for a bright light to be shown on the illegal frog trade... Due to its size I have to split it into two sections. 

Specifically http://www.amphibians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E-AC28-Inf-341.pdf



> AC28 Inf. 34 – p. 1
> AC28 Inf. 34
> (English only / únicamente en inglés / seulement en anglais)
> CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
> OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
> ___________________
> Twenty-eighth meeting of the Animals Committee
> Tel Aviv (Israel), 30 August-3 September 2015
> Interpretation and implementation of the Convention
> Exemptions and special trade provisions
> Implementation of the Convention relating to captive-bred and ranched specimens (Decision 16.65)
> FACT SHEET: ADELPHOBATES GALACTONOTUS (AMPHIBIA: ANURA: DENDROBATIDAE)
> The attached information document has been submitted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature
> (IUCN) in relation to agenda item 13.*
> 
> Summary:
> Adelphobates galactonotus (CITES App. II) is endemic to the eastern part of the Amazon basin in Brazil south of the Rio Amazonas. The species is known for its vivid colors and the multiple color variants. Populations are
> uniform in color and breed true, that is orange specimens only produce orange specimens, never blue (or any other color). Although live specimens of this species have never been exported legally from Brazil (where all wildlife is protected by law) it is a common species in captivity in Europe and the United States with all of these specimens arising from illegal exports from Brazil. The first illegal import to Germany took place in 1996 with
> expanded international trade beginning in 1997 according to data from the CITES Trade Database.
> 
> The smuggling of this species out of Brazil still continues, threatening local populations. Indeed, after the publication of a paper on the colorpolymorphism of this species in 2012 in which several unknown color morphs (none of which known in captivity) were described, within three months large numbers of one of these morphs (a light blue one) were already available in Germany. In 2015, another recently discovered color morph was illegally imported in Germany.
> 
> *
> The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CITES Secretariat (or the United Nations Environment Programme) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author.
> AC28 Inf. 34 – p. 2
> Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA) and the Brazilian Federal
> Police have been advised of these continuing illegal activities (which also involve other CITES-listed species) and have been provided with the relevant data. These illegally imported specimens are easily recognizable based on their color with many illegally imported wild caught specimens entering the trade as “captive bred” A. galactonotus. Among breeders, keepers, and traders of A. galactonotus it is well known that all specimens in trade are descendants of illegally obtained stock or stem from recent illegal imports.
> 
> Taxonomy:according to the CITES standard nomenclature that follows Frost (2014), the name of this species is Adelphobates galactonotus (Steindachner 1864). However, the genus Adelphobates is only based on molecular characteristics. On the basis of most morphological characteristics the species is closer to members of the genus Dendrobates than to those of other Adelphobates. Several authors do not recognize the genus
> Adelphobates (see summary in Frost, 2014) and several authors do not accept the placement of galactonotus in the genus Adelphobates and consider it a species of Dendrobates (see e.g. Hoogmoed and Avila-Pires
> 2012). The Brazilian government in its recent evaluation of the status of all Brazilian amphibians used the name Adelphobates galactonotus, as did Segalla et al (2014) in their checklist of Brazilian amphibians. Also CITES
> uses this name. To avoid confusion the name Adelphobates galactonotus is used here.
> 
> Species:This is a medium-sized frog with a snout vent length of 3-4 cm. It is a colorful species with large color variation: black with large orange, red, yellow, light blue, white or brown areas on the back and limbs and some species are nearly uniformly colored, with the black restricted to small areas on belly and limbs. Some populations show a sprinkling of greenish to light blue spots on a black back and one population is yellow with vermiculate black spots on back and limbs. Specimens within each population have the same color pattern. No populations with several color patterns or populations transitional between two different color morphs are known. In captivity the
> different morphs breed true, meaning their offspring have the same color pattern, although there may be slight variations in intensity and extent of the colored area. Overkamp (2009) noted that there is an ontogenetic
> change of color from red at metamorphosis to reddish brown in older specimens and also that black spots on the back in juveniles tend to disappear in adults. Hoogmoed and Avila-Pires (2013) provided a detailed
> description of the color polymorphism of this endemic Brazilian species, a map showing the distribution of the color morphs, and provided color pictures of most of the color variations known to exist. Overkamp (2009) and
> Lötters et al. (2007) dealt with the species in captivity and described a limited number of color morphs. Recent genetic research showed that different haplotypes may have the same color. The mechanism responsible for the astonishing within-species color variation is not yet completely clear, but the most likely explanation is simple mutations causing the loss of carotenoids (responsible for yellow, orange and red colors) from the skin,
> giving rise to blue morphs and spread of new characters through the populations following Mendelian laws, followed by fixation of colors in separate populations.
> 
> Distribution: This species is endemic to a part of Brazil from the Tapajos and Teles Pires rivers in the west to the Atlantic coast (São Luis, state of Maranhão) in the east and from the southern bank of the Amazon river and the Bay of Marajó to extreme northern Mato Grosso and northern Tocantins. Most of its distribution falls within the state of Pará (see map in Hoogmoed & Avila-Pires 2013). No pattern can be discovered in the distribution of the different color morphs throughout the species range, although in general orange colored populations seem to be mostly present in the north and east of the distribution area, with most variation in color of populations in the western part of the range. The species does not seem to be continuously distributed throughout its range. Apparently occurrence is patchy and populations are isolated, but there is no indication which environmental factors could be responsible for the isolation.
> 
> Habitat: A. galactonotus is an inhabitant of tropical lowland forest (terra firme forest), where it is present on the forest floor among leaf litter. It seems to have a preference for areas with stands of Brazil nut trees (Bertholletia excelsa), where it may deposit its larvae in empty Brazil nut pods. However, it also has been found in secondary forest surrounded by pasture, in the transition zone between Amazonian forest and Cerrado
> vegetation, in recently cleared and burnt areas under Brazil nut trees, and even in a cassava plantation. The species seems to be tolerant to a certain level of disturbance, but it is not known whether it can endure adverse
> conditions for extended periods (Hoogmoed and Avila-Pires 2013). Pfaffe and Pieper (1997) report that specimens are more numerous near tree falls.
> AC28 Inf. 34 – p. 3 As in Dendrobates tinctorius, the extreme inter-populational phenotypic variation could be related to the apparent patchy distribution of suitable habitat for A. galactonotus throughout its range (cf. Noonan and Gaucher 2006).
> 
> Natural history: Pieper and Pieper (1997), who reported the first illegal import of A. galactonotus in Germany, report litters of 3-13 eggs. According to Overkamp (2009), in captivity the species lays 4-10 eggs in the leaf litter. When the larvae hatch after 14-18 days (Pieper and Pieper, 2000) the male carries them one (mostly) or two at the time, on his back to small water bodies including water filled Brazil nut pods, for further development. Metamorphosis takes place after about two months. Overkamp (2009) indicates that the number of eggs laid by wild caught specimens in the 1990s sometimes reached 20 suggesting that fertility in captivity is lower.
> 
> Conservation status:The IUCN Red List considers this species of Least Concern. During the recent (regional) evaluation of all Brazilian amphibians by a group of Brazilian herpetologists under the auspices of the Brazilian Government (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio)/ O Centro Nacional de Pesquisa eConservação de Répteis e Anfíbios (RAN)) this species also was considered of Least Concern because of its
> large distribution area. However, during this evaluation the situation of different color morphs of this species with restricted distributions was not taken into account, as the Red List only considers species.
> 
> Trade: Theile (2000) pointed out the goals of CITES and how it works, and provided data on (official) trade in all Dendrobatids (37 species) in the period 1994-1999. That analysis revealed that the majority of specimens (of a
> total of 69,498) went to the United States (67%), European Union (18%), Japan (7%), Canada (3%) other countries (5%). In the EU 3,959 specimens went to the Netherlands, 3,179 to Germany and 2,249 to Belgium.
> Theile also pointed out that the trade in the period 1994-1999 had increased considerably (seven times) as compared to the period 1989-1993, when “only” 10,000 specimens were officially traded. Among the 37 species traded in the period 1994-1999, Theile (2000) mentioned Dendrobates (Adelphobates) galactonotus, a species endemic to Brazil. As with all wild animals in Brazil, A. galactonotus is protected by law and any (commercial) trade is unlawful. Like all other colorful Dendrobatids, Adelphobates galactonotus is listed in CITES Appendix II, which means the species could be traded with proper export documents. However, Brazil only provides such export documents for specimens for scientific study and not for commercial (pet trade) purposes. Consequently wild collected specimens of this species have been rarely exported. In the period 1993-1996 a total of 27 wild collected specimens have been legally exported (CITES Trade Database) to the Netherlands (18) and to Austria (9) for scientific studies. All these were bodies/specimens, meaning they were not live specimens, but preserved specimens. In 1998 one export of 13 live, wild caught specimens was
> recorded as being exported from Canada to the USA for commercial (T) purposes. Only the importer (USA) recorded this transaction. There is no record of these individuals having been legally exported from Brazil.
> Most other trade recorded in specimens of this species concerned trade in “captive bred” (C or F) specimens between non-range states. There is not a single record of the export of live specimens from Brazil to any
> country for any purpose except for a transaction concerning 115 “captive bred” specimens from Brazil to the USA for scientific purposes. As there are no breeding operations are known in Brazil, the origin of these “captive-bred” specimens is unknown. Total reported exports in the period 1993-2013 were 1,988 with total reported imports of 1,695 during the same period.
> It must be noted that all trade after 1997 is of specimens bred in captivity from breeding stock that was originally illegally exported from Brazil. The date of the illegal export of the breeding stock to Europe (most likely
> Germany) is not exactly known, but probably occurred in 1996 (see below under Illegal Trade).
> 
> Table 1. Trade data Adelphobates galactonotus for 1993-2013 (from CITES Trade Database). Years and
> numbers in bold indicate transactions concerning legal export of wild-caught specimens/bodies from Brazil to
> the Netherlands and Austria for scientific purposes.
> Year Export Import Year Export Import
> 1993 12 12 2004 61 161
> 1994 5 0 2005 117 197
> 1995 1 7 2006 36 28
> AC28 Inf. 34 – p. 4
> Year Export Import Year Export Import
> 1996 9 0 2007 14 2
> 1997 116 116 2008 28 12
> 1998 129 91 2009 45 169
> 1999 491 247 2010 48 129
> 2000 343 181 2011 76 40
> 2001 55 84 2012 142 46
> 2002 60 60 2013 43 27
> 2003 157 86 Total 1988 1695


----------



## Ed

Part 2, which should be the rest of the article. 



> Illegal trade: Between 1987 and 1993 there was no reported trade in this species and neither was it present in terrariums of European hobbyists (Gorzula 1996).All trade in this species reported in the official CITES Trade Database since 1997 is illegal, because no breeding stock (live specimens) of A. galactonotus has ever been exported legally from Brazil. According to
> CITES rules, all descendants of illegal breeding stock are also illegal.
> Pistoni and Toledo (2010) report a 1999 confiscation at São Paulo’s Guarulhos international airport of 281 Dendrobates tinctorius and 279 D. cf. galactonotus, both species said to originate from the “Alto Trombetas in
> Pará, Brazil”. D. tinctorius does occur in that region, but D. cf. galactonotus does not as it is limited to eastern Brazil south of the Amazon River (Hoogmoed and Avila-Pires 2012). The destination of these specimens was
> Germany. This confiscation is not mentioned in the CITES Trade Database. The CITES Trade Database only reports one confiscation by the USA in 1999 of 11 specimens from Germany. Thus, there is evidence of attempts to illegally trade in this species and live specimens apparently had already
> reached Germany before 1999, despite export controls in Brazil. Indeed, Pieper and Pieper (1997) reported the import (it is assumed to Germany) of 12 adult live specimens in 1996. No such import is documented in the
> CITES Trade Database. It is likely that these 12 illegally imported specimens form the illegal breeding stock that gave rise to most A. galactonotus in captivity.Beginning in 1997 there was a regular trade from Germany to other countries in captive bred specimens (CITES Trade Database). Saurian Enterprises Inc. , a commercial enterprise specializing in the breeding of dart
> frogs, clearly states on its website that all specimens in captivity are descendants of specimens illegally exported to Europe and then laundered (with legal European CITES documents) to the USA at the end of the
> 1990s. This is well known among Dendrobatid keepers, as is clear from several posts (referred to as A, B, C, D, and E) to the Dendroboard, an online website providing information and discussion forum about dart frogs, that
> deal specifically with the light blue morph of A. galactonotus that was recently (2013) smuggled from the Caxiuanã area in Brazil to Germany. Some participants (primarily from the USA) in this discussion forum are
> clearly concerned about the illegal exports. Others apparently are not concerned as they may believe that trade in specimens of A. galactonotus has been legalized. Under the USA’s Lacey Act, however, specimens of this
> species in captivity remain illegal independent of their distance from the original, smuggled breeding stock. Numbers of captive bred A. galactonotus in terrariums in Germany and the Netherlands (and elsewhere in the
> world) over the past 18 years have increased significantly and specimens were sold and exchanged freely (only with unofficial private declarations that the specimens came from captive breeding operations) between
> terrarium keepers. Despite knowledge that all captive bred specimens in their countries were descendants of illegally imported specimens (Overkamp 2009), after a short period of confiscations, enforcement agencies in
> these countries have refrained from taking legal action because specimens had become so widespread among terrarium keepers that any legal action would be a very large and costly operation. The EU does not have a regulation comparable to the USA’s Lacey Act that would have prevented the ongoing illegal trade in captive bred A. galactonotus that originated from illegally sourced breeding stock. As a result of this illegal trade, wild caught specimens that are illegally exported from Brazil can and do enter
> international trade as “captive bred” and, consequently, can be laundered to become “legal.” There is considerable demand for this species. For example, within a few months of the publication of Hoogmoed and Avila-Pires (2012) reporting a new light blue color morph from a small area (Caxiuanã) in
> northern Pará, the authors were informed by a European source that specimens of this new color morph had been located using information in their paper, collected, and smuggled out of Brazil for sale in Germany for 350-700€ per specimen. As proof, the authors received a picture of specimens at a trader´s establishment in which AC28 Inf. 34 – p. 5
> at least 40 blue and one orange specimen can be discerned. On this same website pictures of the smuggled light blue morph from a Hungarian source are also posted.On April 30, 2013 IBAMA, the Brazilian institution responsible for enforcement of environmental law, was informed of this illegal act and provided with all information available about the smuggling process and the
> persons involved. An investigation was initiated but ended after one year with no action taken and the investigator reassigned to other duties.
> Information was received from local residents that in 2014 “someone” from outside the area of Caxiuanã tried to purchase more specimens of A. galactonotus from the local inhabitants of the Caxiuanã area, offering prices
> of 100 Brazilian Reals (about Euro 30) per specimen. This is roughly equivalent to three days salary in the region. In August 2014, a new complaint concerning illegal collecting and export of Brazilian wildlife, including A. galactonotus, was lodged with the Federal Police. On April 21, 2015 information was received from a Dutch CITES enforcement officer of an import of a new A. galactonotus color morph (orange with brown back) into Europe (probably Germany). This color morph had been discovered in 2013 during licensed fieldwork by a doctoral student, but the discovery had not been published. Consequently, it is believed that illegal collectors stumbled on this new population by accident when trying to obtain more blue morphs, and then commercialized it by illegally exporting live specimens to Europe. It
> is not known how many specimens of this color morph were traded, but on one photograph received, seven specimens are visible. This latest import may signal the continued interest of unscrupulous collectors and traders in locating and exporting these new color morphs and exporting in violation of Brazilian laws.
> For more information, please contact:
> ASG, IUCN SSC:
> Dr. Marinus S. Hoogmoed at [email protected]
> Dr. Ariadne Angulo at [email protected]
> Defenders of Wildlife:
> Alejandra Goyenechea at [email protected]
> Animal Welfare Institute:
> DJ Schubert at [email protected]
> References:
> Frost, Darrel R. 2014. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0 (Accessed March 22,
> 2015). Electronic Database accessible at Amphibian Species of the World.
> American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.
> Gorzula, S.J., 1996. The trade in Dendrobatid frogs from 1987-1993. Herpetological Review 27(3): 116-123.
> Hoogmoed, M.S., and T.C.S. Avila-Pires, 2013 [2012]. Inventory of color polymorphism in populations of
> Dendrobates galactonotus (Anura: Dendrobatidae), a poison frog endemic to Brazil. Phyllomedusa
> 11(2): 95-115.
> Lötters, S., K.-H. Jungfer, F.W. Henkel and W. Schmidt, 2007. Poison frogs. Biology, species & captive care: 1-
> 668. - Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main.
> Nijman, V., and C.R. Shepherd, 2010. The role of Asia in the global trade in CITES II-listed poison arrow frogs:
> hopping from Kazakhstan to Lebanon to Thailand and beyond. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:
> 1963-1970.
> Noonan, B.P. and P. Gaucher, 2006. Refugial isolation and secondary contact in the dyeing poison frog
> Dendrobates tinctorius. Molecular Ecology 15: 4415-4425.
> Overkamp, J., 2009. Adelphobates galactonotus. DN Magazine 21: 36-41.
> Pfaffe, R. and B. Pieper, 1997. Auf der Suche nach Dendrobates galactonotus. Reptilia Nr. 3, February 1997,
> 2(1): 33-38.
> Pieper, B. and Pieper, R. 1997. Pflege und Zucht des Gesprenkelten Baumsteigerfrosches Dendrobates
> galactonotus. Reptilia Nr. 7 2 (5): 49-52.
> AC28 Inf. 34 – p. 6
> Pistoni, J. and L.F. Toledo, 2010. Amphibian Illegal Trade in Brazil: What Do We Know? - South American
> Journal of Herpetology 5(1): 51-56.
> Segalla, M.V., U. Caramaschi, C.A.G. Cruz, T. Grant, C.F.B. Haddad, J.A. Langone, P.C.A. Garcia, 2014.
> Brazilian Amphibians: List of Species. Herpetologia Brasileira 3(2): 37-48.
> Theile, S. 2000. Handel mit Pfeilgiftfröschen boomt – wie lange noch? DRACO Terraristik-Themenheft 3
> Pfeilgiftfrösche: 89-91.
> Websites:
> AmphibiaWeb: AmphibiaWeb -- Search Results
> Accessed on April 17, 2015.
> CalPhotos: CalPhotos
> Accessed on April 127, 2015.
> CITES Trade Database: http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/ Accessed 14 April 2015.
> Dendroboard A: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/235050-adelphobatesgalactonotus-blue.html
> Accessed on May 4, 2015
> Dendroboard B: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/206313-blue-galacs.html
> Accessed on May 4, 2015
> Dendroboard C: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/94587-blue-galacs.html
> Accessed on May 4, 2015
> Dendroboard D: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/168769-wow-blue-galacts.html
> Accessed on May 4, 2015
> Dendroboard E: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/57790-adelphobatesgalactonotus-intermediate.html
> Accessed on April 17, 2015.
> IUCN Red List of threatened species: Adelphobates galactonotus. Accessed on
> April17, 2015.
> Lacey Act : http://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/laceyact.html.
> Accessed on May 5, 2015
> Poison Frog: Adelphobates Galactonotus "Blue" - Members Images - PoisonFrog.
> Accessed on April 17, 2015.
> Saurian Enterprises Inc. Electronic Database available at:
> Poison Dart Frogs Poison Arrow Frogs Dart Frogs & Poison Arrow Dart Frogs Terrarium Animals from Saurian Enterprises, Inc.


----------



## pa.walt

nice post ed.


----------



## carola1155

The part about these new frogs that is so confusing to me, is the insistence that the Dutch CITES paperwork somehow asserts their legality. This is not true at all. In fact, it is simply one of the steps in laundering these animals. The entire situation has been a textbook example of laundering.

The Dutch (and German) authorities have decided to consider all captive-bred specimens as legal, as it would be too difficult and costly to confiscate and care for all the animals. This is in violation of CITES, but the secretariat has let it be. As a result, smugglers simply need to get the animals to Germany or the Netherlands, breed them, and then pass them off as captive bred to get a permit for export. 

The part worth noting is that this does not make the animals legal here. It just means the European authorities look the other way and do not fully enforce CITES. The Lacey Act in the US clearly provides the framework for these animals still being illegal, as their origins are illegal and the country of origin has declared them illegal. No Dutch CITES paperwork is going to change the position of the Lacey Act.

The "paperwork" from the Netherlands is simply a laundry receipt. The animals are illegal.

I know this was the way of the hobby in the old days, but we should be moving on from it... not celebrating it.


----------



## Entomologist210

Appreciate the post Ed, I think more people need to see this.


----------



## carola1155

I want to add a bit more information now that I have his permission to post it. I followed up with one of the authors of the CITES paper Ed provided.

This was his response:


> As to the export of blue A. galactonotus from the Nertherlands being "legal" because of the documentation, is a misunderstanding. Breeding stock of blue A. galactonotus was illegally exported from Brazil in early 2013 (I informed Brazilian authorities of this, but they were not able to solve the case, although they apparently made some inquiries), just after publicatin of an article by me and TCS Avila-Pires reporting on this blue morph. The specimens now announced on Facebook may indeed have been bred in the Netherlands (descendants of the 2013 illegally exported specimens), but because the original breeding stock of these blue specimens (and the stock for all other A. galactonotus) has been exported illegally from Brazil, the specimens now being discussed/offered for sale in the USA according to CITES rules are illegal. I know that the Dutch Cites authorities have decided (years ago) to consider all specimens bred in captivity (numerous specimens, which were very difficult (costly) to confiscate and take care of, thus just avoiding problems ) as "legal" (being fully aware of the real situation), thus violating CITES rules. The same is true for Germany. Thy accepted a "fait accompli", and the CITES Secretariat let it be.
> I hope this information answers your question.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dr. M.S. Hoogmoed
> 
> Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi/COOZO
> 
> Belém, Pará
> 
> Brazil


In further communications, he went on to say this about the USFWS:


> ...administratively they have made a mistake. They should have researched the history of captive bred specimens from Europe (eg. by reading my AC28 information document) to see that the Dutch export document actually should never have been issued for "captive bred" specimens..


I don't think it could be much clearer at this point- these frogs are not legal.

That being said, I really don't think the importer did this with entirely poor intentions and likely thought he was doing a good thing. I believe he simply did not understand the full situation and took the word of someone, in conjunction with the "paperwork", and assumed it was legitimate. Unfortunately, obtaining paperwork is not really the end of the line when doing due-diligence on things like this.


----------



## Woodswalker

So, for those of us who do not use Facebook, has there been a recent offering of these frogs for sale in the US, thereby prompting this post?


----------



## carola1155

Woodswalker said:


> So, for those of us who do not use Facebook, has there been a recent offering of these frogs for sale in the US, thereby prompting this post?


Yes and when people (Ed, myself, a few others) expressed skepticism about the legality it became a bit of a shouting match because some misinformed individuals would rather support the side that gets them the frogs they want instead of looking at the documentation Ed provided.

The crazy part about it all is how Ed literally provided the official CITES position on it and they still blew past it like it was nothing because they had this "paperwork" and "permission" and would not even begin to entertain the idea that their paperwork was possibly not legitimate. I have now validated with one of the authors that everything in that paper provided by Ed still applies, and it is still falling on deaf ears because people want to try to justify owning this frog. 

It just makes me incredibly disappointed in this hobby... I understand that many frogs got here in the past because of this same process and a lot of taxonomic revisions/mix-ups that complicated things, and we should be beyond that now. These galactonotus were smuggled in the last few years and it did substantial harm on the wild population. Continuing to show that the hobby doesn't care about smuggled frogs once they are bred in captivity and laundered through the EU just sets this up to happen again and again.


----------



## bsr8129

This also says that all Glacs are here illegally, so why do we only take a stand now and not make such a show for the red, orange and others?


----------



## Woodswalker

That sounds tremendously frustrating. I appreciate that you and Ed have taken the time to present this in crystal clear terms here.


----------



## carola1155

bsr8129 said:


> This also says that all Glacs are here illegally, so why do we only take a stand now and not make such a show for the red, orange and others?


Yes, all galactonotus are technically illegal. 

The issue with this specific import is twofold:

First, they are being advertised as legal, which is not the case. They are simply the same status as all galactonotus in the hobby. At best- they are a "grey area" frog that technically is in violation of CITES and the Lacey Act and simply not enforced.

Second, because we have to eventually draw a line somewhere. Nobody is going to be able to crawl back in time and undo what was done before. Especially to a time when things were less clear from a taxonomic perspective and almost impossible to USFWS to enforce. Now we have the exact up-to-date taxonomy and the official CITES position stating they are illegal, and they were still smuggled, bred, and laundered. There isn't much of an excuse anymore.


----------



## kimcmich

So what is to be done with the extant captive population of the various morphs of A. galactonotus?

The issue of identifying and prosecuting smugglers is clear (though it appears the perpetrators may have evaded prosecution). But the EU government is not in a position to round-up all the captive specimens. Even if they were, this would presumably result in them being cared-for until the population eventually died-out since the government would not be in the business of breeding.

Should we look forward to these captive lines dying out as a result of stricter enforcement of their illegality?

All things being equal, I would call it a tragedy for these captive lines to die-out. Yet it is unclear how captive breeding can continue to support these lines if owning the frogs is illegal (there are only so many zoos that could or would sustain non-private populations under careful regulation).

Simply declaring the current captive frogs to be legal would, as they current EU regime shows, give potential cover for further illegal wild collection. Yet a captive source of this species is the only viable way to redirect desire for the animals away from wild collection.

Is the best of the possible bad solutions the one the EU has pursued: Declare the current captive population nominally legal while still honoring CITES and pursuing prosecution for past and future smugglers (and their employers)?


----------



## Dane

kimcmich said:


> Is the best of the possible bad solutions the one the EU has pursued: Declare the current captive population nominally legal while still honoring CITES and pursuing prosecution for past and future smugglers (and their employers)?


As mentioned before, this just creates a bigger loophole for smuggled animals to be introduced to the market as legitimate. How would you determine which frogs were present in country when such legislation was passed, and which were introduced afterward?


----------



## Ed

kimcmich said:


> So what is to be done with the extant captive population of the various morphs of A. galactonotus?


This question needs a more through review of the US populations, there are some who think they received some of this species before CITES listing (1987) but they were/are still illegal due to the Brazilian wildlife laws from 1967 prohibiting export and commerce in the animals. 

Zoos and other institutions will have little interest in these populations as there is no ecosystem context and they are considered as a species to be of least concern by the IUCN. 



kimcmich said:


> All things being equal, I would call it a tragedy for these captive lines to die-out. Yet it is unclear how captive breeding can continue to support these lines if owning the frogs is illegal


More of a tragedy that allows people to continue to smuggle in animals so they can sustain the lines that they are allowing to be screwed up by rampant inbreeding?? You do realize that this is pretty much an argument to rationalize that smuggling was okay to get these frogs into the hobby.



kimcmich said:


> Simply declaring the current captive frogs to be legal would, as they current EU regime shows, give potential cover for further illegal wild collection. Yet a captive source of this species is the only viable way to redirect desire for the animals away from wild collection.


Actually this argument isn't worth a whole lot from a conservation point of view as it requires market factors that are unrealistic. You would have to have a captive breeding population that meets market demand, but the problem with that is people get out of frogs when they become too common only to want them again when they become rare, raising demand for wild caught animals. Captive breeding by itself does not reduce demand for wild sourced animals. If that was the case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of demand for ranched ball pythons (where the US imported more than 40,000 ball pythons) in 2015-2016. So if we don't see this having a significant impact on demand in arguably the most commonly captive bred non-native snake, how can you make the claim for the frog?? Market and economic forces have not agreed with this claim. In addition your dancing around the argument of "conservation through captive breeding" which is a whole lot of bunk as you cannot have conservation without preserving the ecosystem and its pretty simple to demonstrate that captive breeding really isn't of any value. 

Yes the whole captive breeding reducing demand argument irritates me as it is based on false premises. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> This also says that all Glacs are here illegally, so why do we only take a stand now and not make such a show for the red, orange and others?


Because this is so clear cut of at the least an ethical violation that it can be dealt with at the root of the problem. If there are at most a couple of dozen individual frogs of that population, it is a lot easier to get ahead of it than waiting until there are hundreds of that population spread across lots of individuals. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## thumbnail

Hey ed I was taking a gander through this and was wondering what other species are technically illegal to own in the US?
I remember a big uproar over vanzo's many years ago.


----------



## Woodswalker

Not only would taking the EU approach provide cover by making it difficult to distinguish smuggled from legitimized frogs, it removes a major disincentive against smuggling. If smuggling is met with only a shrug and the eventual legitimization of smuggled lines, how many more people might decide that going through legal importation channels is no longer worth the effort?


----------



## toostrange

The thing that really got me is the defense of this. Seems all someone had to do is cozy up to someone in a EU zoo or some how get someone in that position and it's on. You could launder damn near anything if the stance is if it's cb then it's legal. People can be blind in their justification of something clearly not on the level.


----------



## Scott

Seeing the people who are selling, and "pro" selling, it's no surprise whatsoever though.

s


carola1155 said:


> ... It just makes me incredibly disappointed in this hobby... I understand that many frogs got here in the past because of this same process and a lot of taxonomic revisions/mix-ups that complicated things, and we should be beyond that now. These galactonotus were smuggled in the last few years and it did substantial harm on the wild population. Continuing to show that the hobby doesn't care about smuggled frogs once they are bred in captivity and laundered through the EU just sets this up to happen again and again.


----------



## kimcmich

@Ed, @Dane, @Woodswalker,

The EU's decision is not a perfect (or even good) solution. The 2013 illegal collection seems to have entered the hobby under exactly that cover and with that encouragement.

Nonetheless, what is to be done with the current captive animals? Should we support confiscation of the extent specimens by US and EU authorities? Clearly the government cannot be expected to maintain them and, as Ed notes, zoos would be unlikely to be interested in the work of preserving a captive-sourced population. This route seems to end in the dying-out of the captive lines. 

The loss of the captive lines is, however, a loss only to hobbyists who must forego adding these species to their collection. This is not a tragedy from a human perspective... but what of the frogs' ? The EU's solution has all the drawbacks already mentioned... but it seems like the only alternative to confiscation and (immediate or eventual) extirpation.

I am not trying to be a bleeding heart for the frogs, nor use sympathy for their fate as a moral justification for the status quo. But no one seems eager to suggest that the captive population should be eliminated outright. If not that, then what?


----------



## Dane

kimcmich said:


> @Ed, @Dane, @Woodswalker,
> 
> The EU's decision is not a perfect (or even good) solution. The 2013 illegal collection seems to have entered the hobby under exactly that cover and with that encouragement.
> 
> Nonetheless, what is to be done with the current captive animals? Should we support confiscation of the extent specimens by US and EU authorities? Clearly the government cannot be expected to maintain them and, as Ed notes, zoos would be unlikely to be interested in the work of preserving a captive-sourced population. This route seems to end in the dying-out of the captive lines.
> 
> The loss of the captive lines is, however, a loss only to hobbyists who must forego adding these species to their collection. This is not a tragedy from a human perspective... but what of the frogs' ? The EU's solution has all the drawbacks already mentioned... but it seems like the only alternative to confiscation and (immediate or eventual) extirpation.
> 
> I am not trying to be a bleeding heart for the frogs, nor use sympathy for their fate as a moral justification for the status quo. But no one seems eager to suggest that the captive population should be eliminated outright. If not that, then what?


If elimination/confiscation of all of the newly imported blue galacs would keep them from ever coming in again (without Brazil's consent), I'd be cool with it. Why do we need another color variant of another species when so many of the types that come in legally get lost due to popularity cycles within the hobby?


----------



## kimcmich

@Dane,

I agree that one more morph is simply not necessary.

As for prevention of more smuggling: Clearly we can't know for sure that elimination of the current blue morphs would guarantee no further illegal collection. We'll have to be willing to dispose of the frogs first.


----------



## bsr8129

Dane said:


> If elimination/confiscation of all of the newly imported blue galacs would keep them from ever coming in again (without Brazil's consent), I'd be cool with it. Why do we need another color variant of another species when so many of the types that come in legally get lost due to popularity cycles within the hobby?



Couldn't that same logic be applied to all new species that are coming in, especially all the pumillo that are coming in?


----------



## MELLOWROO421

bsr8129 said:


> Couldn't that same logic be applied to all new species that are coming in, especially all the pumillo that are coming in?


No, their country of origin allows the collection/farming and export of the frogs. The galacts come from a country that allows NONE of their wildlife to be collected and exported. The only way to get these frogs is for some smuggler to fly down to Brazil, illegally collect them and then smuggle them out of the country. They then use a loophole in the laws of certain European countries that allows any offspring to be considered legal regardless of where their founding stock was stolen from. The fact is that we have all been very well aware of Brazil's stance on their frogs. It is very obvious that when a new morph of frog that has never been in private collections before pops up from a country we all know does not allow them to be exported that it has come from being illegally smuggled. It's pretty well documented as Ed has pointed out many times.


----------



## bsr8129

I wasnt questioning the legality of the frogs, but the statement that "another species when so many of the types that come in legally get lost due to popularity cycles within the hobby?" That all the new frogs coming in are causing older types to be lost due to popularity cycles within the hobby. 


And this maybe wy off based and possibly another thread, but what about the new blue foot leucs that have seem to only originate from European stock? one can easily make the assumption that frogs coming in from European stock are that way because they can not legally coming into the US first, and are funneled and smuggled in this way. I could be completely off based but the hobby here seems large enough that we would receive frogs first or at the same time as our European counterparts?


----------



## Ed

thumbnail said:


> Hey ed I was taking a gander through this and was wondering what other species are technically illegal to own in the US?
> I remember a big uproar over vanzo's many years ago.


With the vanzolinii, it looks like the EU population probably originated in the Cordillera El Sira region of Peru which would make it illegal as that is a protected reserve. Where there is some problem with clarity is the fact that it was named in 1982 which means that it was pre-CITES which makes it harder to document that it was illegally traded or it wasn't exported under another name prior to 1987. The big rub is of course that it looks to have be collected from a protected region. 

When the first actually legal export came into the country, it effectively laundered the prior population (although some show diligence in documenting EU line) which due to the poor sex ratio in the first import is where the uproar was caused. 

Mysteriosus is another one that is totally illegal in the US even though it is in the trade in some EU countries. 

There are multiple threads that discuss the actual illegal trade including specific species of frogs (or populations) on this forum. The discussion pops up whenever someone is blatant about the frogs they are selling and then it quiets down until the next big blatant example shows up. 

For a hobby that claims to care about conservation, the hobby has a really cruddy record of living up to that claim. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> I wasnt questioning the legality of the frogs, but the statement that "another species when so many of the types that come in legally get lost due to popularity cycles within the hobby?" That all the new frogs coming in are causing older types to be lost due to popularity cycles within the hobby.


Consider this as a thought experiment to help give you an idea of the impact of new frogs on the overall population of frogs in the hobby. 

Consider: 1: the number of frog populations already established in the hobby
2: The minimum number of founding frogs for a well managed population breeding program is 100 frogs (50 pairs) to keep a population genetically diverse for 100-200 years. 
3: how people usually get all of their frogs for their enclosures (groups of froglets from the same breeder to save on costs) 
4: That frogs whose price drops to less than $20/frog or become too common tend to stop being widely distributed as people divest from them. (Frogs that produce large clutches like Epidobates anthonyi/tricolor, or P. terribalis are particularly at risk from this issue). 
5: Estimate how many people are in the hobby.... 

Now how do you think the continued addition of more novel groups affects the long-term viability on the established groups? How much do you think that this can drive the smuggling of establshed species to add "new blood" to populations already badly screwed up? 
How about adding in the status boost for someone who gets the new hot frog? 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> Couldn't that same logic be applied to all new species that are coming in, especially all the pumillo that are coming in?


If you are referring to the popularity cycles, we already see this in the pumilio.. what happened to all of the cauchero, man creeks, El Dorado, etc that were brought in during the first few years of the imports? 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

kimcmich said:


> @Ed, @Dane, @Woodswalker,
> 
> Nonetheless, what is to be done with the current captive animals? Should we support confiscation of the extent specimens by US and EU authorities? Clearly the government cannot be expected to maintain them and, as Ed notes, zoos would be unlikely to be interested in the work of preserving a captive-sourced population. This route seems to end in the dying-out of the captive lines.


You do realize that your arguing that it is better ethically to let them stay in the hands of the hobbyists since your implying that is is a problem to let the lines be removed from the hobby through one mechanism or another.... 

Consider the impact of a heavy handed approach to the blue galactanotus in the US, what would the effect be on the attitude towards illegal frogs if the government did come in, confiscate them (and any other clearly illegal frogs), and prosecuted those with the frogs to the extent allowed by the Lacey Act? 

Currently, the attitude towards having these and other clearly illegal animals is that is is low risk on getting prosecuted once they are in country therefore it is okay to smuggle them into the US (particularly with the argument that captive breeding is going to reduce demand (which has been established to be bull*). 



kimcmich said:


> The loss of the captive lines is, however a loss only to hobbyists who must forego adding these species to their collection. This is not a tragedy from a human perspective... but what of the frogs' ? The EU's solution has all the drawbacks already mentioned... but it seems like the only alternative to confiscation and (immediate or eventual) extirpation.


Actually this incorrect, it is not just a loss for the hobby, it is a loss for the ecosystem, a loss for the locals and a loss of revenue for the Brazilian government. Your overly simplifying the chain. Your also ignoring the fact that for the genetics of the wild population, you just shifted the gene frequencies by pulling out what could be a significant portion of the population. So letting those frogs stay in the hobby enabling the captive population to be further augmented by smuggled animals that can be easily laundered is worth the damage to the wild populations? (Yes I am be hyperbolic here but your totally ignoring huge factors to make the case for the continued presence of the frogs in the hobby). 
It is a well established conservation model that if a sustainable use market can be made from local products, there is great desire to keep the ecosystem as intact as possible to enable that continued trade. 

Now one of the main reasons that Brazil is so draconian about the frogs is because they took the less of epibatidine to heart when the drug companies refused to share any profits if it ever reached market... 



kimcmich said:


> I am not trying to be a bleeding heart for the frogs, nor use sympathy for their fate as a moral justification for the status quo. But no one seems eager to suggest that the captive population should be eliminated outright. If not that, then what?


Why didn't you just lead with this statement and skip all of the justifications on why the hobby should be allowed to keep the animals? 

The problem is that allowing the hobby to keep the illegal frogs rewards the hobby, and does not address any of the problems involved in the smuggling from the beginning. 

If the frogs can be shown to be pathogen negative how about repatriating them to Brazil for use in Brazilian Zoos and displays?? 

If you want to encourage conservation then some form of sustainable use of the established ecosystem is generally going to give you optimal results for sustaining wild populations. For a simplified explanation see http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Conservation, crime and communities.pdf 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## kimcmich

@Ed,



Ed said:


> You do realize that your arguing that it is better ethically to let them stay in the hands of the hobbyists since your implying that is is a problem to let the lines be removed from the hobby through one mechanism or another....


I _don't_ think it is ethically better to let them stay - and acknowledged the problem clemency creates for encouraging and giving-cover to further smuggling. But I don't see how, practically speaking, your suggested "heavy handed" approach results in anything more than the captive lines dying out. 

Even you seemed unprepared to contemplate the death of the confiscated frogs - instead suggesting they could be repatriated for use in "Brazilian zoos and displays." Out of all the conservation and economic challenges Brazil faces - how likely is a properly funded focus on this one morph/species?

Were there a sustainable program in Brazil that could maintain the captive lines repatriated there that would be the best possible solution. But if that program does not exist, then "heavy handed" enforcement of the Lacey Act and CITES would lead to the destruction of the confiscated animals. I do view that as a tragedy - even if it is a minor one.

But the world is not short of tragedies - and maybe cold, hard enforcement and confiscation is the right way to address the bigger tragedy of illegal trade destroying the wild populations of these animals. To go that course, however means being prepared to see the captive animals killed. 

Until we are comfortable with that - or there are viable alternative to it such as the repatriation you suggested, the status quo will persist.

Finally, I think you go too far in claiming that captive breeding does not reduce pressure on wild populations. Your argument seems to be that because captive-bred animals don't _eliminate_ wild collection they do not reduce wild collection at all. Yet every captive bred frog available in the US reduces the demand for frogs of that type from all sources. You have noted in the past the boom/bust cycle of rare/popular species. The decrease in cost of morphs as they become common has the direct effect of making wild collection and illegal importation less profitable and hence less likely. This benefit may pale in comparison to the encouragement and cover it can also give to illegal wild collection - but I don't think it's accurate to say there is _no_ benefit.


----------



## Ed

kimcmich said:


> Finally, I think you go too far in claiming that captive breeding does not reduce pressure on wild populations. Your argument seems to be that because captive-bred animals don't _eliminate_ wild collection they do not reduce wild collection at all. Yet every captive bred frog available in the US reduces the demand for frogs of that type from all sources. You have noted in the past the boom/bust cycle of rare/popular species. The decrease in cost of morphs as they become common has the direct effect of making wild collection and illegal importation less profitable and hence less likely. This benefit may pale in comparison to the encouragement and cover it can also give to illegal wild collection - but I don't think it's accurate to say there is _no_ benefit.


Ah, yes because the demand for ball pythons from the "ranches" has decreased due to reduced demand.... 

Or how its worked for green tree pythons Lyons, Jessica A., and Daniel JD Natusch. "Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: illegal harvest, population declines and a means of regulating the trade of green pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia." Biological Conservation 144.12 (2011): 3073-3081.

How about an economic analysis that goes through to show that unless a lot of specific factors are met, all you do is increase demand for wild caught animals (consider the value the hobby puts on frogs that are close to the wild populations... 

Damania, Richard, and Erwin H. Bulte. "The economics of wildlife farming and endangered species conservation." Ecological economics 62.3 (2007): 461-472. 

How about this analysis showing captive breeding can increase demand??? Drury, Rebecca. "Reducing urban demand for wild animals in Vietnam: examining the potential of wildlife farming as a conservation tool." Conservation Letters 2.6 (2009): 263-270.

There is a large and abundant body of literature on the whole captive breeding reduces demand that shows it to be not the things you are attempting to claim. Your continually overlooking the argument that okay one person got a cb frog and that should be one less taken from the wild but if that person generates more people who want that frog, you've now doubled, tripled, or much higher demand for that frog. In this day and age of the internet and sites like Facebook, you could increase demand a hundred fold or more since you now have a global audience of demand... Your totally over simplifying the argument in favor of allowing he hobby to keep them.. 


some comments 

Ed


----------



## kimcmich

Ed said:


> Ah, yes because the demand for ball pythons from the "ranches" has decreased due to reduced demand....
> 
> Or how its worked for green tree pythons Lyons, Jessica A., and Daniel JD Natusch. "Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: illegal harvest, population declines and a means of regulating the trade of green pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia." Biological Conservation 144.12 (2011): 3073-3081.
> 
> There is a large and abundant body of literature on the whole captive breeding reduces demand that shows it to be not the things you are attempting to claim. Your continually overlooking the argument that okay one person got a cb frog and that should be one less taken from the wild but if that person generates more people who want that frog, you've now doubled, tripled, or much higher demand for that frog. In this day and age of the internet and sites like Facebook, you could increase demand a hundred fold or more since you now have a global audience of demand... Your totally over simplifying the argument in favor of allowing he hobby to keep them...


@Ed,

I know you aren't one to shy away from a hard position, but your increasingly extreme argument against any benefit from captive breeding now leaves zoos and, indeed, any depiction of desirable frogs as a threat to conservation because it "generates more people who want that frog." 

It is too true that a nice picture posted on FaceBook can indeed ignite enormous, unsustainable demand for a rare species. The more sources that can meet this demand, however, the less any one source will need to be exploited. We can argue whether the desire itself to obtain these specimens is suspect and we would likely agree that not meeting this demand is no tragedy - but the fact that greater supply reduces pressure on all sources is basic economics. The fact that breeding programs (such as for boas) can be used as a cover for fraud seems a better reason for stamping-out said fraud than for eliminating the breeding programs unless the reeding itself is a fraud. This is certainly an issue in the aquarium trade where legitimate breeding has never been developed for many species despite anecdotes to the contrary.

You also seem convinced I want to maintain these frogs in the trade. I don't. I am arguing that the motivation for the EU's inconsistent regulatory system may be an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to balance real harms and real benefits - rather than simply a case of bad actors and bad faith.

I agree that the optimal solution to this problem is for 1)Smuggling to be stamped-out and 2)Brazil to develop a way to protect and to sustainably exploit their natural resources. Hopefully this would include a captive breeding and sale program with proceeds funding conservation efforts.


----------



## JPccusa

Ed said:


> Because this is so clear cut of at the least an ethical violation that it can be dealt with at the root of the problem. If there are at most a couple of dozen individual frogs of that population, it is a lot easier to get ahead of it than waiting until there are hundreds of that population spread across lots of individuals.
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed


If we had dealt with all the other species coming from Brazil the same way we are trying to deal with the blue galacts, the hobby would have a lot less "gray areas" frogs. Brazilian law is black and white - NO species are legally exported to hobbyists (A. castaneoticus, A. galactonotus, D. tinctorius “Lorenzo,” etc., etc., etc.).


----------



## evolvstll77

So reading through the posts I do not see one item. What are the powers that be in the US doing or going to do about it. Are they accepting this European Paperwork? So what is the US doing? What is the hobby going to do in regards? I see people on a soap box preaching about them being illegal. What is being done? Looks like they are being distributed and another 'illegal' frog in the hobby.


----------



## JPccusa

What CAN be done regarding unscrupulous people? 

We are doing our part by discussing and clarifying the laws to anyone legitimately still unsure about the frogs' legality (thanks Ed!). 

We, moderators, will not allow the sale of known illegal frogs in our marketplace. We will ban proven smugglers (we have in the past) and we can also report those people to authorities. 

Other than that, it is up to each individual to use their moral compass and act accordingly. We do not have access to your private messages, either here or on Facebook, so people who want to be smugglers will be smugglers and people who want to buy contraband will buy contraband.


----------



## Scott

As a friend of mine said to me yesterday ... " ... glad xxxx outed himself for dealing with xxxx. Now I know one more person to not EVER deal with."

That's exactly how I feel about it as well. Buy frogs from a known smuggler and/or scammer, and I'll never buy frogs from you.

s


----------



## Ed

evolvstll77 said:


> So reading through the posts I do not see one item. What are the powers that be in the US doing or going to do about it. Are they accepting this European Paperwork? So what is the US doing? What is the hobby going to do in regards? I see people on a soap box preaching about them being illegal. What is being done? Looks like they are being distributed and another 'illegal' frog in the hobby.


Here is the contact information so you can ask them yourself. https://www.fws.gov/duspit/contactus.htm 

It is pretty easy to find USFW's contact information as it is available on the web as well as facebook. You can use the number from that site and call them if you don't want to wait for your answer. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## bsr8129

JPccusa said:


> What CAN be done regarding unscrupulous people?
> 
> We are doing our part by discussing and clarifying the laws to anyone legitimately still unsure about the frogs' legality (thanks Ed!).
> 
> We, moderators, will not allow the sale of known illegal frogs in our marketplace. We will ban proven smugglers (we have in the past) and we can also report those people to authorities.
> 
> Other than that, it is up to each individual to use their moral compass and act accordingly. We do not have access to your private messages, either here or on Facebook, so people who want to be smugglers will be smugglers and people who want to buy contraband will buy contraband.


I would question the statement of will not allow the sale of known illegal frogs, as if you search the marketplace you can find sales for glacs, and "Lorenzo" which you previously stated are from Brazil and illegal frogs. Also by the looks of for sale adds Dendroboard doesnt seem the place to sell frogs any more, it looks like most have moved to FB. 

I understand your motivation as you can only control what you can control, but you need to be consistent, will you not allow the sell of Blue glacs on here or all glacs?


----------



## Ed

kimcmich said:


> @Ed,
> 
> I know you aren't one to shy away from a hard position, but your increasingly extreme argument against any benefit from captive breeding now leaves zoos and, indeed, any depiction of desirable frogs as a threat to conservation because it "generates more people who want that frog."


Your deflecting. Your attempting to equate your claim that each captive bred (smuggled) animal reduces demand which in multiple studies economic and otherwise show to be a false premise. As Zoos (at least in the US are not in the commercial market (particularly with smuggled animals)) your attempt to deflect this into an argument that lets people justify keeping the illegal frogs isn't valid (again). 

Nice attempt with the ad hominem though... I'm being aggressive at putting down the BS that isn't supported by science..not captive breeding so nice try to insinuate that I'm against people keeping animals. This is of course another attempt to deflect from the issue of attempting to justify over and over again, smuggled animals. I'm for keeping legal animals.... which is counter to your arguments. so far.... 



kimcmich said:


> It is too true that a nice picture posted on FaceBook can indeed ignite enormous, unsustainable demand for a rare species. The more sources that can meet this demand, however, the less any one source will need to be exploited.


Bunk, pure and simple, 100% horse bunk. You might want to educate yourself on the issue a little more before making that claim. The demand only decreases when the market is saturated. Until that point there is demand for continued wild animals (and if there is a perception of bad genetics it again drives further illegal collection). This is pretty simple economics with this regard so attempting the semantic argument really doesn't work. 

Hall, Richard J., E. J. Milner‐Gulland, and F. Courchamp. "Endangering the endangered: the effects of perceived rarity on species exploitation." Conservation Letters 1.2 (2008): 75-81.

Courchamp, Franck, et al. "Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect." PLoS biology 4.12 (2006): e415.

And long standing on the market model Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. The New American Library, New York.



kimcmich said:


> but the fact that greater supply reduces pressure on all sources is basic economics. The fact that breeding programs (such as for boas) can be used as a cover for fraud seems a better reason for stamping-out said fraud than for eliminating the breeding programs unless the reeding itself is a fraud. This is certainly an issue in the aquarium trade where legitimate breeding has never been developed for many species despite anecdotes to the contrary.


Again, the simple economic model does not apply and your greatly over simplifying the issue... your ignoring the value put on the goods sometimes called the "snob" value as well as allee effects... 



kimcmich said:


> You also seem convinced I want to maintain these frogs in the trade. I don't. I am arguing that the motivation for the EU's inconsistent regulatory system may be an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to balance real harms and real benefits - rather than simply a case of bad actors and bad faith.


Your argument doesn't equate to this in any way... all of your arguments are predicated in the frogs staying in the hobby. The decision by Germany and the Netherlands was (based on at least one communication) done as a cost saving effort as they would be too difficult to regulate so the smugglers have a free pass in those countries. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> I would question the statement of will not allow the sale of known illegal frogs, as if you search the marketplace you can find sales for glacs, and "Lorenzo" which you previously stated are from Brazil and illegal frogs. Also by the looks of for sale adds Dendroboard doesnt seem the place to sell frogs any more, it looks like most have moved to FB.
> 
> I understand your motivation as you can only control what you can control, but you need to be consistent, will you not allow the sell of Blue glacs on here or all glacs?


The documentation on "all galactanotus" and that Germany and the Netherlands will launder them into the trade is relatively new to the overall hobby... so looking at it historically one the site the best angle. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## JPccusa

bsr8129 said:


> ...by the looks of for sale adds Dendroboard doesnt seem the place to sell frogs any more, it looks like most have moved to FB.


True. People like to have full control of their ads without having to follow "pesky" rules. FB did make it much easier for people to put just about anything for sale with a few touches of a phone screen. 



bsr8129 said:


> I understand your motivation as you can only control what you can control, but you need to be consistent, will you not allow the sell of Blue glacs on here or all glacs?


We will hold the levee until it is breached. In other words, our consistency is based on each species. Example: Blue galacs, mystis, castis - no way we will approve those posts. Smugglers can use the unfiltered FB Marketplace for that.


----------



## kimcmich

Ed,

You enjoy alot of goodwill on this board because people respect your opinion, take you at your word, and assume you comment in good faith. I would appreciate at least the latter 2 of these 3 in return.



Ed said:


> Nice attempt with the ad hominem though...


Please reference the ad hominem attack, on my part, toward you. I have opined that _your position_ is "hard" and "extreme" - when did I attack you personally? (I will take a lack of response to this request as a tacit admission I have made no such ad hominem attack.)



Ed said:


> ...so nice try to insinuate that I'm against people keeping animals. This is of course another attempt to deflect from the issue of attempting to justify over and over again, smuggled animals.


I did not _insinuate_ you were against keeping animals, I directly stated that your position paraphrased as "captive breeding does not reduce pressure for wild and illegal sources of frogs" does not make sense. Now it seems you are actually making the slightly different point that, when demand overhwlems supply for a rare frog, all sources might be over-exploited. This does make sense and I agree - but it is a separate claim.



Ed said:


> You might want to educate yourself on the issue a little more before making that claim.


I am both well-educated and capable of doing my own literature searches. I also don't think listing literature references is the equivalent of having a discussion.



Ed said:


> The demand only decreases when the market is saturated. Until that point there is demand for continued wild animals (and if there is a perception of bad genetics it again drives further illegal collection). This is pretty simple economics with this regard so attempting the semantic argument really doesn't work.


And if captive breeding is one of the sources that can saturate the market (and it is! - the boom/bust cycles of rare morphs are a result), then captive breeding will reduce pressure for illegal wild collection. Again, you seem to be saying that, because demand can exceed supply for rare frogs, then captive breeding cannot reduce pressure on wild populations. I don't think this arguments holds.



Ed said:


> all of your arguments are predicated in the frogs staying in the hobby. The decision by Germany and the Netherlands was (based on at least one communication) done as a cost saving effort as they would be too difficult to regulate so the smugglers have a free pass in those countries.


The frogs are in the hobby. Although I would view the death of these lines as a tragedy, I would support that course of action if I thought confiscation of these animals would actually help stop illegal wild collection. I am skeptical that it would.

You dismiss the motivation of EU authorities as merely economic. I would suggest they also stem from the realization that the actual process of confiscation would not be easy; would likely catch the people who didn't know they should be hiding their frogs rather than those who knew they were breaking the law; and would leave unethical collectors with no alternative but smuggling to get the frogs they want. Confiscation/prosecution would need to _eliminate_ demand to not result in renewed pressure for illegal collection (possibly from the same people who had frogs confiscated). Yet how likely is that elimination in demand given that unethical collectors and smugglers already know they are breaking the law?


----------



## S2G

There's a famous quote I like...

"The truth doesn't care about your feelings"

I think this discussion is getting derailed from its original purpose. He backs up his talk with facts. I believe its safe to say Ed has earned his goodwill at this point.

It's pretty simple it hurts the wild population, hurts captive populations, and really doesn't benefit anyone except the smugglers.


----------



## kimcmich

@S2G,

I am still talking about illegal frogs - the topic of this thread. I would stick _strictly_ to that topic, but I had been accused of ad hominem attack and defended myself. 

I began my entry in this discussion by asking what we should do with these frogs. There are many galactonotus in the hobby in America and Europe. The recent imports are fewer in number but they are not in any sense more illegal than the other morphs of galactonotus (unless I am mistaken and there are non-Brazilian sources for these frogs).

No one was willing to say all morphs of Galactonotus should be confiscated. Ed supported confiscation of the blue morphs but avoided dealing with the problem of the fate of confiscated frogs being, most likely, their death. Dane supported the blue morphs' elimination if it "would keep them from ever coming in again". 

I too would support confiscation of these frogs in the US and the EU if there was a sustainable method of maintaining the confiscated frogs as well as they might have lived were they not confiscated. In the absence of this, in the absence of a Brazilian program to repatriate the frogs or give them sustainabl support in Brazilian zoos (as Ed alluded), in the absense of the USDA or DFW
being capable of being caretakers for these frogs, and the absence of a guarantee that confiscation would end demand, I do not support confiscation because confiscated frogs would die.

I think the smugglers deserve to be prosecuted; I think the employers and customers of the smugglers who had knowledge they were purchasing smuggled frogs deserve sanction. But now that these frogs exist in the hobby I do not see a reason to eliminate them if doing so is merely a symbolic response to our inability to stop or catch smugglers.

As much as I appreciate the value of laws and setting examples, I do not think a population of tens, hundreds, or thousands of captive frogs (depending on how many captive morphs you're willing to count in the illegal category) deserve to be sacrificed for the rule of law.

Are you willing to lay-out a credible method of confiscating and handling these frogs after confiscation? Then do so I will support it.

Without that, are you still willing to confiscate frogs and see them die in ill-equipped government facilities just to set an example? Then you and I disagree about the acceptable cost of strict law enforcement.

If you don't want to respond to my questions, S2G, at least you could stop suggesting an extended discussion of illegal frogs and how to deal with illegal morphs in the hobby is "off topic" because we disagree.


----------



## Dane

@Kimcmich, you still seem to be missing the point that this particular importation, due to its smaller volume, specific locale, undeniable phenotype, and singular importer, presents a very rare opportunity for the hobby to take a decisive stand. 
Yes, it may result in the individual mortality of this group of frogs, but it would set a very clear and public precedent that MANY long-term keepers and conservation-aware hobbyists DO NOT want to see this type of behavior. If the individual that brought these frogs in, as well as those that purchased from him/her were brought to scrutiny every time that pictures were posted or animals were offered for sale, there would be an obvious decline in demand for the morph.
The ultimate goal should not be to perpetuate them in the hobby, it should be to perpetuate them in the wild.


----------



## MDfrog

I think it is worth noting that the snake portion of the reptile trade is vastly different from frog portion. Most snake keepers are trying to produce a color morph not found in the wild, where as the majority of frog breeders that own scarce and rare specimens keep the bloodline as pure as possible.


----------



## Tricolor

I would venture to guess that the collection of legal frogs and illegal frogs does harm to their populations and environment. If we really cared about the frogs they would not be in zoos, aquarium, or private hands. 
I always try to justify keeping frogs but it always comes back to a selfish need.
Just saying.


----------



## GandalfTheGrey

Tricolor said:


> I would venture to guess that the collection of legal frogs and illegal frogs does harm to their populations and environment. If we really cared about the frogs they would not be in zoos, aquarium, or private hands.
> I always try to justify keeping frogs but it always comes back to a selfish need.
> Just saying.


If zoos didn't exist the California Condor, corrobee frogs, atelopus zeteki, and many other species would be extinct in the wild. I'm not saying that we don't keep them for private reasons, but there's a lot more to it with zoos and other institutions.


----------



## evolvstll77

So basically nothing. Yes it is easy to find information such as this on the internet. I figured with all these individuals on their soap box that someone would know the answer to my question. The hobby can police itself. Well status quo. Thank you for the non answer.




Ed said:


> Here is the contact information so you can ask them yourself. https://www.fws.gov/duspit/contactus.htm
> 
> It is pretty easy to find USFW's contact information as it is available on the web as well as facebook. You can use the number from that site and call them if you don't want to wait for your answer.
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed


----------



## Tricolor

Point taken Gandolf and I agree. On some of the others animals though the money spent might be better used. Such as buying the habit where they exist instead of tanks and cages.


----------



## carola1155

evolvstll77 said:


> So basically nothing. Yes it is easy to find information such as this on the internet. I figured with all these individuals on their soap box that someone would know the answer to my question. The hobby can police itself. Well status quo. Thank you for the non answer.


I'm not really sure what kind of answer you were looking for. It's not like anyone here is a F&W agent (well, anyone posting at least- they for sure do watch this forum though) so nobody has the capacity to do anything beyond report it and continue to encourage the hobby to police itself.

Also, as with almost everything in this country- there's a difference between what the law is and how it is enforced.

I've discussed the issue in a fair amount of detail with Marinus Hoogmoed at this point and from his perspective these animals are clearly illegal and were only allowed in because someone at USFWS didn't do their due diligence on the paperwork- which goes back to my point about the law vs enforcement.

Reporting it like Ed suggested is a good way to raise awareness within USFWS about their administrative error.


----------



## kimcmich

@Dane,

I accept the point that the recent blue morph import is a good candidate for stricter enforcement but I don't see how the authorities could choose to crack-down on one morph without cracking down on the others. Once the apparatus had been setup to actually find and confiscate the frogs, how could legal authorities ignore other Galactonotus, at least?



> If the individual that brought these frogs in, as well as those that purchased from him/her were brought to scrutiny every time that pictures were posted or animals were offered for sale, there would be an obvious decline in demand for the morph.


I agree, and I support this very model of public sanction. But this kind of norms enforcement can be effective, I think, without needing to eliminate these frogs. 

To that end, I appreciate Ed's original posts for this thread that give clear evidence that, despite EU paperwork and US approval, these morphs are illegal even if the EU has deemed them OK.



> The ultimate goal should not be to perpetuate them in the hobby, it should be to perpetuate them in the wild.


I definitely agree. And if were established that the keeping of certain (or, frankly, all) frogs in the hobby was incompatible with maintaining and preserving their wild populations, I would support losing the captive lines whether it involved their death or not.

But the hobby is not fundamentally incompatible with wild preservation. It is, at this point for some species, in tension with wild preservation. Since captive breeding is capable of reducing that tension and has, indeed, largely eliminated that tension for other morphs/species - I do not support confiscation until the fate of confiscated frogs can be reasonably well guaranteed.


----------



## Scott

Of course buying/owning it have nothing to do with preserving it.

Thus pillaging of some National Parks in South America.

You can own it all you wish - until you police it and give the local folks reason to look out for it - you're not going to make a lot of progress.

s


Tricolor said:


> Point taken Gandolf and I agree. On some of the others animals though the money spent might be better used. Such as buying the habit where they exist instead of tanks and cages.


----------



## GandalfTheGrey

In addition to what Scott said, and more to the point on amphibians, how do you prevent chytrid and ranavirus from entering a park? Put up trespassing signs? Although in some cases it may be beneficial to by up land for nature reserves (e.g. northern white rhino) but in many cases it's more effective to conserve species ex situ


----------



## markpulawski

It is all about the $$, likely another very shy frog that will lose it's luster. Too bad Brazil does not follow Colombia, Costa Rica and Peru in allowing true CB programs to stem the flow of smugglers, diffusing the situation by making the frogs available legally is the only thing that will ever stop this....that or extinction of the frogs in their habitat.


----------



## nyskiffie

markpulawski said:


> It is all about the $$, likely another very shy frog that will lose it's luster. Too bad Brazil does not follow Colombia, Costa Rica and Peru in allowing true CB programs to stem the flow of smugglers, diffusing the situation by making the frogs available legally is the only thing that will ever stop this....that or extinction of the frogs in their habitat.


I'm pretty new to all this but I can't agree more. It's like anything else. If people want it bad enough they will find a way to get it, legally or not. The only way to take away the demand for illegal frogs is to make legal, responsibly bred frogs easier and cheaper to get than the illegal ones. 

Not that Brazil will do that, but IMO that's the best way to get the smuggling demand down.


----------



## Ed

GandalfTheGrey said:


> In addition to what Scott said, and more to the point on amphibians, how do you prevent chytrid and ranavirus from entering a park? Put up trespassing signs? Although in some cases it may be beneficial to by up land for nature reserves (e.g. northern white rhino) but in many cases it's more effective to conserve species ex situ


It depends heavily on what you mean by ex-situ, if you are referring to outside of the region the animal is found in then you run into a lot of unintended consequences such as acclimation to native parasites and pathogens. Mortality due to exposure to parasites and pathogens on reintroduced species has a huge impact on survival of the reintroduced animals. (there is a huge bunch of literature showing this as a problem across multiple taxa) see for some references 

Van Oosterhout, Cock, et al. "The guppy as a conservation model: implications of parasitism and inbreeding for reintroduction success." Conservation Biology 21.6 (2007): 1573-1583.

Schmidt-Posthaus, Heike, et al. "Causes of mortality in reintroduced Eurasian lynx in Switzerland." Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38.1 (2002): 84-92.

In addition, it has been established that insect iridoviruses can jump into ectotherm vertebrate hosts and back into insect hosts so ex-situ programs should be using native invertebrate food sources to ensure that the animals won't then transfer to the wild populations. 

See for example Stöhr, Anke C., Tibor Papp, and Rachel E. Marschang. "Repeated Detection of an Invertebrate Iridovirus in Amphibians." Journal of Herpetological Medicine and Surgery 26.1-2 (2016): 54-58. 

Just, F., et al. "Occurrence of an Invertebrate Iridescent‐Like Virus (Iridoviridae) in Reptiles." Zoonoses and Public Health 48.9 (2001): 685-694.

Ohba, M., and K. Aizawa. "Lethal toxicity of arthropod iridoviruses to an amphibian, Rana limnocharis." Archives of virology 68.2 (1981): 153-156.

Weinmann, Nadine, et al. "Experimental infection of crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus) with an invertebrate iridovirus isolated from a high-casqued chameleon (Chamaeleo hoehnelii)." Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation 19.6 (2007): 674-679.

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

markpulawski said:


> It is all about the $$, likely another very shy frog that will lose it's luster. Too bad Brazil does not follow Colombia, Costa Rica and Peru in allowing true CB programs to stem the flow of smugglers, diffusing the situation by making the frogs available legally is the only thing that will ever stop this....that or extinction of the frogs in their habitat.


Part of the problem goes directly back to the issue of bio-prospecting and bio-piracy. If the US had ratified the treaty against bio-piracy then it might be less of an issue but part of their lack of interest in this lies in their worry about what someone will develop from the various secretions of the frogs. They took the whole epibatidine issue really seriously. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

evolvstll77 said:


> So basically nothing. Yes it is easy to find information such as this on the internet. I figured with all these individuals on their soap box that someone would know the answer to my question. The hobby can police itself. Well status quo. Thank you for the non answer.


I'm not sure why you think that anyone here would have last minute information on what if anything is going on with this at the enforcement level. Even if you reported it immediately on hearing they were in the country it would likely take days to weeks to months to hear back from USFW. If you want to get the information faster, then you should take it upon yourself to call and ask them if they are legal with reference to the CITES report, at least then you wouldn't be waiting for someone else to ask and report any answers. I know that way back when I asked about the trade in castenoticus, it took quite awhile to get a response from USFW. 

Even if they made the determination this was a Lacey Act violation, and then a top priority for enforcement why would they tell the population of individuals that work with the frogs and give people time to hide the evidence that it is going to blow up??? 

As a result, your being a little unreasonable in your demands for others to provide you answers as to whether or not it is going to blow up or not... and in how your characterizing the discussion over their legality. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

kimcmich said:


> But the hobby is not fundamentally incompatible with wild preservation. It is, at this point for some species, in tension with wild preservation. Since captive breeding is capable of reducing that tension and has, indeed, largely eliminated that tension for other morphs/species - I do not support confiscation until the fate of confiscated frogs can be reasonably well guaranteed.


The hobby as it currently stands is incompatible with conservation of the animals with only a couple of organizations doing any real conservation work.

The hobby despite a lot of lip service has pretty much shown itself unwilling to do anything that would help ensure the persistence of the ecosystems in which the frogs live and as we have seen in this argument cannot wait to jump on a new color variation regardless of whether or not it was derived from smuggled animals or not. This is where we see the hypocrisy inherent in the hobby as otherwise they would refuse illegally sourced animals and stick with supporting real programs like WIKIRI, and consider how to sustain captive populations so more wild frogs are required to sustain the population.... 

As for the fate of the frogs being guaranteed, why do you think you have a legal leg to argue about it one way or another?? Instead your arguing that it is okay for people to profit over illegally animals while waiting for a resolution on the fate of the frogs. I find that a weird argument given that your rewarding the people responsible for the illegal trade while waiting for the process to take its slow course. 

some comments. 

Ed


----------



## kimcmich

@Ed,



> As for the fate of the frogs being guaranteed, why do you think you have a legal leg to argue about it one way or another??


What gave you the impression I was making a legal argument? My concern has been, from my first post, the welfare of confiscated frogs. I support legal remedies that don't kill frogs - both those in captivity and those in the wild. I support confiscation of frogs if their welfare can be reasonably well guaranteed.



> Instead your arguing that it is okay for people to profit over illegally animals while waiting for a resolution on the fate of the frogs. I find that a weird argument given that your rewarding the people responsible for the illegal trade while waiting for the process to take its slow course.




The smugglers don't receive royalties on the descendants of the smuggled frogs - they profited from the sale of the original frogs. We could prosecute the original smuggler(s) and also fine them for every frog sold/distributed to others.

This strategy would target the people whose behavior we need to discourage (illegal importers of wild frogs), while avoiding confiscating/killing frogs or making criminals of people who didn't know these new frogs were smuggled. It would also avoid making subsequent criminals of those who choose to purchase the captive-bred descendants of the original imports.

Such a framework would punish humans and not kill the frogs whose ancestors were smuggled. I admit this has the effect of allowing a line of illegally obtained frogs to enter the hobby - but I view this as a superior outcome to the destruction of these frogs.

My thinking on this topic is influence by the case of a ultra-rare plant, Nymphaea thermarum. This plant is from a tiny habitat that may now be gone due to human industry. Some specimens were collected years ago and brought to Kew for propagation and study. It took years and Kew nearly lost the few survivors but they now can successfully propagate the plants. International law makes it illegal for Kew to distribute these plants to anyone, however. Thus, a fire or pathogen outbreak at Kew could wipe-out this entire species _because of_ the laws meant to protect (this and other) rare species. Clearly the case of galactonotus is not so dire - nonetheless, I think this reminds us that we must remain vigilant that the letter of the law does not overwhelm the spirit.


----------



## Ravage

This makes me sad. When I heard about this import (since it has occurred somewhat within my local circle) I responded, as I would hope anyone would, that the blue galacts. are illegal. I've heard the argument first hand about the CITES permit magically making this okay. I feel for those who covet this frog, but the fact of the matter is, paperwork does not wipe clean the actual events that led to these frogs being here in the USA (Colorado). The native habitat was raped to get the progenitors, and any commerce in these individuals merely supports that initial crime.
I also want to point out that if the USFWS does decide to enforce the law, the only thing that European paperwork will do is provide a paper trail directly to the individuals that imported these specimen and subsequently purchased them. It's something to consider for those who might want these frogs enough to convince themselves that it's okay. Those frogs, and all their offspring were effectively killed by the original smugglers. Just like the ones that no doubt-ably died in transit.
I really like my frogs, but I just can't get involved in any of the natives of Brasil. It's just a fact of life that you can't always get what you want. If we as a hobby refuse to traffic in these animals as well, then we can actually say we are doing something collectively to support conservation. It's about actions, not words (or pieces of paper).
This has been bothering me since I first heard about it, so Thanks, Ed, for bringing this topic up and acting as the voice of reason.


----------



## bsr8129

Ed said:


> Consider this as a thought experiment to help give you an idea of the impact of new frogs on the overall population of frogs in the hobby.
> 
> Consider: 1: the number of frog populations already established in the hobby
> 2: The minimum number of founding frogs for a well managed population breeding program is 100 frogs (50 pairs) to keep a population genetically diverse for 100-200 years.
> 3: how people usually get all of their frogs for their enclosures (groups of froglets from the same breeder to save on costs)
> 4: That frogs whose price drops to less than $20/frog or become too common tend to stop being widely distributed as people divest from them. (Frogs that produce large clutches like Epidobates anthonyi/tricolor, or P. terribalis are particularly at risk from this issue).
> 5: Estimate how many people are in the hobby....
> 
> Now how do you think the continued addition of more novel groups affects the long-term viability on the established groups? How much do you think that this can drive the smuggling of establshed species to add "new blood" to populations already badly screwed up?
> How about adding in the status boost for someone who gets the new hot frog?
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed



This is an assumption that people are in the hobby to make money and not to enjoy their frogs. which I agree that most people are. If they were in it to enjoy the frogs, it wouldnt matter if they sell the offspring for $100s or $15, and they way people are pricing their frogs its evident that some are just in it for the $$


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> Or how its worked for green tree pythons Lyons, Jessica A., and Daniel JD Natusch. "Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: illegal harvest, population declines and a means of regulating the trade of green pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia." Biological Conservation 144.12 (2011): 3073-3081.
> Ed


I happen to know a bit of the background story for this paper:


----------



## Amagaeru

I wish to relay conversation from sending an inquiry to the USFWS. 
One can take their stand based on morals, but more information is always better when making an informed decision.


----------



## MELLOWROO421

Amagaeru said:


> I wish to relay conversation from sending an inquiry to the USFWS.
> One can take their stand based on morals, but more information is always better when making an informed decision.
> 
> https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOYLHsABiVk28mJaPSyjLvxJz6QBwsNGOrSh4RA
> https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMZlL2bZjSMu2j4IWgh2oZuTHhna1flC4UG6jRM
> https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPRy29mtX1YLsmcM2c2Lyqc5BwNdbNh7TFJc5jY
> https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNXWR2OToNwEDkT073e5x2i8L-IS0QIXNrAG_PK
> https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPu3Rysv33WdkOXJ793n4brcgbgWHZVcbEXa4dI


Nothing linked seems to be working. Any chance you can repost for us to read?


----------



## JPccusa

Amagaeru said:


> I wish to relay conversation from sending an inquiry to the USFWS.
> One can take their stand based on morals, but more information is always better when making an informed decision.


Agreed! Even better when both morals and informed decisions align.


----------



## Ed

And to back it up, this showed up in my e-mail queue a little while ago. I cut and pasted it so that any breaking of links from a picture upload won't lose the information. 



Thank you for your inquiry regarding the importation of poison dart frogs that will require clearance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our mission is, working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Regulations at the following link indicate that the clearance of these poison dart frogs does not constitute a certification of the legality of the importation under the laws or regulations of the United States: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...7fd953184&mc=true&node=se50.1.14_152&rgn=div8

Please reply to this message with as much specific information as possible regarding this matter and this information will be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement office for review. 

Thank you for your interest in our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter. 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Management Authority, FWHQ <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Fwd: legality once animals is imported into the USA.
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>


Hi OLE,

I believe this inquiry is appropriate for your attention. However, please let me know if DMA can assist.
Thanks, 

Julia Butzler

******************************************************
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
International Affairs Program
Division of Management Authority
Branch of Permits
1-800-358-2104
Reply to: [email protected]
http://www.fws.gov/international/permits/
Sign up for our e-newsletter to learn how we're working around the globe to protect species and their habitats!
Going abroad? Be Informed. Buy Informed.
******************************************************
Mailing address:
ATTN DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY - BRANCH OF PERMITS
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE HEADQUARTERS; MS: IA
5275 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041-3803
Stamp out extinction with the Save Vanishing Species Stamp

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

For those interested in the CITES report, you can read the pdf here http://www.amphibians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E-AC28-Inf-341.pdf

I would have uploaded the pdf but it is too large. If anyone wants the pdf to read, you can shoot me a pm or e-mail and I'll send it to you. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## JPccusa

Ed, I posted this PDF document on "that FB thread" and this type of response popped up a few times. 









They were claiming the PDF is an opinion and not the law.


----------



## bsr8129

Ed said:


> And to back it up, this showed up in my e-mail queue a little while ago. I cut and pasted it so that any breaking of links from a picture upload won't lose the information.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your inquiry regarding the importation of poison dart frogs that will require clearance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our mission is, working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
> 
> Regulations at the following link indicate that the clearance of these poison dart frogs does not constitute a certification of the legality of the importation under the laws or regulations of the United States: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...7fd953184&mc=true&node=se50.1.14_152&rgn=div8
> 
> Please reply to this message with as much specific information as possible regarding this matter and this information will be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement office for review.
> 
> Thank you for your interest in our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed



So what this is saying that you can have clearance of basically any illegal wildlife, so they will allow anything in illegal or not? They are not doing any veting of documents or anything to see if the animals are legal allowed into the united state? 




On a different token if you read the link provided by the generic response they are giving you, it states to get clearance you have to provide the following?

(c) To obtain clearance, the importer, exporter, or the importer's or exporter's agent will make available to a Service officer or a Customs officer acting under §14.54:

(1) All shipping documents (including bills of lading, waybills and packing lists or invoices);

(2) All permits, licenses or other documents required by the laws or regulations of the United States;

(3) All permits or other documents required by the laws or regulations of any foreign country;

(4) The wildlife being imported or exported; and

(5) Any documents and permits required by the country of export or re-export for the wildlife.

So shouldn't they be looking at all this info before letting in any animal?


----------



## Ed

Given the response on Facebook by the importer/seller, I asked the obvious question about being bred in a zoo making them legal and here is the response from USFW... 




> Dear Edward,
> 
> Thank you for your follow-up inquiry.
> 
> If a given zoo receives illegally imported and/or confiscated CITES-listed specimens, then offspring from those specimens would not be legal to distribute within that country and could not be legally exported to other countries.
> 
> Thank you for your interest in our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter.



so... 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> So what this is saying that you can have clearance of basically any illegal wildlife, so they will allow anything in illegal or not? They are not doing any veting of documents or anything to see if the animals are legal allowed into the united state?


No, I think (and this is opinion) that given the extensive wildlife smuggling globally that they recognize stuff gets by the gate and as a result it doesn't give the people who take advantage of this the claim that since you let it in, it is legal. 

This is based on the Lacey Act language where wildlife acquired in contravention of law (in the native country or elsewhere such as a treaty) is illegal and all of the offspring are also illegal. 

In this specific case, the problem is really clear cut as they were recently smuggled out of Brazil and are being laundered through the Netherlands and Germany in part because the CITES secretariat isn't fully doing its job. 




bsr8129 said:


> On a different token if you read the link provided by the generic response they are giving you, it states to get clearance you have to provide the following?
> 
> (c) To obtain clearance, the importer, exporter, or the importer's or exporter's agent will make available to a Service officer or a Customs officer acting under §14.54:
> 
> (1) All shipping documents (including bills of lading, waybills and packing lists or invoices);
> 
> (2) All permits, licenses or other documents required by the laws or regulations of the United States;
> 
> (3) All permits or other documents required by the laws or regulations of any foreign country;
> 
> (4) The wildlife being imported or exported; and
> 
> (5) Any documents and permits required by the country of export or re-export for the wildlife.
> 
> So shouldn't they be looking at all this info before letting in any animal?


Yes but given the number of wildlife species in trade, it means people makes mistakes but as I've mentioned in the past, USFW can revoke the "legal" import if evidence surfaces that the animals were laundered or otherwise acquired illegally. 

One of the things about the generic responses is that they have a department set-up specifically to answer questions for more clarification and if you file a FOIA, that is the group who pulls the answer together. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## hypostatic

SO I haven't really posted on DB in over a year.... and I dug up my password just to comment on this. Right off the bat, I have to say is that this is _*CLEARLY*_ illegal laundering. And it's being done by an individual who has a history of being at odds with the law.

I have said this many, many, many, MANY times before on DB: Brazil does not legally allow/permit the export of it's native fauna OR flora. This is why, frogs aside, you don't even see commercial orchid sellers exporting out of the country, even though it has orchids coming out of the wazoo. I have mentioned before that I am Brazilian, and there are a couple of us on DB. Ask any one of us about the issue, and we would all tell you that IBAMA is draconian about not allowing animals/plants out of the country.

The law is pretty straightforward on the issue. You can't own or keep wildlife. You can't buy or sell wildlife. You can't have ANY transaction involving wildlife.

People have brought up the issue of red/yellow galacs in the hobby. Personally, I don't own any. I can't help what happened in the 70s (before I was even born). But if this is happening NOW, everyone should stand up against it, and do the right thing.


----------



## hypostatic

AND WOULDN'T YOU FREAKING KNOW IT. The individual in question was trying to get his hands on these frogs as far back as 2015....

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/235050-adelphobates-galactonotus-blue.html

And as far back as then, it was clear that these frogs were "smuggled" and "illegal"


----------



## Pumilo

This is so disappointing. We, (the hobby), should be beyond this. 

This happened right here and now, in our own backyard! The people involved, in their infinite wisdom, have announced what they did to the world. They seem to be rather proud of continuing our dark history of smuggling. 

It's time to take a stand and shut this crap down! 

I am all for Fish and Wildlife pursuing this to the bitter end. I hope they can take past offenses into account when prosecuting.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this, Ed.


----------



## gope

I've missed all of this on Facebook. Could someone please steer me(us) to the location of this nonsense? 
Thanks


----------



## bsr8129

The "Hobby" has no clear direction or care, realistically. There have been many attempts through the years to get a majority of people on board on keeping track of lineage of our frogs to ensure an easy approach. Did that ever happen nope, because this "Hobby" is so fragmented and very few people care about preserving anything, they just want frogs in a glass box. That is the reality of the "Hobby" and it will always continue on like that, and this is always going to happen.


----------



## bsr8129

hypostatic said:


> SO I haven't really posted on DB in over a year.... and I dug up my password just to comment on this. Right off the bat, I have to say is that this is _*CLEARLY*_ illegal laundering. And it's being done by an individual who has a history of being at odds with the law.
> 
> I have said this many, many, many, MANY times before on DB: Brazil does not legally allow/permit the export of it's native fauna OR flora. This is why, frogs aside, you don't even see commercial orchid sellers exporting out of the country, even though it has orchids coming out of the wazoo. I have mentioned before that I am Brazilian, and there are a couple of us on DB. Ask any one of us about the issue, and we would all tell you that IBAMA is draconian about not allowing animals/plants out of the country.
> 
> The law is pretty straightforward on the issue. You can't own or keep wildlife. You can't buy or sell wildlife. You can't have ANY transaction involving wildlife.
> 
> People have brought up the issue of red/yellow galacs in the hobby. Personally, I don't own any. I can't help what happened in the 70s (before I was even born). But if this is happening NOW, everyone should stand up against it, and do the right thing.



What about all the other frogs from brazil that are in the hobby, what about them, why do we let those frogs get a slide and not all others. To go even further what about other frogs that are laundered through the EU and over here and no one raises a stink about them???? People want to raise a stink about some frogs but others are just brushed under the rug and no one raises the question of their legality. If "we" as a hobby are so passionate we should do the same about all and not just a few.


----------



## MELLOWROO421

There is likely no realistic plan that could achieve trying to locate, confiscate and prosecute those who own frogs that have been bred, sold, traded etc. for decades in the states like the yellow, orange and red galacts. It would be a logistical nightmare for any agency to attempt. The new, obvious stuff would be easy to nip in the bud right here and now. It's not a free pass, it's just the way it has to be if we want to make a statement about how we feel about the future of illegal smuggling and laundering in our hobby. If we allow the fact that there is little that can currently be done about the old stuff we can no longer track to stop us from trying to enforce the laws on new current imports of obviously illegal animals then why even have the laws to begin with? I 100% support the idea that we should attempt to find, confiscate and prosecute this new import. It seems that the majority of people who use the whole "we need to prosecute for all galacts if we prosecute for the new import of the blues" fully understand the problems with that theory and in turn use it as an excuse to turn a blind eye in hopes that the hobby will forget and just accept the new import over time.


----------



## kimcmich

Clearly (and encouragingly) ethical impulses run high in this discussion - but as Mellowroo notes, we also have to confront the practical limits of our ethical impulses.

I think Mellowroo goes too far suggest _all_ those who support confiscation/prosecution for all galactonotus are making ingenuine arguments (but no doubt the intractability of enforcing CITES/Lacey for all these morphs is noise that has been exploited by the blue morph importers as cover for their more recent malfeasance.

What is the general feeling about the other galactonotus among "advanced" hobbyists? I don't have frogs at all (yet - I'll be trying a group R. imitator or R. variabilis soon) but for those who have larger collections: Do you avoid the red/yellow/orange morphs D. galactonotus on principal?


----------



## Ed

hypostatic said:


> AND WOULDN'T YOU FREAKING KNOW IT. The individual in question was trying to get his hands on these frogs as far back as 2015....
> 
> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/235050-adelphobates-galactonotus-blue.html
> 
> And as far back as then, it was clear that these frogs were "smuggled" and "illegal"


I looked back through that thread and I had to laugh as even then I was pointing out that CITES permits do not convey legality nor does being allowed into the country. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

MELLOWROO421 said:


> There is likely no realistic plan that could achieve trying to locate, confiscate and prosecute those who own frogs that have been bred, sold, traded etc. for decades in the states like the yellow, orange and red galacts. It would be a logistical nightmare for any agency to attempt.


I've mentioned before that it is unlikely for them to go after people for them unless they want you bad enough. Now if you get picked up for having some other form of illegal wildlife, don't be surprised if they go over your collection with a fine tooth comb and include frogs like the other galactanotus that do not have a legal origin. 

People forget that the Lacey Act has provisions that covers not only all offspring but all interstate trade in them.. so each time someone ships those frogs in an interstate transaction across state borders, they are resetting a clock on being able to be prosecuted for it. So its a risk and for most people an informed risk. The main thing that is a plus for the old lines of galactanotus is that their price has dropped in general to be below the threshold of a felony to a misdemeanor charge under the Lacey Act which changes the penalties (unless of course you exceed that amount in one transaction by purchasing multiple animals). 

It all comes down to how much they want to get someone for wildlife trafficking. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> What about all the other frogs from brazil that are in the hobby, what about them, why do we let those frogs get a slide and not all others. To go even further what about other frogs that are laundered through the EU and over here and no one raises a stink about them???? People want to raise a stink about some frogs but others are just brushed under the rug and no one raises the question of their legality. If "we" as a hobby are so passionate we should do the same about all and not just a few.


Not all of those other cases have as clear a picture of illegality as do the galactanotus and particularly the blue ones. As an example, there were exports of frogs in the early to mid 1980s (earliest CITES records) as Dendrobates ssp and that is where a number of the thumbnails were brought into the country often labeled after import in the (at that time) dendrobates quinquevittatus. These aren't shown in the record because there isn't any requirement to stash a voucher specimen(s) so that as taxonomy evolves they could then be correctly attributed to the right name. This isn't the case with the galactanotus as they have been protected before they were ever CITES listed. 

In these cases, the country of origin then states whether or not that specific frog was exported legally or not which is why mysteriosus is not legal in the US... even though some claim that it was brought in under a different name (Dendrobates ssp) but given the location of where it lives, Peru disputes that claim. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## hypostatic

The most disheartening thing about the whole thing is that the VAST majority of people on Facebook were highly supportive of the whole thing. I could count on one hand the number of people who objected, while dozens more were extremely supportive. The main reactions were "thanks for doing this for us!", and basically, "this is Brazil's fault for not allowing the export of these animals. They are forcing us to smuggle them!"...



gope said:


> I've missed all of this on Facebook. Could someone please steer me(us) to the location of this nonsense?


Once the author's history of illegal activity was brought up, he decided to delete the post to save face.




bsr8129 said:


> What about all the other frogs from brazil that are in the hobby, what about them, why do we let those frogs get a slide and not all others.


I'm not saying that what happened in the past is fine. I don't know exactly what went on in the past, and most of us had no control over what was happening (I wasn't even born). What I AM saying, is that this smuggling is happening now. And if anyone actually cares about wildlife conservation at all, then they should be against this activity that is going on now. We can, and should, take a stand against this type of activity now, and in the future. Not only because we know it's bad for frogs, but because we KNOW it's illegal.




Ed said:


> I've mentioned before that it is unlikely for them to go after people for them unless they want you bad enough.


It's sad that (I believe mostly due to limited resources) more conspicuous animals are a priority, while tiny frogs are mostly ignored...


----------



## Ed

hypostatic said:


> The most disheartening thing about the whole thing is that the VAST majority of people on Facebook were highly supportive of the whole thing. I could count on one hand the number of people who objected, while dozens more were extremely supportive. The main reactions were "thanks for doing this for us!", and basically, "this is Brazil's fault for not allowing the export of these animals. They are forcing us to smuggle them!"...


It was weird overall, people wanted to ignore the fact that the importer was challenging people to ask USFW about the frogs and when people did ask, and they didn't like the answer so started trying to accuse those who asked with ulterior motives. 

Then other people started trying to help the importer find a way that the frogs would be legal by making false claims about the Lacey Act, and the CITES treaty and when those were shown to contradict the actual language of those regulations try to wiggle it somewhere else. It was almost surreal. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## JPccusa

hypostatic said:


> The most disheartening thing about the whole thing is that the VAST majority of people on Facebook were highly supportive of the whole thing. I could count on one hand the number of people who objected, while dozens more were extremely supportive. The main reactions were "thanks for doing this for us!", and basically, "this is Brazil's fault for not allowing the export of these animals. They are forcing us to smuggle them!"...


That's a good thing... it helps separate the wheat from the chaff. Keep note of those people and spread the word in our small hobby of their ethical and moral standards.


----------



## JPccusa

bsr8129 said:


> This also says that all Glacs are here illegally, so why do we only take a stand now and not make such a show for the red, orange and others?





bsr8129 said:


> Couldn't that same logic be applied to all new species that are coming in, especially all the pumillo that are coming in?





bsr8129 said:


> I would question the statement of will not allow the sale of known illegal frogs, as if you search the marketplace you can find sales for glacs, and "Lorenzo" which you previously stated are from Brazil and illegal frogs. Also by the looks of for sale adds Dendroboard doesnt seem the place to sell frogs any more, it looks like most have moved to FB.
> 
> I understand your motivation as you can only control what you can control, but you need to be consistent, will you not allow the sell of Blue glacs on here or all glacs?





bsr8129 said:


> What about all the other frogs from brazil that are in the hobby, what about them, why do we let those frogs get a slide and not all others. To go even further what about other frogs that are laundered through the EU and over here and no one raises a stink about them???? People want to raise a stink about some frogs but others are just brushed under the rug and no one raises the question of their legality. If "we" as a hobby are so passionate we should do the same about all and not just a few.


You have brought up this point a few times in this thread already. 

I agree with you, John - we, as a hobby, should do a better job at raising a stink about *all* illegal frogs and not just some. A few of us do, time after time, but "a few of us" does not make the entire hobby. 

I understand that you want to point out how hypocrite the hobby appears to be to you, but as it has been explained, not all illegal species are clearly illegal right off the bat. Some fall into the gray area category (Ex. orange and red galacts), making it difficult for hobbyists to discern. People, then, use their own moral compass to decide where they stand on the issue, creating the spectrum of different shades of gray that you perceive as hypocritical.

My questions to you are why are you trying to shift the focus of the conversation to all the many other species already in the US illegally? Do you consider this discussion about the legality of Blue Galacts to be irrelevant/unimportant to you/the hobby? Most importantly, what are YOU personally doing to help in these situations (either the blue galacts or any other illegal/gray area species)?


----------



## bsr8129

JP, 

I am not trying to shift the focus away, I am asking if we are bringing up the discussion on these frogs why do we not do it for all? I dont play to one side, I see both and can question both sides. But what I find common in this hobby is that people are very hypocritical, they want to jump on the bandwagon and go on attack over one specific topic, but when asked why only focusing on this one very specific aspect and not on all these other very relevant topics they wont answer or wont address them. I see it with mixed tanks, one person it does it and all hell can break loose on them. Another person does it and no one says a peep about it. 


The discussion of blue Glacs is not going to change the way I keep my frogs, or what frogs I keep. If you want to use the moral high ground, you can use that. If you want to morally say that these frogs are wrong to keep that your choice. There are so many "grey" area frogs out there to have a moral compass on. 

If you are asking would I buy smuggled frogs, meaning some guy put them in his suitcase and smuggled them across the boarder and brought them in that way, No i wouldn't buy frogs like that. But for these they were brought in legally, or as legal as you can get with the frogs. So they are here now, nothing the hobby can do about it. If you dont want to buy the frogs then dont buy them, if other people want to buy the frogs then let them buy them, having the stance of you shouldn't because morally its wrong is your justification and should not be pushed on someone else. 

What is the hobby doing about these frogs? From the discussion there only a handful of frogs here, with 6 people that have them. Is the hobby going to raise a funds and pay the people that have them to cull these frogs so they wont be in the hobby, put some action behinds their words. Or are they gonna do nothing but raise a stink over it then let it pass like pretty much they do on everything else. 

I am a Hobbiest, I keep colorfull frogs in glass boxes, Im not an activist, I am not the moral police of what people do with their animals. I enjoy what I have and if others want to break the law, smuggle animals in burn down rainforests, then it is what it is and me posting about it in anger isnt going to change anything.


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> JP,
> 
> I am not trying to shift the focus away, I am asking if we are bringing up the discussion on these frogs why do we not do it for all? I dont play to one side, I see both and can question both sides. But what I find common in this hobby is that people are very hypocritical, they want to jump on the bandwagon and go on attack over one specific topic, but when asked why only focusing on this one very specific aspect and not on all these other very relevant topics they wont answer or wont address them. I see it with mixed tanks, one person it does it and all hell can break loose on them. Another person does it and no one says a peep about it.


If you go back through the discussions on this topic, you'll see that I've been on both sides of the fence depending on the evidence. As an example this thread was spun off another one and it can be seen that there is a discussion on all illegal frogs... http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/54899-would-you-buy-wc-lehmanni.html 



bsr8129 said:


> If you are asking would I buy smuggled frogs, meaning some guy put them in his suitcase and smuggled them across the boarder and brought them in that way, No i wouldn't buy frogs like that. But for these they were brought in legally, or as legal as you can get with the frogs.


In what way were those frogs legally imported? 




bsr8129 said:


> So they are here now, nothing the hobby can do about it. If you dont want to buy the frogs then dont buy them, if other people want to buy the frogs then let them buy them, having the stance of you shouldn't because morally its wrong is your justification and should not be pushed on someone else.


There is a big disjunct here... you do realize that your arguing for accepting illegal imports simply because they got through customs which oddly enough does not convey legality as per USFW. 




bsr8129 said:


> What is the hobby doing about these frogs? From the discussion there only a handful of frogs here, with 6 people that have them. Is the hobby going to raise a funds and pay the people that have them to cull these frogs so they wont be in the hobby, put some action behinds their words. Or are they gonna do nothing but raise a stink over it then let it pass like pretty much they do on everything else.


How is asking USFW not raising a fuss as the vendor challenged people to ask them about those specific frogs? What do you want people to do, contact their congressional representatives to try and force an investigation? Why would USFW tell people they were actually investigating the import when it could lead those who purchased the frogs to dump them... I'm not sure I understand your rationality for that argument. It is like any other crime, you let law enforcement know of a crime and then it is up to them to do the investigation and some investigations of take years before they charge people as they want as big a chain of people as possible. As an example it too three years for this one to run its course https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/archive/workshop-terrestrial-turtles-operation-shellshock.pdf .... 




bsr8129 said:


> I am a Hobbiest, I keep colorfull frogs in glass boxes, Im not an activist, I am not the moral police of what people do with their animals. I enjoy what I have and if others want to break the law, smuggle animals in burn down rainforests, then it is what it is and me posting about it in anger isnt going to change anything.


So you've completed your argument for allowing to stay in the hobby just "because they're illegal but so what". This position is what lets overt smuggling and laundering of wildlife to continue to happen. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## S2G

bsr8129 said:


> JP,
> 
> I am not trying to shift the focus away, I am asking if we are bringing up the discussion on these frogs why do we not do it for all? I dont play to one side, I see both and can question both sides. But what I find common in this hobby is that people are very hypocritical, they want to jump on the bandwagon and go on attack over one specific topic, but when asked why only focusing on this one very specific aspect and not on all these other very relevant topics they wont answer or wont address them. I see it with mixed tanks, one person it does it and all hell can break loose on them. Another person does it and no one says a peep about it.
> 
> 
> The discussion of blue Glacs is not going to change the way I keep my frogs, or what frogs I keep. If you want to use the moral high ground, you can use that. If you want to morally say that these frogs are wrong to keep that your choice. There are so many "grey" area frogs out there to have a moral compass on.
> 
> If you are asking would I buy smuggled frogs, meaning some guy put them in his suitcase and smuggled them across the boarder and brought them in that way, No i wouldn't buy frogs like that. But for these they were brought in legally, or as legal as you can get with the frogs. So they are here now, nothing the hobby can do about it. If you dont want to buy the frogs then dont buy them, if other people want to buy the frogs then let them buy them, having the stance of you shouldn't because morally its wrong is your justification and should not be pushed on someone else.
> 
> What is the hobby doing about these frogs? From the discussion there only a handful of frogs here, with 6 people that have them. Is the hobby going to raise a funds and pay the people that have them to cull these frogs so they wont be in the hobby, put some action behinds their words. Or are they gonna do nothing but raise a stink over it then let it pass like pretty much they do on everything else.
> 
> I am a Hobbiest, I keep colorfull frogs in glass boxes, Im not an activist, I am not the moral police of what people do with their animals. I enjoy what I have and if others want to break the law, smuggle animals in burn down rainforests, then it is what it is and me posting about it in anger isnt going to change anything.


They're illegal period end of story. There have been numerous links citing the law and why. I don't get all your other posts then 5 paragraphs on this one just to say you don't mind buying illegal animals as long as someone else puts in the dirty work.


----------



## JPccusa

bsr8129 said:


> JP,
> 
> I am not trying to shift the focus away, I am asking if we are bringing up the discussion on these frogs why do we not do it for all?


By asking questions not pertaining to the Blue Galact morph but to the gamut of illegal frogs, you are indeed changing the focus of the discussion, whether willingly or not.



bsr8129 said:


> I dont play to one side, I see both and can question both sides.





bsr8129 said:


> But for these they were brought in legally, or as legal as you can get with the frogs.


You obviously didn't ask enough questions to both sides, or simply do not care about the answer. 



bsr8129 said:


> But what I find common in this hobby is that people are very hypocritical, they want to jump on the bandwagon and go on attack over one specific topic, but when asked why only focusing on this one very specific aspect and not on all these other very relevant topics they wont answer or wont address them.


I hope you don't feel we are not addressing the "other topic" that you keep bringing up. Please ask me/us the question you feel has not been addressed. PS: Not agreeing with an answer does not constitute a lack of answer. 



bsr8129 said:


> I see it with mixed tanks, one person it does it and all hell can break loose on them. Another person does it and no one says a peep about it.


Again, gray areas. Is the person attempting mixed tank(s) a newcomer to the hobby? Is the tank too small? Are the frogs from different regions of the planet? 
It has been said MANY times before on Dendroboard that mixed tanks are possible with enough knowledge and planning. 
Regardless, mixed tanks discussions belong in a different thread. I just want to reiterate it can be done but not by many people. 



bsr8129 said:


> The discussion of blue Glacs is not going to change the way I keep my frogs, or what frogs I keep.


It was never the intent of this discussion, unless you keep blue Galacts, and even so, I doubt this discussion would dissuade unscrupulous people from keeping the morph. 



bsr8129 said:


> If you want to use the moral high ground, you can use that. If you want to morally say that these frogs are wrong to keep that your choice. There are so many "grey" area frogs out there to have a moral compass on.


I agree



bsr8129 said:


> If you are asking would I buy smuggled frogs, meaning some guy put them in his suitcase and smuggled them across the boarder and brought them in that way, No i wouldn't buy frogs like that.


Great to hear you wouldn't buy frogs that you know are blatantly illegal. That was probably what happened to the blue galacts morph, though. Some of those frogs were in a suitcase in an airport somewhere. I am almost sure that was exactly how they got to Europe and now the US. 



bsr8129 said:


> So they are here now, nothing the hobby can do about it.


Well, that's your opinion. Some of us are actually concerned about them being in the US and we are doing something about it. Heck, there are 3 pages of discussion about it... that's something already. 



bsr8129 said:


> If you dont want to buy the frogs then dont buy them, if other people want to buy the frogs then let them buy them, having the stance of you shouldn't because morally its wrong is your justification and should not be pushed on someone else.


I appreciate your libertarian approach to the matter but unfortunately me/the hobby gets affected by these frogs being here.



bsr8129 said:


> What is the hobby doing about these frogs? From the discussion there only a handful of frogs here, with 6 people that have them. Is the hobby going to raise a funds and pay the people that have them to cull these frogs so they wont be in the hobby, put some action behinds their words. Or are they gonna do nothing but raise a stink over it then let it pass like pretty much they do on everything else.


Like I said, we are doing something, even if it may seem insignificant to some people. Another example: this discussion, both here and and on Facebook, are exposing people's moral and ethical values. I hope most hobbyists are keeping tabs of those values and creating a black list of people who they should never do business with. 



bsr8129 said:


> I am a Hobbiest, I keep colorfull frogs in glass boxes, Im not an activist, I am not the moral police of what people do with their animals. I enjoy what I have and if others want to break the law, smuggle animals in burn down rainforests, then it is what it is and me posting about it in anger isnt going to change anything.


That's where we differ the most. I am a hobbyist but ALSO an activist. I not only love the colorful frogs in my glass box but also their wild-living species and their habitat. I like to believe my words and actions go beyond the comfort of my home.


----------



## bsr8129

Ed said:


> If you go back through the discussions on this topic, you'll see that I've been on both sides of the fence depending on the evidence. As an example this thread was spun off another one and it can be seen that there is a discussion on all illegal frogs... http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/54899-would-you-buy-wc-lehmanni.html
> 
> 
> 
> In what way were those frogs legally imported?
> * The frogs were brought in through the only legal channel to bring them in. Paper work was submitted and USFWS service allowed these frogs to come in the country. To me thats the legally way to import animals into the country. Is there a different way to import animals into the country? I know you dont believe this and you have an e-mail from USFWS saying other wise, but they allowed them to come in.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big disjunct here... you do realize that your arguing for accepting illegal imports simply because they got through customs which oddly enough does not convey legality as per USFW.
> * see above as how else do you legally import animals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is asking USFW not raising a fuss as the vendor challenged people to ask them about those specific frogs? What do you want people to do, contact their congressional representatives to try and force an investigation? Why would USFW tell people they were actually investigating the import when it could lead those who purchased the frogs to dump them... I'm not sure I understand your rationality for that argument. It is like any other crime, you let law enforcement know of a crime and then it is up to them to do the investigation and some investigations of take years before they charge people as they want as big a chain of people as possible. As an example it too three years for this one to run its course https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/archive/workshop-terrestrial-turtles-operation-shellshock.pdf ....
> *Then I guess we will truely know the legaility of the frogs if and when USFWS prosecutes those that have them or brought them in,
> if they ever do that, which could be years. untill then, by your own account we will not know in the eyes of the agency that enforces the law if these frogs are legal. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've completed your argument for allowing to stay in the hobby just "because they're illegal but so what". This position is what lets overt smuggling and laundering of wildlife to continue to happen.
> 
> *Actually i was saying that me as one person who enjoys this hobby as it is, I can not do anything other than not buy frogs that are dirrectly smuggled in. If they are brought in by laundering through the EU,
> not alot I can do about that. How many frogs in the hobby have come in this way? *
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed



see comments


----------



## bsr8129

S2G said:


> They're illegal period end of story. There have been numerous links citing the law and why. I don't get all your other posts then 5 paragraphs on this one just to say you don't mind buying illegal animals as long as someone else puts in the dirty work.


If thats what you got from my post, then so be it, its not what I was saying.


----------



## bsr8129

JPccusa said:


> By asking questions not pertaining to the Blue Galact morph but to the gamut of illegal frogs, you are indeed changing the focus of the discussion, whether willingly or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't ask enough questions to both sides, or simply do not care about the answer.
> 
> 
> I hope you don't feel we are not addressing the "other topic" that you keep bringing up. Please ask me/us the question you feel has not been addressed. PS: Not agreeing with an answer does not constitute a lack of answer.
> 
> 
> Again, gray areas. Is the person attempting mixed tank(s) a newcomer to the hobby? Is the tank too small? Are the frogs from different regions of the planet?
> It has been said MANY times before on Dendroboard that mixed tanks are possible with enough knowledge and planning.
> Regardless, mixed tanks discussions belong in a different thread. I just want to reiterate it can be done but not by many people.
> 
> 
> It was never the intent of this discussion, unless you keep blue Galacts, and even so, I doubt this discussion would dissuade unscrupulous people from keeping the morph.
> 
> 
> I agree
> 
> 
> Great to hear you wouldn't buy frogs that you know are blatantly illegal. That was probably what happened to the blue galacts morph, though. Some of those frogs were in a suitcase in an airport somewhere. I am almost sure that was exactly how they got to Europe and now the US.
> 
> 
> Well, that's your opinion. Some of us are actually concerned about them being in the US and we are doing something about it. Heck, there are 3 pages of discussion about it... that's something already.
> 
> 
> I appreciate your libertarian approach to the matter but unfortunately me/the hobby gets affected by these frogs being here.
> 
> *Can you explain to me how these frogs being here affect you, and how they affect the hobby specifically.*
> 
> 
> Like I said, we are doing something, even if it may seem insignificant to some people. Another example: this discussion, both here and and on Facebook, are exposing people's moral and ethical values. I hope most hobbyists are keeping tabs of those values and creating a black list of people who they should never do business with.
> *I guess if you want to hinge your doing business with on moral and ethical values thats up to you, there are many moral and ethical values people may not agree with, buts it up to you how you want to judge people you do business with. *
> 
> 
> That's where we differ the most. I am a hobbyist but ALSO an activist. I not only love the colorful frogs in my glass box but also their wild-living species and their habitat. I like to believe my words and actions go beyond the comfort of my home.


* and i hope that you are, if you are an activist and put money or your time back into achieving the preservation of the wild habitat of these frogs kuodus to you, but I think the majority of the hobbiests dont, thats just my personal feeling based on what I have seen. *


----------



## JPccusa

bsr8129 said:


> The frogs were brought in through the only legal channel to bring them in. Paper work was submitted and USFWS service allowed these frogs to come in the country. To me thats the legally way to import animals into the country. Is there a different way to import animals into the country? I know you dont believe this and you have an e-mail from USFWS saying other wise, but they allowed them to come in.


Have you considered that the USFWS may have made a mistake in allowing the frogs to be brought to the USA since there are no legal way for the frogs to be exported from Brazil in the first place? Why so "matter of fact" when we have provided enough documentation that supports our argument that it was most likely a clerical error?

And yes, there are other ways to import frogs (keeping the topic smaller here) into the US besides a zoo. See Tesoros de Colombia and Understory Enterprises. 

Going forward, it is up to us to educate the general public being swindled about buying illegal frogs and up to the USFWS to rectify the mistake. They will have to determine what will happen to the people buying/selling those frogs and the animals themselves.


----------



## JPccusa

bsr8129 said:


> But what I find common in this hobby is that people are very hypocritical, they want to jump on the bandwagon and go on attack over one specific topic, but when asked why only focusing on this one very specific aspect and not on all these other very relevant topics they wont answer or wont address them.





JPccusa said:


> I hope you don't feel we are not addressing the "other topic" that you keep bringing up. Please ask me/us the question you feel has not been addressed. PS: Not agreeing with an answer does not constitute a lack of answer.


I will assume I addressed your argument since you didn't address mine. 



bsr8129 said:


> Can you explain to me how these frogs being here affect you, and how they affect the hobby specifically.


I'll indulge you. I do not want to be part of a hobby that condones smuggling of species. If I lived in Europe, I wouldn't be part of this hobby because smuggling of wildlife is rampant there. That's how this affects the hobby in general. Do you have any idea how many people, including founding fathers of this hobby and renowned scientists, are turned off by this topic and by witnessing all the support smugglers receive on their FB posts? Ethical and moral people can't stand smugglers. 



bsr8129 said:


> and i hope that you are, if you are an activist and put money or your time back into achieving the preservation of the wild habitat of these frogs kuodus to you,...


Thanks.


bsr8129 said:


> but I think the majority of the hobbiests dont, thats just my personal feeling based on what I have seen.


 That's unfortunate. A lot of people are just interested in showing off their cool colorful frogs in glass boxes and/or making money off of them. I can't judge their reasons for keeping frogs but, if they are not interested in helping with activism, they should simply go enjoy their glass boxes/money and let us do our work.


----------



## MasterOogway

These frogs are blatantly illegal. I seriously don't get how anyone can or would want to justify having them. There's no extenuating circumstance, there's no grey area here with these. They. Are. Illegal. And if you plan on getting some, then you are part of the problem. End of story. We can't, and shouldn't, always get what we want, and these are a good reminder. That is also one of the big reasons I have this tatoo on my arm, as a permanent reminder of why we're in this hobby. Conservation is more important than having the latest greatest shiny.


----------



## JPccusa

Now please indulge me: If...


bsr8129 said:


> The discussion of blue Glacs is not going to change the way I keep my frogs, or what frogs I keep.


...and...


bsr8129 said:


> I am a Hobbiest, I keep colorfull frogs in glass boxes, Im not an activist, I am not the moral police of what people do with their animals. I enjoy what I have and if others want to break the law, smuggle animals in burn down rainforests, then it is what it is and me posting about it in anger isnt going to change anything.


..., then why are you participating in this discussion? By all means, everyone is welcome to share their thoughts and opinions, but if you are saying that you don't care about blue galacts being in the US, why are you in this thread? Are you here simply to antagonize those who do not share your same laissez-faire mentality?


----------



## bsr8129

JPccusa said:


> Have you considered that the USFWS may have made a mistake in allowing the frogs to be brought to the USA since there are no legal way for the frogs to be exported from Brazil in the first place? Why so "matter of fact" when we have provided enough documentation that supports our argument that it was most likely a clerical error?
> 
> And yes, there are other ways to import frogs (keeping the topic smaller here) into the US besides a zoo. See Tesoros de Colombia and Understory Enterprises.
> 
> Going forward, it is up to us to educate the general public being swindled about buying illegal frogs and up to the USFWS to rectify the mistake. They will have to determine what will happen to the people buying/selling those frogs and the animals themselves.


I dont have all the time in the world to go back and forth with you on this. You are making an assumption that USFW made a mistake on allowing these in. Is this true, i don't know, and you dont know. What if it is the possibility that they didnt make a mistake, will you accept thier answer and the frogs are here legally?


----------



## bsr8129

JPccusa said:


> I will assume I addressed your argument since you didn't address mine.
> 
> 
> I'll indulge you. I do not want to be part of a hobby that condones smuggling of species. If I lived in Europe, I wouldn't be part of this hobby because smuggling of wildlife is rampant there. That's how this affects the hobby in general. Do you have any idea how many people, including founding fathers of this hobby and renowned scientists, are turned off by this topic and by witnessing all the support smugglers receive on their FB posts? Ethical and moral people can't stand smugglers.
> 
> Thanks. That's unfortunate. A lot of people are just interested in showing off their cool colorful frogs in glass boxes and/or making money off of them. I can't judge their reasons for keeping frogs but, if they are not interested in helping with activism, they should simply go enjoy their glass boxes/money and let us do our work.


I am trying to answer 3 or 4 people here so sorry i didnt specifically address your concerns. 

I believe that this hobby already does condone smuggling. In the link that ED linked talked about if people would buy a specific illegal frog and the one page it linked me to said they would all buy them if they were in front of them. Sorry cant link it here as im on my phone and its not friendly enough to link. 

I agree most are enjoying our frogs in glass boxes and letting you and others do your work.


----------



## bsr8129

JPccusa said:


> Now please indulge me: If...
> 
> ...and...
> 
> ..., then why are you participating in this discussion? By all means, everyone is welcome to share their thoughts and opinions, but if you are saying that you don't care about blue galacts being in the US, why are you in this thread? Are you here simply to antagonize those who do not share your same laissez-faire mentality?


Not here to antagonize, if you think someone else sharing their opion is antagonizing to you then so be it. This is why i normally dont post in debatable topics as someone always gets butt hurt and thinks opposing opinion is here to just troll them. 

I posted here to have a different side and to ask why we make a big deal abiut these frogs and not other specific frogs from brazil, and im not just talking about glacs. 

You can have your opinion and your moral ethical compass and thats fine. Dont buy them. You can educate people as you see fit, but those that want to keep them should be able to keep them.


----------



## bsr8129

JPccusa said:


> And yes, there are other ways to import frogs (keeping the topic smaller here) into the US besides a zoo. See Tesoros de Colombia and Understory Enterprises.


Wouldn't these two companies have to import the frogs into the US? And provide all the same paper work. I dont think i ever mentioned importing from a zoo. Just that the frogs had all the paper work when they came in.


----------



## MasterOogway

bsr8129 said:


> I dont have all the time in the world to go back and forth with you on this. You are making an assumption that USFW made a mistake on allowing these in. Is this true, i don't know, and you dont know. What if it is the possibility that they didnt make a mistake, will you accept thier answer and the frogs are here legally?


There's literally no assumption being made. They messed up. It IS true, and yeah, we freaking know it. Why is this hard for you to accept?


----------



## hypostatic

Ed said:


> It was weird overall, people wanted to ignore the fact that the importer was challenging people to ask USFW about the frogs and when people did ask, and they didn't like the answer so started trying to accuse those who asked with ulterior motives.


"Surreal" is a great way of putting it. But then again, facebook *IS* where fake news and alternative facts breed...



JPccusa said:


> That's a good thing... it helps separate the wheat from the chaff. Keep note of those people and spread the word in our small hobby of their ethical and moral standards.


I disagree. I feel this is the type of thing that makes the evening news, and paints our hobby under a dark light to the general public, and worse, to lawmakers.




bsr8129 said:


> I am not trying to shift the focus away, I am asking if we are bringing up the discussion on these frogs why do we not do it for all?


I doubt you'll keep responding after the barrage of comments, BSR, but it's not singling out just the blue galacs. This conversation has been brought up with many other frogs such as:

Excidobates mysteriosus (original population was smuggled out of Peru illegally)
Adelphobates castaneoticus (endemic to brazil)
lehmanni/histos of questionable origin (all illegal before Tesoros)
vanzolinii, before UE brought them in legally
If all you care about is pretty frogs that you can put in your glass boxes, then this issue should be of concern to you. While the USA gov't doesn't pay much attention to these matters, the countries where these pretty frogs originate from DO CARE. They certainly notice when some of their animals appear where they don't belong. If you'd like to keep expanding the frogs available to your collection and others, it's generally a good idea not make those countries think we are continuously stealing/smuggling their property


----------



## hypostatic

bsr8129 said:


> Wouldn't these two companies have to import the frogs into the US? And provide all the same paper work. I dont think i ever mentioned importing from a zoo. Just that the frogs had all the paper work when they came in.


BRS, there is a big difference between the facebook seller and Tesoros/UE. Tesoros and UE both got permission from the frogs' originating countries to export, breed, and distribute frogs. Not only that, but both those companies have an extensive history of contributing to conservation efforts of said frogs.

The facebook seller, on the other hand, did no such thing. The frogs he obtained come from frogs that were *illegally smuggled* out of the country of origin, without any paperwork whatsoever. This clearly makes the frogs illegal in the United States of America, according to federal law (the Lacey Act). Violating this law can result as a *felony*.


----------



## Ed

Perhaps I should include a primer on what is required for legal imports. 

First and foremost it requires legal exportation from the country of origin. This is pretty easy to check as we can look at the CITES trade database which depending on when the animal(s) were listed goes back to 1975. In this case, Brazil passed legislation back around 1967 that prohibited trafficking of wildlife without special permits from the Brazilian government. They have never issued them for galactanotus. Dedrobatids as a group were listed on CITES in 1987 and as such are also tracked via the CITES trade database. 

The link to the data base is found here https://trade.cites.org/ 

Without legal export from the country of origin, under CITES and the Lacey Act there can be no further legal export of those frogs or their offspring from any other country regardless of the number of generations they have been captive bred or if they come from a Zoo or Uranus. If it does happen it means that they were being laundered. 

The interesting thing about CITES, is that they require permits for any part of the animal up to including the designation for live animals and they require a usage designation such as Zoo, Science or trade (commerce). Only the frogs designated as trade are legal for sale to the public.. 

Now if one searches the CITES trade database one can find that there have been no live galactanotus exported from Brazil to any country for use in commerce. There is one single export under science designation to Australia and it was well after the blue galactanotus appeared in Europe. The other interesting thing is that if they are live specimens they are designated live... otherwise it is a dead specimen or part of a specimen unless it is listed as body (which is deceased). This is where the entire problem starts for the blue galactanotus. Under CITES and the Lacey Act regardless of the number of generations captive bred, they are illegal. 

If they are given "legal" paperwork from a country say hypothetically the Netherlands or Germany, that does not make them legal. Instead it means that they were laundered which is illegal both with CITES and the Lacey Act. So any claims that they are legal are not only refuted by the language of a treaty to which the US is a signatory, but the language used to prosecute wildlife smuggling. 

USFW was very clear (see my second response from them above) that this is illegal and left no room where these frogs would be legal. So any attempt to make the claim that they are legal because 
1) they came with CITES paperwork and 
2) they are legal because they were allowed in country 
are false as per USFW (Lacey Act and CITES). Those animals and their offspring will never be legal. 

Attached is the actual CITES graphic for galactanotus. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

hypostatic said:


> The facebook seller, on the other hand, did no such thing. The frogs he obtained come from frogs that were *illegally smuggled* out of the country of origin, without any paperwork whatsoever. This clearly makes the frogs illegal in the United States of America, according to federal law (the Lacey Act). Violating this law can result as a *felony*.


As I understand it, he priced the frogs at $350 each which oddly enough is the threshold for the felony charges under the Lacey Act. The thing is that if they decide to go after the buyers as well as the seller (given that there was a very limited import number), each frog could be a separate offense under the Act. 

from https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/lacey.html



> Maximum fines for felonies were increased to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.


and that is in addition to jail time... 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## S2G

Thanks for all that Ed. There is absolutely no room to argue against it from a legal aspect and the way you just spoon fed it anyone can see that.

PS: If you ever want to change industries I have a principal document control specialist position for you


----------



## JPccusa

bsr8129 said:


> You are making an assumption that USFW made a mistake on allowing these in. Is this true, i don't know, and you dont know. What if it is the possibility that they didnt make a mistake, will you accept thier answer and the frogs are here legally?


The probability of it being a mistake is immensely higher than of those frogs being legal. 

On the other hand, if USFWS sends us proof that the law does not apply to these 6 frogs, then by all means, I will eat all the words I typed here and on Facebook. I have no problem in standing corrected. 



bsr8129 said:


> I am trying to answer 3 or 4 people here so sorry i didnt specifically address your concerns.


Those were YOUR concerns, so if you are good, I am good. 



bsr8129 said:


> I believe that this hobby already does condone smuggling. In the link that ED linked talked about if people would buy a specific illegal frog and the one page it linked me to said they would all buy them if they were in front of them. Sorry cant link it here as im on my phone and its not friendly enough to link.


Please don't put ALL of us in the same box with smugglers. Some people do condone smuggling and make money out of it, that is true, but to say we are all okay with it is just not true. This thread is proof of it. Regardless, one mistake does not justify another. Let's keep focus on the smuggled frogs we are currently dealing with - A. galactonotus 'Blue'



bsr8129 said:


> I agree most are enjoying our frogs in glass boxes and letting you and others do your work.


Thanks. That's all we ask of people who do not want to be activists. For those who DO want to be activists, feel free to contact me privately.



bsr8129 said:


> Not here to antagonize, if you think someone else sharing their opion is antagonizing to you then so be it. This is why i normally dont post in debatable topics as someone always gets butt hurt and thinks opposing opinion is here to just troll them.


Perhaps antagonize was not the best word. Devil's advocate? 



bsr8129 said:


> I posted here to have a different side...


There are only 2 sides in this discussion - these frogs are legal and these frogs are illegal (the point of this thread). 

Are you saying you are here to defend these frogs as being legal? And if so, what argument or proof do you have to support you?



bsr8129 said:


> ...and to ask why we make a big deal abiut these frogs and not other specific frogs from brazil, and im not just talking about glacs.


We already talked about shifting the focus of this thread. See post #92. 



bsr8129 said:


> You can have your opinion and your moral ethical compass and thats fine. Dont buy them. You can educate people as you see fit, but those that want to keep [illegal frogs] should be able to keep them.


Your attitude is exactly what gives people the impression that "the hobby" condones smuggling. I swapped "them" with "illegal frogs" just so people are clear on your stance. 



bsr8129 said:


> I dont have all the time in the world to go back and forth with you on this.


I am definitely not asking you to, but if you want to, I'll always find time to rebut people defending smugglers.


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> I dont have all the time in the world to go back and forth with you on this. You are making an assumption that USFW made a mistake on allowing these in. Is this true, i don't know, and you dont know. What if it is the possibility that they didnt make a mistake, will you accept thier answer and the frogs are here legally?


I missed this somehow along the way. 

Actually we had a really good idea that the import was illegal and since people were challenged to ask USFW, and since the actual permit number of those frogs had been acquired with an earlier FOIA request, *the questions were actually asked about that import of frogs specifically* as opposed a more random question on galactanotus in general. 

The ability to ask USFW about that specific import is what provided the definitive answers which I posted in the thread above. 



bsr8129 said:


> Wouldn't these two companies have to import the frogs into the US? And provide all the same paper work. I dont think i ever mentioned importing from a zoo. Just that the frogs had all the paper work when they came in.


The difference is that they have proof of legal export from the country of origin... that is the difference. The evidence is actually against legal export from Brazil of the galactanotus which is different than those companies. 

As for the zoo reference, you may not have but that was a big part of the attempt to legitimize them on facebook. They were bred in "a zoo so they must have been legal... " "how do you know the zoo didn't get them legally" etc... its easy to show proof that they lack legal status as the zoo would have to have gotten them from Brazil legally or from an institution that would have gotten them from Brazil legally which would be registered in the CITES database as each movement into or out of a signatory country is tracked. So say they were sent to a country that isn't a signatory, there would still be a record of them leaving Brazil (signatory) and then imported into the Netherlands... no such trail exists and without the trail, legality cannot exist. 

I notice you finally came clean that you think people should be able to keep illegally acquired frogs and I'm going to say that I'm disappointed. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## bsr8129

Ed said:


> I notice you finally came clean that you think people should be able to keep illegally acquired frogs and I'm going to say that I'm disappointed.
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed


I am not sure where i said this? Taking this specific morph, I think them to be legally here in the US as USFW cleared them with proper paper work, that is all. Am i wrong maybe, but i can only go off what i know they allowed into the country. If USFW wants to contact the person importing them and tell them that they made a mistake, then so be it and we all will know that they are illegal. 

I dont think frogs smuggled out of countries should be in the hobby.


----------



## JPccusa

bsr8129 said:


> You can have your opinion and your moral ethical compass and thats fine. Dont buy them. You can educate people as you see fit, but those that want to keep [illegal frogs] should be able to keep them.





bsr8129 said:


> I dont think frogs smuggled out of countries should be in the hobby.


Blue A. galactonotus was smuggled out of Brazil. It has been shown/proven to you and people trying to sell them as "legal."
You contradict yourself.


----------



## Pumilo

It blows my mind how many people can step out into the spotlight, and announce to the world that they have done absolutely no research on the matter, but that Brazil's laws don't matter, and the Lacey Act doesn't matter. Of course they are against smuggling...next time. Smuggling them into our country and breaking the laws of both countries THIS TIME, is somehow ok? No. No it's not. 

It absolutely baffles me that people cannot see the very direct conclusion. If it is ok this time, it's ok next time, and the time after that. If YOU argue that this should be left alone, then YOU are absolutely screaming from the mountaintops that smuggling is a good thing, and should continue. If that statement offends and insults you, good. Looks like you are, in fact, who I'm talking to.

If you support the blue galactonotus, you support smuggling. There is no grey area. They are clearly illegal by both US and Brazil law. If you step forward to say it's ok now, you ARE a public supporter of smuggling. You are a public supporter of ALL smuggling, recent, past, and future.

I just have to address the statement that they are already here, and we can't do anything about it.
Wanna bet? Sit back and watch. There are multiple people conversing with US Fish and Wildlife about doing the right thing. Want a front row seat? Buy a pair and see how long before there's a knock at your door.

Let's take a little peek at what some people defend and wholeheartedly support, shall we?


----------



## S2G

bsr8129 said:


> I am not sure where i said this? Taking this specific morph, I think them to be legally here in the US as USFW cleared them with proper paper work, that is all. Am i wrong maybe, but i can only go off what i know they allowed into the country. If USFW wants to contact the person importing them and tell them that they made a mistake, then so be it and we all will know that they are illegal.
> 
> I dont think frogs smuggled out of countries should be in the hobby.


What part of needing legal paperwork from origin is so hard to understand? In order to export Brazil has to say its legal. No legal export papers from Brazil = no matter where these are at they're illegal. Hell these things are illegal to own in Brazil.


----------



## MasterOogway

S2G said:


> What part of needing legal paperwork from origin is so hard to understand? In order to export Brazil has to say its legal. No legal export papers from Brazil = no matter where these are at they're illegal. Hell these things are illegal to own in Brazil.


You can't cure willful ignorance, unfortunately.


----------



## toostrange

I think understand why so many people don't like this forum. The truth is told here, and for some it's just unbearable. I watched on the Facebook thread as they grasped from straw to straw. Just trying to make these frogs legit. When the answer was presented to them time after time. Keep up the good work! And thank you ED for laying it out, and accepting the challenge.


----------



## Ed

It seems more like he hasn't bothered to read the response from USFW on this specific import and whether or not clearance means that they are legal.. they were pretty specific in the first response from the posts above.. 



> *Regulations at the following link indicate that the clearance of these poison dart frogs does not constitute a certification of the legality of the importation under the laws or regulations of the United States: *https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...4_152&rgn=div8


and even more specific in the second response.... 



> *If a given zoo receives illegally imported and/or confiscated CITES-listed specimens, then offspring from those specimens would not be legal to distribute within that country and could not be legally exported to other countries.*


So I'm curious as to how you can reader either of those responses to mean that the frogs are legal because they were allowed into the country? Keep in mind that the Lacey Act applies... 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Here is different look at the cost of smuggling... look at the conditions of these frogs and how they are kept pre-smuggling attempt. .. Rare Species for Sale! The Smuggling Crisis | Poison Dart Frogs | Dendrobates.org

some comments 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

I've skimmed this thread long enough to be thoroughly annoyed on multiple fronts. Allow me to vent, just a moment.

So here I am...100% new to frogs. I spend time researching websites, reading up on things. I find interesting frogs that match the criteria of coloration and behavior, and I even go to the extent of putting myself on waitlists for them with frog retailers, and ASK a budding new local herp shop to look for these for me.

HELL, there's a massive data sheet on them right here on Dendroboard. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/care-sheets/17152-dendrobates-galactonotus-intermediate.html

And then I come across this thread, and [email protected]#%!#%!#%! what?! ALL Galactonotus are "illegal"? No mention of it anywhere? These frogs are arguably pervasive in the hobby to some extent, and now I'm reading they were never exported legally?

All stop here; this is f'd up. Big time. I'm no fan of the Lacey Act and the ESA as they exist in our country, and this is truly a perfect example. Here I sit, browsing public retail vendors of livestock, browsing the most active dart frog community, seeing animals offered for sale, or put on wait lists, and nowhere is any shady gray areas mentioned. There is nothing to tell the truly innocent hobbyist who's just trying to enjoy a new hobby, that what he/she is doing is wrong in any capacity.

Were I not to see this ONE PARTICULAR THREAD full of allegations why would I ever question the availability of these frogs; and I'll say allegations rather than FACTS because this is all second-hand info posted on a message board...this IS the Internet where anyone can publish anything. You all may be the experts, but I have my own fair share of experiences with CITES, ESA, USFWS, and I'd want to see solid links rather than a prosecution in a forum.

Regardless, my point is this. It is apparent to me that without much effort, I could have purchased an animal that would put me in violation of the Lacey Act, and the repercussions of the Lacey Act are brutal. I would be completely innocent in my interest, and completely innocent in my desire to purchase something freely available, and yet I hypothetically could be on the hook big time.

So now here I sit, feeling a little bit like an ass for asking someone for a frog who *may* or *may not* know anything about the alleged legal status of these freely available animals. And I can squarely point directly to the community here for being complicity in that regard. The community lets someone like me down, in a big way, when you put me and my family into a really bad spot with the US FWS by virtue of having animals of dubious legal status freely available. 

Me? If USFWS came to me and said "hey, those orange backed galacts you have are illegal, and here's why" I'd be completely OK with saying "no sh*t, well..here you go and here's where I got them." BUT, as you all likely know, that's NOT typically where these things END. No, they do like to throw the book at people at times.

Apologies for the rant, but I'm really kinda miffed here, and yes, I'm miffed that these animals are freely available if in fact they shouldn't be. It's negligent and irresponsible.

And on the flipside, if someone gives me an animal with CITES PAPERWORK, why would the average person question it. I mean, every stony coral in the aquarium trade is basically covered by CITES. At some point, the culpability cannot rest upon every individual who handled a mis-imported animal, because it's not possible for the end consumer to be in a position of knowledge and authority to individually verify every last supply chain and origin. That CITES paperwork, as I see it, absolves the people who have it. Somewhere back up the chain, when the fraud occured, THAT person is responsible, absolutely, If you knowingly colluded, sure, but that's a big burden of proof (and rightfully so perhaps). 

So maybe lighten up on the folks who are hanging their hats on the fact that CITES PERMITS exist. I'm not saying it's right, but I am thinking about things like the USFWS who saw fit to allow Paphiopedilum vietnamense into legal, commercial culture, from plants that were originally smuggled and siezed, in order to end the black market trade by creating a legitimate. Whether it worked or not, I cannot say as I don't have actual DATA, but annecdotally, it's made this rare plant quite abundant, to the point that I cannot see much financial incentive to smuggle it from the wild still....

Very miffed here guys. This wasn't what I wanted to read about when looking at mentions of "Galacts" this evening. Nice job frog community. Now I have to go find some other bright orange and black frog that can be in groups that my son will like , and I have to go tell my shop guy that I don't want him to continue looking for them. OR am I completely off base and over-reacting here?


----------



## Woodswalker

There are two threads about the care of galactonotus, and one, a thread under the care sheets subforum, does not mention anything about their legal standing. I would suggest that be amended. However, the second, which is a sticky under the species subforum, makes it very clear at the very top of the thread.

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/57790-adelphobates-galactonotus-intermediate.html



> IMPORTANT
> 
> All existing galacts outside of Brazil are a product of illegal exportation and therefore, according to the Lacey Act, not legal in the US, regardless of how far removed from the original smuggled animals.
> 
> From Phyllomedusa, page 1: Threats to this species are deforestation, fragmentation of habitat, hydroelectric projects (already functioning, under construction, or projected), gold mining, and possibly illegal international trade. Although this species is widely distributed in terrariums in Europe, the United States, and Japan, all these specimens stem from illegal exports.


----------



## MasterOogway

mpedersen said:


> All stop here; this is f'd up. Big time. I'm no fan of the Lacey Act and the ESA as they exist in our country, and this is truly a perfect example.


Ummm. Why? Are you against protections for flora and fauna? Wildlife trade has to be regulated. 



mpedersen said:


> I would be completely innocent in my interest, and completely innocent in my desire to purchase something freely available, and yet I hypothetically could be on the hook big time.


No, you would not be. If you can't do the due diligence when acquiring exotic animals, that is *literally* no one's fault but your own. Certainly not this board, where, despite you saying otherwise, this topic has come up several times 




mpedersen said:


> So now here I sit, feeling a little bit like an ass for asking someone for a frog who *may* or *may not* know anything about the alleged legal status of these freely available animals. And I can squarely point directly to the community here for being complicity in that regard. The community lets someone like me down, in a big way, when you put me and my family into a really bad spot with the US FWS by virtue of having animals of dubious legal status freely available.


All you would have to do would be to look at the CITES regulations, and Brazilian law, to know that these galacts are illegal in every sense of the word. Why are you trying to hold the community responsible for doing your homework for you? The burden of ownership always comes down to the owners, and trying to pin the blame on someone else is poor form.


----------



## Ravage

> Originally Posted by bsr8129 View Post
> What is the hobby doing about these frogs? From the discussion there only a handful of frogs here, with 6 people that have them. Is the hobby going to raise a funds and pay the people that have them to cull these frogs so they wont be in the hobby, put some action behinds their words. Or are they gonna do nothing but raise a stink over it then let it pass like pretty much they do on everything else.


There's something in this quote that I can't believe no one else commented on: the idea that the community should pay for my mistake because they had the audacity to point it out to me. Sure, if someone gets busted selling nickle bags on the street corner, we, the people, will cough up to pay for an attorney. However, if you buy a stolen truck, you will not expect to be paid back by the community, you get to get in line to go after whoever sold it to you.
Perhaps we *should* take a more proactive role and provide information to USFWS: that would be taking a stand. I know people with some of these frogs, and would not want to do that to them. But what if we started with the a**h###s. 
A few prosecutions would definitely make a difference. Is that what some of you want? Would that qualify as the community making sure their position is clear on this subject?
Maybe just trying to rationally explain the situation is just not enough to prove that many froggers Do Not Tolerate Smuggling- even at the cost of denying ourselves whatever satisfaction comes from owning just one more cool species. That's what adults do, they are willing to sacrifice to do the right thing. 
Aleister Crowley said: "Do what thou wilt: is the whole of the law" If you need to ask yourself if this is your motto too, welllll........
And one final thing, which I actually mentioned before: if you think this thread is not being read by the USFWS, then you really are not paying attention to the digital age in which we live. People who brag about crimes on Facebook (or here) may have to wait awhile, but in the end, you might get busted. It happens everyday. You can read about it on Facebook.
* If you take nothing else from this thread, remember that we DID try to warn you. *If you're not motivated to do the right thing just because you realize it is the right thing, then you're on you own. I don't think the the rationalizations I've seen on this thread would fly with the Feds.


----------



## mpedersen

Woodswalker said:


> There are two threads about the care of galactonotus, and one, a thread under the care sheets subforum, does not mention anything about their legal standing. I would suggest that be amended.


I would agree.



Woodswalker said:


> However, the second, which is a sticky under the species subforum, makes it very clear at the very top of the thread.
> 
> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/57790-adelphobates-galactonotus-intermediate.html


Nice. Of course, I had not seen that particular thread, only the other one which I linked to in my rant earlier (which you alluded to above).



TarantulaGuy said:


> Ummm. Why? Are you against protections for flora and fauna? Wildlife trade has to be regulated.


But wildlife laws also need to be updated. Eg. case in point, the ESA's stance on Asian Arowana is WRONG, in so much as the rest of the world has figured out how to have a legitimate trade in this species, yet our ESA has no provisions for that, and thus, here we sit. Of course, I don't believe the ESA was ever meant to step beyond our own borders...that's what agreements like CITES are for. The Lacey Act...again, it has its place, but it can also be miss-applied. 



TarantulaGuy said:


> No, you would not be. If you can't do the due diligence when acquiring exotic animals, that is *literally* no one's fault but your own. Certainly not this board, where, despite you saying otherwise, this topic has come up several times


I fundamentally disagree. When I read this - http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/care-sheets/17152-dendrobates-galactonotus-intermediate.html - why would I have any reason to suspect that this animal is in fact, "illegal" to own? 

*Then there's this reality:*

https://www.dartfrogconnection.com/galactonotus-orange/

https://saurian.net/frog_d_galactonotus_red.html
https://saurian.net/frog_d_galactonotus_orange.html (and others from this site)

https://www.frogsnthings.com/storefront/index.php/a-galactonotus-red-morph.html

https://www.facebook.com/JoshsFrogs...53049666024/10151769327981025/?type=1&theater

Adelphobates galactonotus ‘red’ dart frog – oneillscrossing.com

ECUATORIA: Dendrobatids

Red Splash Back Dart Frog for sale | Snakes at Sunset

https://usafrog.com/t/dendrobates-galactonotus

https://undergroundreptiles.com/shop/orange-splash-back-dart-frog/

For Sale: Josh's Frogs at Baltimore THIS WEEKEND!!

https://www.facebook.com/frogconnection/posts/526867537436700

A. galactonotus 'Red' (froglet)

Adelphobates galactonotus - splashback yellow - Nature Box Pet Emporium

Available Amphibians : Harris In Wonderland

Orange Splashback Arrow Frogs

When I see MULTIPLE commercial and private listings for animals of this genus, freely available, going from now to over a decade ago, why would ANYONE new to the hobby ever stop to think that these animals are illegal, in _any_ sense? 

Afterall, we're not talking about tigers or cobras here, we're talking about little colorful frogs that are supposedly all being captive-bred anyway. I didn't have to go hut down some back alley channel to source these animals...they're right out in the open.* EVERYWHERE*.

Come on, if I can even find them directly for sale over on DartDen in the past, going back years....and no one is calling out these sellers within the general community for selling their "illegal frogs"???

Group of Galactonotus for sale or trade - Dart Den

Red Galacts Holiday Sale!!! Limited Time!! - Dart Den

List of U.S Hobby Available Dart Frog Species/Morphs - Dart Den
*
I DARE YOU to search the Dendroboard Marketplace for "Galacts"* Where's all the outrage and condemnation directed to all these sellers offering "illegal" animals? If you all truly feel as your posts suggest, then the community really shouldn't be tolerant of this.



TarantulaGuy said:


> All you would have to do would be to look at the CITES regulations, and Brazilian law, to know that these galacts are illegal in every sense of the word. Why are you trying to hold the community responsible for doing your homework for you? The burden of ownership always comes down to the owners, and trying to pin the blame on someone else is poor form.


Sorry, but no, you don't get to get all preachy on me and say that "I" didn't do my homework, *I* should've known better. *I* should be aware of a species' status in a foreign country, and that *I* am culpable in all this.

_*My homework *_shows routine availability with no one batting an eye, going right up to some of the most prominent sources on the Internet. Right here on this board even. So no, I get the premise of your stance, but it is wholly unrealistic.

So no, I do hold the community at large responsible here. Every vendor, every hobbyist, who are dealing in these animals, and then every person like yourself who's turning a blind eye to it, creates a scenario where someone like myself, completely new and innocent in the hobby, can wind up violating the Lacey Act. That's not _on me_. The community is letting me down. The industry is taking advantage. If someone sells you stolen goods that you KNOW were stolen goods, then by all means, you're complicit. But when you don't know, how can you be held responsible. You're never given the opportunity to make the choice, and for that, you are 100% innocent.

Of course, it doesn't help that you have conflicting references even when you dig into this further. Eg. Saurian Enterprises, Inc :: Dendrobates galactonotus morphs

"As a Brazilian frog, it is pretty clear that the founders of our captive specimens were brought to Europe illegally, since the government of Brazil does not allow any dart frogs to be exported, and has not in recent memory. (The typical path of many frogs in the US hobby started with a trip to Europe, often illegally. In Europe export papers could be obtained, that allowed the frogs to travel to the US legally.) *However by now many shipments of these frogs have arrived in the US from Europe with “legal” paperwork, and there should be no danger to hobbyists who wish to own these frogs.*"

It's clear to me that ^THIS^ is the modus operandi for people who are in the KNOW. It's _also_ clear to me that ^THIS^ is not that far off from the purposeful legalization of _P. vietnamense_ (as I wrote about earlier) BY the US FWS to END the black market trade.

And this is why I have a problem with the LACEY ACT. The end consumer cannot easily know a legal from an illegal product. I can say this whether I'm talking about the unknowing purchase of a cyanide-collected reef fish from the Philippines (which no one in their right mind WANTS in the first place...yet you have no way of 100% being safe) or in this case, an entire hobby that seems, by and large, willing to act as if the animals are completely legal. 

Nevermind that the US FWS has, to the best of my knowledge, not come back around to collect these animals, prosecute anyone, or otherwise issue a bold public statement saying these animals need to be removed from the US herp hobby. No, so in that regard, even the US FWS is on the hook here as culpable for this trade occurring, because they failed to do their job in the first place. Now, I know the US FWS is arguably overwhelmed in many respects, and I know there are some good folks working there, but it seems to me that there's been possibly 2 decades of time that has gone by during which, at any time, the availability of these frogs in the US could have been dealt with.

No, you don't get to lecture me on "due diligence". The burden of knowledge is OVERWHELMING for the layperson. It is unfair to point the finger of blame and culpability on those who make a purchase of something like these _A. galactonotus_ under these circumstances. I would argue that the availability of these animals, under these circumstances, is a fraud perpetrated on the end consumer, who is innocent in all this.

Now, of course, now that I DO KNOW this story, I did as I said I'd do, and "canceled" my request to find these frogs. But only because I've now been made aware through my stumbling upon this particular thread. But what if I hadn't?


----------



## MasterOogway

I will just point out that many illicit things are commonly and easily available for sale via a variety of market places, it's your job to know what you should and shouldn't have. It is *always* on the buyer to do their diligence. Try the "I didn't know it was illegal!" argument in any court. See how far it gets you.


----------



## mpedersen

TarantulaGuy said:


> I will just point out that many illicit things are commonly and easily available for sale via a variety of market places, it's your job to know what you should and shouldn't have. It is *always* on the buyer to do their diligence. Try the "I didn't know it was illegal!" argument in any court. See how far it gets you.


And I'll contend that genuine innocence is legitimate and must be considered. We're not talking about the types of commonly-available illicit things where the law and illegality IS clearly known.

This isn't something like drugs, or driving drunk. We KNOW these things to be against the law. When the entire community, as shown above, foists these animals about for 2 decades, with no mention of their "technical" illegality, and even goes so far as to contend they're not, and the USFWS does nothing to stop it, then no, you don't get to point at a newbie and condemn them for not knowing better. *It's a fraud perpetrated upon someone like me who comes to this with only genuine interest. I would be a victim in these cirucmstances.*

And that's my point about things like the Lacey Act, were it to be enforced upon say, every person who ever bought a Galact from anyone else ever. Because, statute of limitations aside, that could more or less come to pass. But by virtue of 2 decades worth of free, unfettered public-facing commerce, no one coming to the hobby anew can be reasonably expected to at any point find out that these animals may, in fact, violate one of our lesser-known, yet toothier laws. No doubt I could find hobby articles published in magazines talking about the care, husbandry, breeding etc....and probably no mentions at any point of their now purported illegal origins, and thus, current status under the Lace Act.

I'm now here, informed, having happened upon this very pertinent info, and won't further pursue ownership of these animals now that I AM informed, and I don't wish to practice civil disobedience here. But you cannot tell me it's my fault had I not found it, because it is a relative needle in a haystack when looking at this species at large. And that is why I have a problem with aspects of our laws and law enforcement.


----------



## hypostatic

toostrange said:


> I think understand why so many people don't like this forum. The truth is told here, and for some it's just unbearable. I watched on the Facebook thread as they grasped from straw to straw. Just trying to make these frogs legit. When the answer was presented to them time after time. Keep up the good work! And thank you ED for laying it out, and accepting the challenge.


Facebook is where "alternative facts" breed. That aside, what I've been learning is that general hobbyists just don't want to turn to DB anymore really because they're gonna do whatever the hell they wanna do anyways, so why bother arguing with strangers about what's right or wrong? Unfortunately I'm learning that most people who keep exotic animals couldn't care less about wildlife conservation; they just want more animals for their collections, and the ends justify the means...




mpedersen said:


> Very miffed here guys. This wasn't what I wanted to read about when looking at mentions of "Galacts" this evening. Nice job frog community. Now I have to go find some other bright orange and black frog that can be in groups that my son will like , and I have to go tell my shop guy that I don't want him to continue looking for them. OR am I completely off base and over-reacting here?


Hey mpedersen, welcome. I understand your frustration; frogs (and any other exotic wildlife) aren't as simple as they seem. On that note, I will commend you on doing your homework and educating yourself on the subject. However, you ARE 100% over-reacting here  . It doesn't seem like you've done anything wrong.... so... chill...?
Also, if you want "orange and black group frogs" you have lots of options dude:







orange terribilis








blackfoot terribilis








some leucomelas are pretty orange








there's several imitator locales that are orange...


----------



## mpedersen

hypostatic said:


> Hey mpedersen, welcome. I understand your frustration; frogs (and any other exotic wildlife) aren't as simple as they seem. On that note, I will commend you on doing your homework and educating yourself on the subject. However, you ARE 100% over-reacting here  . It doesn't seem like you've done anything wrong.... so... chill...?


RIGHT ON! My issue here is that there are many innocent people out there owning these animals, technically on the hook for Lacey Act violations, through no fault of their own. That's pretty damn scary/disconcerting. The allegation that they didn't do their "due diligence", to be fair, is completely infuriating though. I got lucky to stumble across this backstory only because I happened to find the right search query to bring it up. You're totally correct, I did nothing wrong here. But I could have, through no fault of my own. Of course, I'm presuming the allegations that these animals are in fact illegal is valid; on the surface, the arguments seem sound. Seems like the type of situation where a policy needs to be put in place by the US FWS, vs. 20 years of hobbyists just being in limbo / the issue not being prominent enough to warrant prosecution.



hypostatic said:


> Also, if you want "orange and black group frogs" you have lots of options dude:


Indeed, all you posted are ones I've looked at. My main criteria were bold temperament, group suitable (as I have a much larger tank I want to build for them), easy care and quiet calls. That, and good vibrant true orange coloration (but not monocolor). Orange Galacts fit that bill perfectly by my research. So imagine my disappointment when I discovered *THIS*. Ignorance WAS bliss.


----------



## Ed

mpedersen said:


> RIGHT ON! My issue here is that there are many innocent people out there owning these animals, technically on the hook for Lacey Act violations, through no fault of their own. That's pretty damn scary/disconcerting. The allegation that they didn't do their "due diligence", to be fair, is completely infuriating though. I got lucky to stumble across this backstory only because I happened to find the right search query to bring it up. You're totally correct, I did nothing wrong here. But I could have, through no fault of my own. Of course, I'm presuming the allegations that these animals are in fact illegal is valid; on the surface, the arguments seem sound. Seems like the type of situation where a policy needs to be put in place by the US FWS, vs. 20 years of hobbyists just being in limbo / the issue not being prominent enough to warrant prosecution.


I don't know if you missed it or not but as I noted in post #40 of this thread, the confirmation that the prior galactanotus imports that were illegally exported from one country to another cannot be legitimized via the simple issue of captive breeding and issuing of CITES permits is relatively new to the hobby. Despite it being pointed out multiple times in the past, the hobby overall (and certain sectors emphasized (as can be seen in this thread)) that took it for granted that passing clearance meant it was legal and if Germany and the Netherlands seized smuggled animals and the offspring made back into the hobby they were again "legalized". This is in no small part why those frogs were considered "legal" by the hobby and the open transactions of them on multiple forums including this one. 

It was a direct result of multiple challenges to ask USFW about that specific import using the CITES permit number (acquired by a FOIA) for that specific group of frogs. Once the first response came back, the seller than made multiple claims that because the zoo bred them, they must be legal because the zoo had to get them legally. As a result, the second response from USFW was for that clarification. 

So to some extent the response about all of the prior threads is a little premature. Your just at the point where we have confirmation of the idea that clearance does not mean legal due to how those frogs were allowed to enter the pet trade. 

I get the frustration but the actual direct knowledge and confirmation are really pretty recent so the hobby hasn't caught up with the knowledge yet and of course on facebook it ends up being buried and fairly unavailable for people to access. 

The Asian Arowana issue is a problem due to the ESA because the ESA requires that a recovery plan and protection be established in the wild and that the wild population to recover before it can be taken off the listing. As there is still extensive habitat loss as well as continued unsustainable collection in some of its range (Cambodia) where the fish are then smuggled into Thailand, that isn't the ideal example See Rowley, Jodi JL, David A. Emmett, and Seila Voen. "Harvest, trade and conservation of the Asian arowana Scleropages formosus in Cambodia." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18.7 (2008): 1255-1262. 

On a side note, often the directive to not keep many of the dendrobatids in groups is to a large extent dogma intended to make it is as simple as possible for newer hobbyists. In general, successful grouping is often more a problem of design as opposed to the idea that they can't be kept in groups. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

Ed said:


> So to some extent the response about all of the prior threads is a little premature. Your just at the point where we have confirmation of the idea that clearance does not mean legal due to how those frogs were allowed to enter the pet trade. I get the frustration but the actual direct knowledge and confirmation are really pretty recent so the hobby hasn't caught up with the knowledge yet and of course on facebook it ends up being buried and fairly unavailable for people to access.


I find that so ironic given Tarantulaguy's statement "No, you would not be. If you can't do the due diligence when acquiring exotic animals, that is *literally* no one's fault but your own. Certainly not this board, where, despite you saying otherwise, this topic has come up several times "

No doubt you can feel the frustration coming through the screen from this end...if ever there was a more hypocritical scenario being played out here...




Ed said:


> The Asian Arowana issue is a problem due to the ESA because the ESA requires that a recovery plan and protection be established in the wild and that the wild population to recover before it can be taken off the listing.


Yes, but I don't think the ESA was a) meant to govern beyond our borders and B) it was crafted at such a time where commercial culture and hobbies like this one didn't exist, so it needs an updating to accomodate for that.



Ed said:


> As there is still extensive habitat loss as well as continued unsustainable collection in some of its range (Cambodia) where the fish are then smuggled into Thailand, that isn't the ideal example See Rowley, Jodi JL, David A. Emmett, and Seila Voen. "Harvest, trade and conservation of the Asian arowana Scleropages formosus in Cambodia." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18.7 (2008): 1255-1262.


But legitimate culture and trade need to be accommodated for under the ESA, and they currently are not. 



Ed said:


> On a side note, often the directive to not keep many of the dendrobatids in groups is to a large extent dogma intended to make it is as simple as possible for newer hobbyists. In general, successful grouping is often more a problem of design as opposed to the idea that they can't be kept in groups.


Thanks for that side note Ed. I've come across those ideas and realities as well during my initial forays...eg. saw a rather nice article on the thought process behind designing a habitat to better allow for more than a pair of Tincs to be housed together. Doesn't mean I'm going to set out to do it. 

In other animal arenas, I'm known for pushing the boundaries of husbandry and doing challenging things, keeping things alive that aren't supposed to live in captivity. This experience also means that I know better than to try to that here during my initial foray into dart frogs  

So from my standpoint, my desire to look at animals that are good in group situations is more about going with those animals that are known to be more conducive to it; I want to set myself up for success.


----------



## Ed

mpedersen said:


> So maybe lighten up on the folks who are hanging their hats on the fact that CITES PERMITS exist. I'm not saying it's right, but I am thinking about things like the USFWS who saw fit to allow Paphiopedilum vietnamense into legal, commercial culture, from plants that were originally smuggled and siezed, in order to end the black market trade by creating a legitimate. Whether it worked or not, I cannot say as I don't have actual DATA, but annecdotally, it's made this rare plant quite abundant, to the point that I cannot see much financial incentive to smuggle it from the wild still....


Here's my take on the people hanging their hats on the CITES paperworkm that is fine to do until you provided with the evidence that in that case they are wrong. The CITES information as provided here and on facebook, the responses from USFW were provided there and on facebook, the CITES trade database url and usage was provided and the evidence to show that these were not legally exported was provided... so at some point the claims of legality become more than a little problematic. 

As for the financial incentives to smuggle them out of the wild... currently some of the most frequently smuggled and laundered are some of the most commonly available. See Nijman, Vincent, and Chris R. Shepherd. "The role of Asia in the global trade in CITES II-listed poison arrow frogs: hopping from Kazakhstan to Lebanon to Thailand and beyond." Biodiversity and Conservation 19.7 (2010): 1963-1970. 


some comments 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

Ed said:


> As for the financial incentives to smuggle them out of the wild... currently some of the most frequently smuggled and laundered are some of the most commonly available. See Nijman, Vincent, and Chris R. Shepherd.


I get what you're saying, and am well aware of the notion that having a legitimate trade in something like these makes it easier to launder illegitimate trade. In general, so long as wild-caught animals are cheaper than captive-bred ones, there's always a demand for whatever is cheaper (see it all the time with captive-bred fish...the moment the price point flips to be lower than wild, CB becomes preferred, otherwise, wild wins, because the average consumer is uninformed and views all as equal, so as commodities, cheaper often wins).

That said, I worry about these realities when they are then used to close trade...but that's the part of me that sees things like participation in this hobby as a *right* under the notion of freedom and liberty. Hear me out just a little.

Years ago, one could go fly fishing at night for salmon the rivers in Wisconsin. You paid for your license, you followed the rules, you got to go fishing. 

The DNR closed night fishing because they felt that poaching was occurring at night. Being difficult to police, they just decided it was easier to make the simple act of being on the river at night illegal. 

Of course, being on the river at night was a) a very special time and b) exceptional legitimate fishing. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to pursue my sport at that time and place if I so chose. But because a few people would abuse that, everyone else lost out. That, to me, is a travesty and an injustice.

My argument, do a better job of policing it in the first place. Take away the incentives to poach. Don't take away everyone else's right to do as they please just because a select few don't follow the rules.

It is easier to end trade than to deal with the problems the trade creates. That is an alarming reality, and that is something that groups like PETA, HSUS, CBD, For the Fishes and others use to their advantage when trying to end sustainable harvest or to take away your right to keep something like a dart frog as a pet in the first place. Sorry for this tangential rant....there's a balance here. 

If this situation is as it appears to be, US FWS probably needs to issue some sort of actual statement of amnesty or similar. A line DOES need to be drawn now that the info is out there. Folks who operated under a false pretense, a false sense of legitimacy, in no small part due to the inaction or "failed catch" by possibly the US FWS itself it would seem, those folks deserve their legitimate innocence protected by law. If you've been keeping this frogs for years, selling them and such, all under this general hobby-wide presumption that they were in fact legal from the get go, then they are not "on the hook now" in my book.


----------



## Ed

mpedersen said:


> I find that so ironic given Tarantulaguy's statement "No, you would not be. If you can't do the due diligence when acquiring exotic animals, that is *literally* no one's fault but your own. Certainly not this board, where, despite you saying otherwise, this topic has come up several times "


I have to admit that one of the big changes in recent years is access to a lot of information on these issues that simply wasn't available before. As an example the CITES trade database is available to anyone see https://trade.cites.org/ . In the past you had to register with it for each use as they were tracking access, now anyone can use it.

Law enforcement is more available for consultation on issues like this one, and they tend to be response in a modest time frame (as long as it is a simple request) and you can file FOIA's online which allows you to actually get information about specific imports/species contact them here [email protected]. Pretty much all of the hobby isn't going to go this extra steps unless they are directly challenged to do so for one reason or another. 



mpedersen said:


> No doubt you can feel the frustration coming through the screen from this end...if ever there was a more hypocritical scenario being played out here...


No, I get the frustration and I suspect that some of the responses to you were due to the various attempts to argue around the evidence on the recent import of blue galactanotus. As each argument was shown to be incorrect due to the evidence, there was a shift to the next claim, it was pretty surreal as to the lengths people went to try and justify the legality. 



mpedersen said:


> Yes, but I don't think the ESA was a) meant to govern beyond our borders and B) it was crafted at such a time where commercial culture and hobbies like this one didn't exist, so it needs an updating to accomodate for that.


Maybe yes, maybe no but in either case, we have to live with it and that is what is required for a delisting and that scenario hasn't been met as of yet. 



mpedersen said:


> But legitimate culture and trade need to be accommodated for under the ESA, and they currently are not.


When I was still working at the zoo, I've spoken with a number of officers around these sorts of issues and I have to admit that in their perspective, they don't see a lot of reason for doing so at this time given the extensive amount of trafficking they are involved in prosecuting. While the ones that end up being spread around in the forums tend to be the ones that put the hobby in the right, its the other ones that aren't bandied about that hurt us... I was involved in a case that was originally thought to be a drug seizure until the Postal Inspector felt something moving in a cloth bag and it turned out to be Arizona Black rattlesnake (Crotalus (oreganus) cerberus) with their tails taped so they couldn't rattle. And surprise, it was a smuggler/poacher they had busted before... 



mpedersen said:


> In other animal arenas, I'm known for pushing the boundaries of husbandry and doing challenging things, keeping things alive that aren't supposed to live in captivity. This experience also means that I know better than to try to that here during my initial foray into dart frogs


That is fine but I've said it before and I'll say it again, the frogs are a lot easier than many people think as this is in part a carry over from when the frogs were in terrible shape and would kick the bucket at the drop of a hat.

some comments 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

Ed said:


> I have to admit that one of the big changes in recent years is access to a lot of information on these issues that simply wasn't available before. As an example the CITES trade database is available to anyone see https://trade.cites.org/ . In the past you had to register with it for each use as they were tracking access, now anyone can use it.
> 
> Law enforcement is more available for consultation on issues like this one, and they tend to be response in a modest time frame (as long as it is a simple request) and you can file FOIA's online which allows you to actually get information about specific imports/species contact them here [email protected]. Pretty much all of the hobby isn't going to go this extra steps unless they are directly challenged to do so for one reason or another.


The information is more available, yes, but still, the person new to any hobby like this isn't at that point. You worked at a zoo, I've been in the aquarium hobby and trade for decades. We're aware of these sorts of things, but even so, why would I think to go check on the legal status of an animal that's arguably ubiquitous?

That is part of the issue that's changed here. Just as the information is now more available, the animals are now more available, but disproportionately so. As this hobby grows, more and more people will come to it as a casual past time. They are not inclined to look any deeper into it, and frankly, I don't know that they should have to in the first place. And if, as you say, the trade and hobby were generally acting under a presumption of legality with regards to this species, and it went THIS LONG undetected, then you are looking at dozens, hundreds of people "on the hook" for a Lacey Act violation through no intention of their own. If that's truly the case, then it needs to be addressed officially, and it would seem that amnesty is the only way. Draw the line in the sand here. The animals here can stay, and they'll be legal, but any new morphs originating from the wild will be seized. Maybe imports are no longer permissible, even with CITES permits, due to the illegitimate origins.

Again, I'm not a laywer nor investigator, so all of this in my mind is alleged. It's enough to prevent me from pursuing the species on principal at this time, but it's an infuriating scenario where genuinely innocent people get wrapped up in a bad situation.


----------



## Ed

mpedersen said:


> I get what you're saying, and am well aware of the notion that having a legitimate trade in something like these makes it easier to launder illegitimate trade. In general, so long as wild-caught animals are cheaper than captive-bred ones, there's always a demand for whatever is cheaper (see it all the time with captive-bred fish...the moment the price point flips to be lower than wild, CB becomes preferred, otherwise, wild wins, because the average consumer is uninformed and views all as equal, so as commodities, cheaper often wins).


There is a little more to it that that exact argument, in this hobby there is a status attributed to frogs that are closer to wild origin, and there is a status to those who have frogs that are rare or uncommon (even if they were common just a few year prior). This causes fluctuations in the captive populations and drives the prices up and down. There is a perception that color loss in captivity and changes in size are due to poor genetics (the fact that most people tend to get groups from one source doesn't help the impression) as opposed to poor husbandry and nutrition so more frogs need to be imported. There is an interesting paper on this check out Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect 



mpedersen said:


> That said, I worry about these realities when they are then used to close trade...but that's the part of me that sees things like participation in this hobby as a *right* under the notion of freedom and liberty. Hear me out just a little.


It is always easier to legislate out an issue than it is regulate it as one really doesn't require an increase in expenditures and the other requires ongoing budget demands. This is always going to be the case as people tend to be unwilling to pay the additional costs as "it doesn't affect them". This way you don't have to justify it and can either cut taxes or not raise them in the first place. This is the simple solution for politicians, sad as it may be. 



mpedersen said:


> My argument, do a better job of policing it in the first place. Take away the incentives to poach. Don't take away everyone else's right to do as they please just because a select few don't follow the rules.


I've argued many times for sustainable harvest as it is a win for everyone but I'm also not going to hold my breath as it is unlikely that there will ever be sufficient budgetary allocations on any end to make it happen. 



mpedersen said:


> It is easier to end trade than to deal with the problems the trade creates. That is an alarming reality, and that is something that groups like PETA, HSUS, CBD, For the Fishes and others use to their advantage when trying to end sustainable harvest or to take away your right to keep something like a dart frog as a pet in the first place. Sorry for this tangential rant....there's a balance here.


It isn't just those groups, it is also a result of a drive to not pay taxes to the government. Why pay taxes so someone else can fish or have a pet frog? It is a classic example of "somebody else's problem" and those people should pay for it. 



mpedersen said:


> If this situation is as it appears to be, US FWS probably needs to issue some sort of actual statement of amnesty or similar. A line DOES need to be drawn now that the info is out there. Folks who operated under a false pretense, a false sense of legitimacy, in no small part due to the inaction or "failed catch" by possibly the US FWS itself it would seem, those folks deserve their legitimate innocence protected by law. If you've been keeping this frogs for years, selling them and such, all under this general hobby-wide presumption that they were in fact legal from the get go, then they are not "on the hook now" in my book.


As I mentioned before, they are unlikely to go after someone just because they have those older frogs unless they really want you for something. It is much more probable that if you are already in trouble and someone who knows sees the frogs, they would then get added to the list. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

mpedersen said:


> The information is more available, yes, but still, the person new to any hobby like this isn't at that point. You worked at a zoo, I've been in the aquarium hobby and trade for decades. We're aware of these sorts of things, but even so, why would I think to go check on the legal status of an animal that's arguably ubiquitous?


I also spent more than ten years working in the pet trade (with a good bit of overlap between the two) so I tend to have a more unusual perspective. 



mpedersen said:


> They are not inclined to look any deeper into it, and frankly, I don't know that they should have to in the first place. And if, as you say, the trade and hobby were generally acting under a presumption of legality with regards to this species, and it went THIS LONG undetected,


I don't think it went undetected but instead was just a lower priority. While there are statue of limitations on the Lacey Act, those are due to each individual event so people who breed and sell the frogs tend to constantly start the clock over and over again. So if you got an illegal frog, once the statute of limitations was up, the frog and it's offspring would still be illegal but as long as you didn't engage in commerce or movement across state lines with that animal you should be safe from prosecution. 



mpedersen said:


> Again, I'm not a laywer nor investigator, so all of this in my mind is alleged. It's enough to prevent me from pursuing the species on principal at this time, but it's an infuriating scenario where genuinely innocent people get wrapped up in a bad situation.


Most of the events around these frogs are unlikely to reach the felony level due to pricing but the recent import was an exception as the frogs sold (as I understand it) for $350 each so the entire import as well as each individual sale was at the felony level. 

Back in the 1990s, Typhlonectes natans (rubber eels, caecilian eels (various spellings)) were commonly imported out of Venezuela as a fish until a researcher in a book (Captive Management and Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles) pointed out that they were not fish but an amphibian and illegal to export from Venezuela. At that time you could find them in the pet section of WalMarts but after that they began refusing to allow entry. Some still show up from time to time in mixed shipments but not like back in the day and if you ask USFW about them they will tell you they are illegal but it is unlikely that they are going to hunt them down. I think it happens more than people realize in part because of how large the job has become. 


some comments 

Ed


----------



## S2G

mpedersen said:


> And I'll contend that genuine innocence is legitimate and must be considered. We're not talking about the types of commonly-available illicit things where the law and illegality IS clearly known.
> 
> This isn't something like drugs, or driving drunk. We KNOW these things to be against the law. When the entire community, as shown above, foists these animals about for 2 decades, with no mention of their "technical" illegality, and even goes so far as to contend they're not, and the USFWS does nothing to stop it, then no, you don't get to point at a newbie and condemn them for not knowing better. *It's a fraud perpetrated upon someone like me who comes to this with only genuine interest. I would be a victim in these cirucmstances.*
> 
> And that's my point about things like the Lacey Act, were it to be enforced upon say, every person who ever bought a Galact from anyone else ever. Because, statute of limitations aside, that could more or less come to pass. But by virtue of 2 decades worth of free, unfettered public-facing commerce, no one coming to the hobby anew can be reasonably expected to at any point find out that these animals may, in fact, violate one of our lesser-known, yet toothier laws. No doubt I could find hobby articles published in magazines talking about the care, husbandry, breeding etc....and probably no mentions at any point of their now purported illegal origins, and thus, current status under the Lace Act.
> 
> I'm now here, informed, having happened upon this very pertinent info, and won't further pursue ownership of these animals now that I AM informed, and I don't wish to practice civil disobedience here. But you cannot tell me it's my fault had I not found it, because it is a relative needle in a haystack when looking at this species at large. And that is why I have a problem with aspects of our laws and law enforcement.


Do you really think "your honor I didn't know" will work? Oh they're illegal my bad haha.

My good friend thought the same thing with legally imported but illegal by state piranha. They said well next time you'll know to look into if they're legal in your state. His fines were over $2k plus what it cost for me to bail him out. I'm here to tell you it would of been your fault if you had not found out. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. You just don't go catching an unknown amount of a certain fish. Why? Because there's certain fish have a season you can catch them and a certain limit on the amount you can catch. It's your job to research what your getting into regardless of what it is.


----------



## mpedersen

S2G said:


> Do you really think "your honor I didn't know" will work? Oh they're illegal my bad haha.
> 
> My good friend thought the same thing with legally imported but illegal by state piranha. They said well next time you'll know to look into if they're legal in your state. His fines were over $2k plus what it cost for me to bail him out. I'm here to tell you it would of been your fault if you had not found out. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse.


And I think that's entirely wrong, and that shouldn't happen, if in fact he was genuinely taken advantage of. Of course, considering that most online vendors disclose that a fish like Pirhanas aren't available in all states, then here too, I find it a little harder to believe that he was truly ignorant. 

If a LFS is selling piranhas in a state where they're not legal, that's on the shop first and foremost. If the casual customer walks into the shop and decides to purchase them, and the shop isn't there saying "now before you take these home, you know, these technically aren't legal here", then the shop is fraudulently offering them to the consumer as if they are legal. I cannot fault the customer, and the customer shouldn't be legally on the hook. I find that aspect of our laws incredibly wrong. 



S2G said:


> You just don't go catching an unknown amount of a certain fish.Why? Because there's certain fish have a season you can catch them and a certain limit on the amount you can catch. It's your job to research what your getting into regardless of what it is.


And your examples aren't equitable. Fishing regulations are publicly published, available wherever you buy your license. What is, and is not allowed, is very clearly made known by the people vending the products you need to be involved in the first place.

Look at that laundry list of for sale offerings, online references, and tell me how many raise the dubious legality of these frogs? Yeah, the consumer doesn't stand a chance; they're not informed, they're not given an informed choice. That means they're innocent. Our laws need to be changed to reflect this.

And from what is being stated here, the entire industry is complicit when it comes to these frogs....either through willful ignorance or simply presuming that the paperwork was the proof. It is nearly impossible for the end buyer to know, and because of that, I find it incredibly hard to condemn EVERYONE in the process. The buck stops with the people who DID know, not those who were innocently ignorant, regardless of the reason why they didn't know.


----------



## S2G

mpedersen said:


> And I think that's entirely wrong, and that shouldn't happen, if in fact he was genuinely taken advantage of. Of course, considering that most online vendors disclose that a fish like Pirhanas aren't available in all states, then here too, I find it a little harder to believe that he was truly ignorant.
> 
> If a LFS is selling piranhas in a state where they're not legal, that's on the shop first and foremost. If the casual customer walks into the shop and decides to purchase them, and the shop isn't there saying "now before you take these home, you know, these technically aren't legal here", then the shop is fraudulently offering them to the consumer as if they are legal. I cannot fault the customer, and the customer shouldn't be legally on the hook. I find that aspect of our laws incredibly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> And your examples aren't equitable. Fishing regulations are publicly published, available wherever you buy your license. What is, and is not allowed, is very clearly made known by the people vending the products you need to be involved in the first place.
> 
> Look at that laundry list of for sale offerings, online references, and tell me how many raise the dubious legality of these frogs? Yeah, the consumer doesn't stand a chance; they're not informed, they're not given an informed choice. That means they're innocent. Our laws need to be changed to reflect this.
> 
> And from what is being stated here, the entire industry is complicit when it comes to these frogs....either through willful ignorance or simply presuming that the paperwork was the proof. It is nearly impossible for the end buyer to know, and because of that, I find it incredibly hard to condemn EVERYONE in the process. The buck stops with the people who DID know, not those who were innocently ignorant, regardless of the reason why they didn't know.


I'm not reading all that. I do understand your frustration. However the punishment will fall on your shoulders and the penalties are hefty. It's up to you to protect yourself. I've done it for years and the info is readily available.


----------



## mpedersen

S2G said:


> I'm not reading all that. I do understand your frustration. However the punishment will fall on your shoulders and the penalties are hefty. It's up to you to protect yourself. I've done it for years and the info is readily available.


Actually, as it pertains to Galacts, no, the information is NOT readily available, and that's why your argument fails to hold up.

Go revisit all the links I posted. Revisit the vast number of sale offerings of Galacts here on this board. Where was the outcry then? If these animals are in fact illegal, why was their sale tolerated for years?

When it comes to the alleged "dubious origins" of the entire captive population, there is this thread, and one mention on another site that SELLS them (but no mention on the actual sales pages themselves), are the only allegations I've come across. I would have to dig to see if there are others. Asking the layperson to be a) aware of Brazilian export laws and b) know how to use the CITES database to c) figure out if they were legally exported to Europe is a completely unrealistic level of "homework" to heft onto the casual frog hobbyist. It is NOT the same as going to buy a fishing license where the regulations are on the website/at the counter, handed to you by the guy there after he asks if you have them or not. 

I do kinda have to stress that they are well-argued allegations and not necessarily *fact*. A 20-year captive-population, zero intervention from US FWS, PLUS the existence of CITES permits on imports, gives the average layperson every indication that these are animals which are fully legal to own as pets. 

So it's rather esoteric and arrogant to suggest that the full force of the law will rain down on folks keeping these animals, but I acknowledge, it *could* happen as you say nevertheless. And THAT is wrong, and for that, our laws need to change.


----------



## Calivet

mpedersen said:


> Actually, as it pertains to Galacts, no, the information is NOT readily available, and that's why your argument fails to hold up.
> 
> Go revisit all the links I posted. Revisit the vast number of sale offerings of Galacts here on this board. Where was the outcry then? If these animals are in fact illegal, why was their sale tolerated for years?
> 
> *When it comes to the alleged "dubious origins" of the entire captive population, there is this thread, and one mention on another site that SELLS them (but no mention on the actual sales pages themselves), are the only allegations I've come across*. I would have to dig to see if there are others. Asking the layperson to be a) aware of Brazilian export laws and b) know how to use the CITES database to c) figure out if they were legally exported to Europe is a completely unrealistic level of "homework" to heft onto the casual frog hobbyist. It is NOT the same as going to buy a fishing license where the regulations are on the website/at the counter, handed to you by the guy there after he asks if you have them or not.
> 
> *I do kinda have to stress that they are well-argued allegations and not necessarily *fact**. A 20-year captive-population, zero intervention from US FWS, PLUS the existence of CITES permits on imports, gives the average layperson every indication that these are animals which are fully legal to own as pets.
> 
> So it's rather esoteric and arrogant to suggest that the full force of the law will rain down on folks keeping these animals, but I acknowledge, it *could* happen as you say nevertheless. And THAT is wrong, and for that, our laws need to change.


I just now googled "were galactonotus ever legally exported from brazil". 

This is the top link - http://www.amphibians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E-AC28-Inf-341.pdf

This is the second paragraph. 



> Although *live specimens of this species have never been exported legally from Brazil* (where all wildlife is protected by law) it is a common species in captivity in Europe and the United States with all of these specimens arising from illegal exports from Brazil. The first illegal import to Germany took place in 1996 with expanded international trade beginning in 1997 according to data from the CITES Trade Database.


From the section on page 4 "Illegal trade"



> All trade in this species reported in the official CITES Trade Database since 1997 is illegal, *because no breeding stock (live specimens) of A. galactonotus has ever been exported legally from Brazil. According to CITES rules, all descendants of illegal breeding stock are also illegal*.





> Beginning in 1997 there was a regular trade from Germany to other countries in captive bred specimens (CITES Trade Database). Saurian Enterprises Inc. , a commercial enterprise specializing in the breeding of dart frogs, clearly states on its website that all specimens in captivity are descendants of specimens illegally exported to Europe and then laundered (with legal European CITES documents) to the USA at the end of the 1990s. This is well known among Dendrobatid keepers, as is clear from several posts (referred to as A, B, C, D, and E) to the Dendroboard, an online website providing information and discussion forum about dart frogs, that deal specifically with the light blue morph of A. galactonotus that was recently (2013) smuggled from the Caxiuanã area in Brazil to Germany. Some participants (primarily from the USA) in this discussion forum are clearly concerned about the illegal exports. Others apparently are not concerned as they may believe that trade in specimens of A. galactonotus has been legalized. Under the USA’s Lacey Act, however, specimens of this species in captivity remain illegal independent of their distance from the original, smuggled breeding stock.


The fact that you're still arguing that this is "alleged", when the amount of "digging" required was about 15 seconds, is beginning to be a bit odd. other people who have actually read and studied the laws in question have rather eloquently explained them to you, you can rather easily google them and read them yourself if that's what you need, but your refusal to do so doesn't turn the fact of these frogs being illegal into an allegation. The morality of the government enforcing the law on the ignorant is at least an interesting one, but it's also a well known fact that ignorance of the law is not a defense.


----------



## mpedersen

Calivet said:


> I just now googled "were galactonotus ever legally exported from brazil".


You didn't need to Google it, you need to read this thread from the start...considering this report is the opening post of the thread.



Calivet said:


> The fact that you're still arguing that this is "alleged", when the amount of "digging" required was about 15 seconds, is beginning to be a bit odd.


Actually, it's not, because you have to consider the context of that document, which is also discussed further up in this thread. That document is effectively an allegation.

What I do know is that data online and with CITES can be incomplete. We can allege (as this document does) that all imports have been completely illegal, but then we could later come to find out these allegations are not 100% true...could be someone shows up with paperwork from the 1990s clearly showing legal import that Brazil failed to report to CITES.

I fully understand and largely agree with the allegations and legal arguments, but they are still allegations, not legal fact. Thus, I am careful to qualify my stance and opinion in this matter as alleged, and not fact.

I am not condoning any of this, and as I've repeatedly stated, personally, these allegations are sufficient for me to not pursue this species as a personal pet at this time. 

But...I also know that there are copious examples where the burden of proof to prove something wasn't done illegally is overwhelming - just consider any STONY coral sold and propagated in the US aquarium hobby. I certainly don't have CITES paperwork for any of my corals, nor does any aquarist I know. No LFS issues a full paper trail and history on their corals....neither does any wholesaler. I could well have corals that were illegally harvested in my aquarium right now and I would NEVER know. The only saving grace is that while I couldn't prove my innocence, no one else could prove my guilt either.

So again, I'm choosing my words very carefully, and I believe alleged / allegation to be the best fit for the circumstances presented.



Calivet said:


> The morality of the government enforcing the law on the ignorant is at least an interesting one, but it's also a well known fact that ignorance of the law is not a defense.


Except that it's not even simply ignorance of the law, it's a condoned lack of access to both the law but also the information that would allow anyone to make an informed choice. When that information is effectively withheld and buried, you could argue entrapment or fraud, and again, that makes the end consumer a victim. We ought not to turn victims into criminals under our legal frameworks.

When you walk into Walgreens, you pretty much expect that the drugs you're buying off the shelf are *legal*. When you buy corals at our LFS, they've already gone through many channels at which the "illegal" corals were supposed to be caught. So too, when you go to every major online frog retailer and see these animals being publicly offered, freely, for years, you have every reasonable expectation that what you are purchasing is *legal*. 

It is the absolute height of arrogance to charge that the layperson be expected to "do their homework" when a parade of public offerings by companies and hobbyists is what the homework reveals. It is maddening to me that folks would then suggest that these buyers are culpable should it come to pass that they've purchased an "illegal" animal under these circumstances. The average consumer had no fair opportunity to make a properly informed choice in the matter. This is why I use the word "fraud" to frame such transactions; if the sellers know, but then sell them anyway, that's what it is

This is why intent matters, and this is why ignorance and genuine innocence matter here.


----------



## Calivet

mpedersen said:


> You didn't need to Google it, you need to read this thread from the start...considering this report is the opening post of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not, because you have to consider the context of that document, which is also discussed further up in this thread. That document is effectively an allegation.
> 
> What I do know is that data online and with CITES can be incomplete. We can allege (as this document does) that all imports have been completely illegal, but then we could later come to find out these allegations are not 100% true...could be someone shows up with paperwork from the 1990s clearly showing legal import that Brazil failed to report to CITES.
> 
> I fully understand and largely agree with the allegations and legal arguments, but they are still allegations, not legal fact. Thus, I am careful to qualify my stance and opinion in this matter as alleged, and not fact.
> 
> I am not condoning any of this, and as I've repeatedly stated, personally, these allegations are sufficient for me to not pursue this species as a personal pet at this time.
> 
> But...I also know that there are copious examples where the burden of proof to prove something wasn't done illegally is overwhelming - just consider any STONY coral sold and propagated in the US aquarium hobby. I certainly don't have CITES paperwork for any of my corals, nor does any aquarist I know. No LFS issues a full paper trail and history on their corals....neither does any wholesaler. I could well have corals that were illegally harvested in my aquarium right now and I would NEVER know. The only saving grace is that while I couldn't prove my innocence, no one else could prove my guilt either.
> 
> So again, I'm choosing my words very carefully, and I believe alleged / allegation to be the best fit for the circumstances presented.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's not even simply ignorance of the law, it's a condoned lack of access to both the law but also the information that would allow anyone to make an informed choice. When that information is effectively withheld and buried, you could argue entrapment or fraud, and again, that makes the end consumer a victim. We ought not to turn victims into criminals under our legal frameworks.
> 
> When you walk into Walgreens, you pretty much expect that the drugs you're buying off the shelf are *legal*. When you buy corals at our LFS, they've already gone through many channels at which the "illegal" corals were supposed to be caught. So too, when you go to every major online frog retailer and see these animals being publicly offered, freely, for years, you have every reasonable expectation that what you are purchasing is *legal*.
> 
> It is the absolute height of arrogance to charge that the layperson be expected to "do their homework" when a parade of public offerings by companies and hobbyists is what the homework reveals. It is maddening to me that folks would then suggest that these buyers are culpable should it come to pass that they've purchased an "illegal" animal under these circumstances. The average consumer had no fair opportunity to make a properly informed choice in the matter. This is why I use the word "fraud" to frame such transactions; *if the sellers know, but then sell them anyway, that's what it is*
> 
> This is why intent matters, and this is why ignorance and genuine innocence matter here.


Ok, you read it, right? Is your position that somewhere out there, someone legally imported frogs out of Brazil, and they aren't making that information public, because...I can't even come up with a plausible reason. Because that's the only way this is "alleged". The laws clearly state that without specific proof of legal importation, they're illegal. The laws aren't remotely hidden. 

You're correct. That's fraud. But that doesn't mean your intent matters at all. You're buying species that you damned well ought to know are CITES controlled. If someone makes the decision to jump in without knowing what that means, and without knowing that there are ignorant, unscrupulous, and unsavory people in the world,, that's still on them. 


I get it that you're aggrieved. I get it that it's justified. What I don't get is what you're trying to accomplish with these repeated posts. The laws are the laws, the Brazilian government's position is well known, and You don't have to look very hard to find out just how little USFW cares about excuses. You complain that there's nobody warning anyone about how these frogs are illegal, this thread is warning people that these frogs are illegal, and...you're arguing with people that they may not be illegal. Someone (not me, several very knowledgeable someone's) took the time out of their day to do exactly what you're asking for, and you're arguing with them. The venting I understand. The repeated return to the word "alleged" I do not, because all you're doing is confusing the next newbie who comes across this thread. Stop saying you need to research it and research it.


----------



## srrrio

When I first started keeping galactonotus I don't think I knew they were even "grey" frogs". By the time that the idea of blue galactonotus came along, I certainly was aware of the fact that blue would illegal. There was another infamous dart frog guy who was gathering support to save these blue frogs from a dam destroying their habitat. It was a bunch of bull. However it generated awareness of what I did not want to be a part of. 
This well could have been what started setting my compass towards the extreme side these days, where I really don't want to see any frog taken out of their natural habitat. With the exception from places like Wikiri and I only mention them, among a couple of others, because I have seen the good work they are doing in person. I realize this opinion is not a popular one, and just my own.

You can call me a hypocrite or label me as breaking the law with my yellow, orange and solid orange groups, who are now mostly more then 9yrs old in my care. However with galactonotus blue it is such an opportunity to hold the line and say no more illegal frogs through Europe and spend energy that way instead The blue are so easy to identify and educate the masses with.

Probably my last interaction with a dart oriented FB group was about galactontous blue which pretty much did me in for any commenting. It seemed so hopleles to encourage people not to buy these frogs. 
Along with other showy frogs like tinctorious " Tumucumaque". Pretty much the same as when sketchy large obligates started showing up for sale. 
Yet I am wrong, saying something is the right thing even if it seems futile.

I have lost my "dart frog speak" if I ever had it, but I still care, and have meant to comment on this thread since it started. Nice to see some of the old crowd talking as well, they know what they are doing!


----------



## mpedersen

Ed said:


> The documentation on "all galactanotus" and that Germany and the Netherlands will launder them into the trade is relatively new to the overall hobby... so looking at it historically one the site the best angle.
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed


So I had been thinking about this a bit, and it addresses some of the items other people are posting about. 

To this very moment, there is extremely minimal information out there about the dubious legal status of _A. galactonotus_.

However, "how long did the trade know"? This reference goes back to October 12th, 2009 - https://web.archive.org/web/20091012145215/https://saurian.net/frog_menu_d_galactonotus.html

So can the frog hobby and trade really have it both ways? There are people lecturing me that ignorance is no excuse, but then even now, there is VERY LITTLE available documentation that even suggests there's a problem. 

But....then again, it appears this was maybe known about for some time, at least by this one person. Who also sells these animals openly. So can we really say this is "relatively new" information?

Willfull ignorance? Not wanting to rock the boat? Keeping this (and other things) on the down low?


----------



## S2G

mpedersen said:


> Actually, as it pertains to Galacts, no, the information is NOT readily available, and that's why your argument fails to hold up.
> 
> Go revisit all the links I posted. Revisit the vast number of sale offerings of Galacts here on this board. Where was the outcry then? If these animals are in fact illegal, why was their sale tolerated for years?
> 
> When it comes to the alleged "dubious origins" of the entire captive population, there is this thread, and one mention on another site that SELLS them (but no mention on the actual sales pages themselves), are the only allegations I've come across. I would have to dig to see if there are others. Asking the layperson to be a) aware of Brazilian export laws and b) know how to use the CITES database to c) figure out if they were legally exported to Europe is a completely unrealistic level of "homework" to heft onto the casual frog hobbyist. It is NOT the same as going to buy a fishing license where the regulations are on the website/at the counter, handed to you by the guy there after he asks if you have them or not.
> 
> I do kinda have to stress that they are well-argued allegations and not necessarily *fact*. A 20-year captive-population, zero intervention from US FWS, PLUS the existence of CITES permits on imports, gives the average layperson every indication that these are animals which are fully legal to own as pets.
> 
> So it's rather esoteric and arrogant to suggest that the full force of the law will rain down on folks keeping these animals, but I acknowledge, it *could* happen as you say nevertheless. And THAT is wrong, and for that, our laws need to change.


http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/55061-post19.html
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...l-status-dart-frogs-species-us.html#post55061

Yep your right it's not readily available . Those are from 2005(there were numerous others) and I found in about a minute after drinking 3 big dos equis on the road staying in a hotel. Surely someone could manage of sober mind in the comforts of their own home. ED clearly states about legality being moot due to Brazilian law. Galacts are from Brazil....brazil doesn't allow export and hasn't for a long time.

Now I've called local authorities in the past on red galacts and terribs. Terribs were legal. Galacts were in a grey area. Technically they're illegal if they're from Brazil is what I was told. That's been yrs ago. 

I'm not trying to argue, but its just apart of keeping an exotic animal. Ignorance won't be an acceptable excuse in court. Nor will not having paperwork from country of origin in these days/times for an animal known to be from a country that doesn't allow any ole export of its animals like these blues galacts now.


----------



## Encyclia

S2G said:


> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/55061-post19.html
> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...l-status-dart-frogs-species-us.html#post55061
> 
> Yep your right it's not readily available . Those are from 2005(there were numerous others) and I found in about a minute after drinking 3 big dos equis on the road staying in a hotel. Surely someone could manage of sober mind in the comforts of their own home. ED clearly states about legality being moot due to Brazilian law. Galacts are from Brazil....brazil doesn't allow export and hasn't for a long time.
> 
> Now I've called local authorities in the past on red galacts and terribs. Terribs were legal. Galacts were in a grey area. Technically they're illegal if they're from Brazil is what I was told. That's been yrs ago.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue, but its just apart of keeping an exotic animal. Ignorance won't be an acceptable excuse in court. Nor will not having paperwork from country of origin in these days/times for an animal known to be from a country that doesn't allow any ole export of its animals like these blues galacts now.


Whether we all like it or not, mpedersen brings up some things that we need to think about. There is so much gray here, in terms of the information that's out there, and I think many of us are looking through the lens of experienced hobbiests. When I first joined the hobby, I wouldn't have known (and didn't know!) that there was even a reason to check if something someone sold on a legitimate board was legal. "The board could get in trouble for promoting sketchy transactions, so they should be looking out for that sort of thing" would have been my line of thought. I think that is the case, too. The mods do a great job of protecting the board in a variety of ways (they are very diligent with feedback on companies, for instance). Therefore, I don't think it's an invalid assumption that the frogs listed on Dendroboard for sale or trade are legal to own.

Is this a naive assumption? Absolutely! Is it wrong? Apparently, in some cases (A. galactonotus, for the last couple of decades? EU Vanzos?). Would I still be legally culpable for buying or selling frogs that are illegal? Yes. However, my opinion is that we are encouraging this assumption by making this information too difficult to come by for a newish hobbiest. As exhibit A, I present the thread that S2G posted (thanks for doing the three-beer search, S2G (no sarcasm intended, it was a useful find!)). Galactonotus in the first post of this thread are listed as "legal." So, if a beginner who actually uses the search bar (AKA, a unicorn) comes up with that thread and this thread I we are posting in now, what other conclusion are they to come up with than that the issue is at best gray (yes, I know, 12 years between the two threads, but the ambiguity is still there)? 

Why not remove the ambiguity? Stickies are there for a reason - even I look at those. Why not put together a sticky that goes in the Frog Classifieds (and General Discussion, and...?) that has the current legal status of all potentially-available dart frog species. There could be a little blurb about how the status of some of the frogs is, indeed, gray but that many Dendroboard users have decided not to keep these species/morphs on ethical grounds. So, we could have a list that says legal or illegal and then has various asterisks highlighting potential ethical problems with the history of species/morphs. For ethical reasons, I would also like to include morphs on this list. They are not illegal if the species is legal, to the best of my knowledge since there is no effort to differentiate below the species level, but the same ethical problems exist at lower taxa. 

This approach would not only help us stop perpetuating the ambiguity surrounding some dart frogs in the hobby, but it would establish us as a destination for people to come and get the truth. It might even increase our seemingly-dwindling membership and participation if this sort of thing came up when people did a Google search on the legality of species.

In the end, I recognize that we are all responsible for out collections and there are potential penalties for ownership of species/morphs that are illegal. I also agree that, as many have said in this thread, the information to protect ourselves is out there. I do not, however, agree that it is easy to come across that information for someone that is new to this hobby. Those of us who are established frog keepers have conversations with other hobbiests all the time where this type of thing is at least mentioned and that triggers us to go do some research. Many times, new hobbiests start out basically alone and they don't know what they don't know. I think we can make this a lot easier for them by keeping a sticky topic in some of our sub-forums and keeping it updated.

As others have done, I have to say that the situation with the blue galactonotus is different than what I am talking about here. There is a clear line that we can draw in the sand here and, now that Ed and other have done such a good job of laying out the situation, I and others can take a stand by not owning these frogs and discouraging others to do so.

I am not very good at thinking and writing about these things, so I usually don't participate in this type of thread and leave the heavy lifting in the thinking arena to those that are better equipped to do it  However, too much of what mpedersen was saying rang true in my own experience to stay silent. I think lots of people have forgotten what it was like when you first start out in the hobby. We can make life easier for these folks. Let's help new folks out by spoon-feeding them at first then encouraging them to do their own research later on. 

I will close by thanking all of the folks in this thread and many others for their tireless efforts to help the hobby move forward. Once I learned that I needed to my homework and how to do it, your comments have been incredibly valuable to me.

Thanks for reading my rambling thoughts. 

Mark


----------



## Ed

I have to admit that I'm having flash backs of deja vu about the twists and turns in this thread and I'm not referring to the facebook thread. 

I suggest that people compare the arguments in this thread from back in 2006 to the current arguments in this thread... 
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/5603-d-castaneoticus-legal-status-2.html 

The illegality of animals from Brazil isn't a secret and the importer actually admitted that the blue galactanotus were illegal in a thread he started back in 2015 (linked to in a post above). 

I've been consistently pointing out that clearance into the country cannot be used as proof of legality under the treaty or Lacey Act for a number of years now. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...astaneoticus-brazil-nut-frog.html#post1823282 

Now does that seem like catch 22 for the average person? Absolutely, but the problem is because of the people who deal in frogs like the blue galactanotus. I wouldn't have been querying the provenance about the frogs for a long time if it wasn't for an incident involving International Amphibian Day and comments made by a respected potential vendor (in 2007) about acquiring CITES paperwork from the Netherlands (this is going to remain an anecdote as it was done off the cuff but it made me curious so I began digging into it then and as some will tell you that I will dig pretty deep to satisfy my curiosity). Sadly the reality is that this is not an allegation (the use of allegedly) but a fact, all of the frogs we enjoy in the trade are illegal. Now, there are still some grey areas in the tinctorious group as while they are called "Brazilian" like the Brazilian yellow head, they may in fact not have come from Brazil, this argument cannot be applied to galactanotus as they are only found in Brazil. see https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/ac/28/Inf/E-AC28-Inf-35.pdf 

This isn't an allegedly illegal incident, it is pretty clear. I and the others are making the argument that it was due to a mistake by USFW but that may not be the case given the documentation in the CITES report on the frogs that shows the hobby was aware of their illegality. In more recent years, USFW has conducted multiyear stings attempting to include as much of the supply chain and end purchasers as possible (google Operation Shellshock). That took three years ended up involving multiple states and it started with an illegally offered and sold Pseudotriton ruber from New York and ended with some big names in the reptile hobby being prosecuted. 

The problem with the larger argument is that is does distract from the specific incident involving the blue galactanotus. It is hard to argue that the vendor/importer and those that bought them were unaware that the frogs were being laundered through the Netherlands and were just attempting to take advantage of a perceived loophole and the issue probably wouldn't have escalated to this point if the vendor (and others) didn't try to argue their way down the chain of evidence as well as calling those who provided proof of illegality as "stupid" and "ignorant" of the importation process as well as subsequently refusing to apologize when he couldn't refute the actual black and white proof. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

mpedersen said:


> So I had been thinking about this a bit, and it addresses some of the items other people are posting about.
> 
> To this very moment, there is extremely minimal information out there about the dubious legal status of _A. galactonotus_.


I'm not sure where you're getting this position that there is extremely minimal information out there. Its not a secret that Brazil has banned exports since before 1970 of wildlife. 

Its not minimal when there is an actual pdf report about it on CITES (given that report is then given to all of the countries who are signatories as well as published on the web). Nor is it minimal when the positions of USFW end up being published on the web. These aren't allegations, they are facts and you can easily verify them for yourself as the links for checking them are posted in the thread. 

Its been known for a very long time that animals from Brazil are likely illegal, all that was lacking was the proof from USFW that cb animals from Brazil were still illegal despite being given CITES paperwork from another country. This is the point that it really all changed as there isn't any way that animals that were smuggled from a country of origin could be legitimized via CITES paperwork. Now has it happened in the past that organisms were claimed to be legal due to import papers? Absolutely, does it suck, again Absolutely! 

Now here is an allegation, those imports could have passed through due to ignorance on the part of those reviewing the paperwork, it could have been done as it didn't reach the bar for a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor or it could just be due to the fact that was a policy despite it being a violation (just like Germany or the Netherlands). As we all should know by now, policies and positions by governments can and do change based on priorities, in this case we are waiting to see what the reality of this import is going to end up being by USFW. Will there be arrests, confiscations and fine, we don't know. When might they happen, based on prior examples (Operation ShellShock), it could take several years and capture as much of the chain of ownership as possible.. so we still don't know. 

What we do know, and not allegedly, is that those frogs are illegal and owning them, breeding them, and transporting them across state and country lines given the import prices is at risk of felony level charges under the Lacey Act. 

from https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-lacey-act-16-usc-ss-3371-3378



> The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378 , protects both plants and wildlife by creating civil and criminal penalties for a wide array of violations. Most notably, the Act prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold. Thus, the Act underscores other federal, state, and foreign laws protecting wildlife by making it a separate offense to take, possess, transport, or sell wildlife that has been taken in violation of those laws. The Act prohibits the falsification of documents for most shipments of wildlife (a criminal penalty) and prohibits the failure to mark wildlife shipments (civil penalty). The Lacey Act is administered by the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture through their respective agencies. These include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
> 
> The Lacey Act was first introduced by Iowa Congressman John Lacey in the House of Representatives in the spring of 1900. It was signed into law by President William McKinley on May 25, 1900. The original Act was directed more at the preservation of game and wild birds by making it a federal crime to poach game in one state with the purpose of selling the bounty in another. It was also concerned with the potential problems of the introduction of non-native, or exotic species of birds and animals into native ecosystems. Finally, it sought to buttress state laws already in existence for the protection of game and birds.
> 
> The Lacey Act has been amended several times since its inception in 1900. The most significant ones occurred in 1969, 1981, and 1988. The 1969 amendments expanded to include amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, and crustaceans. The maximum penalty was increased to $10,000 with possible imprisonment for one year. Additionally, the mental state required for a criminal violation was increased to "knowingly and willfully;" civil penalties were expanded to apply to negligent violations.
> 
> *In 1981, Congress removed the heightened proof standard of "willfully" from the statute, making "knowingly" the standard. This came in response to an increased illegal trade in fish and wildlife both domestically and abroad. Indigenous plants were also added to the protected species. With regard to penalty, the maximum civil fine was raised to $10,000 and a bifurcated felony/misdemeanor scheme was created under the statute based on the conduct of the offender and the market value of the species at issue. Under the felony portion of the statute, the maximum penalty was set at $20,000 and/or five years imprisonment; misdemeanor violations were set at $10,000 and/or up to one-year imprisonment. The amendments also allowed for warrantless arrest for felony violations under the Act and expansion of the role of federal wildlife agents.*
> 
> In 1988, the role of guiding or outfitting services were added to cover a new threat to big game species under the ambit of "sale." Prior to the amendment, big game guides who provided illegal hunts were immune to prosecution for violation based on commercial activity. The amendments also created a separate and distinct violation for the intended falsification of documents pertaining to the exporting, importing, or transporting of wildlife, fish, or plants. *The felony provision of this part of the act was amended such that one could be convicted if he or she either knew of the import or export of the species or where he or she was involved in the sale or purchase of wildlife, fish, or plants with a market value greater than $350.*
> 
> The Lacey Act now stands as one of the broadest and most comprehensive forces in the federal arsenal to combat wildlife crime. With increasing activity in international and domestic wildlife trafficking, the Act has evolved to become an important weapon to protect animals domestically and abroad.


some comments 

Ed


----------



## gope

"I'm having flash backs of deja vu"  That's gold!


----------



## Ed

gope said:


> "I'm having flash backs of deja vu"  That's gold!


Too often my deliberate puns are overlooked. But that is enough distraction back to the blue galactanotus argument. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

OK, so I drafted this response the other day, but I said "OK, take a break, the Internet isn't going anywhere. Re-read it and come back."

There are some other great responses there since I sat on my hands, and I'll get to some of those and weave those in here too.

Let me also say, I view this as a conversation. I appreciate those who understand what that means.



Calivet said:


> Ok, you read it, right? Is your position that somewhere out there, someone legally imported frogs out of Brazil, and they aren't making that information public, because...I can't even come up with a plausible reason.


Look, I get what you're saying, I really do. But, do we even know who this hypothetical person or group would be? Do we know the lineage of these frogs back to the source? Of which, no doubt there were multiple.

Who has their import papers from 20 years ago?

Again, do I have copies of the CITES paperwork covering the originally imported specimen of _Montipora digitata_ "Bubblegum" that was harvested from Indonesia (presumably), sent through to the US to an importer, distributed to a wholesaler of frag farmer, propagated, spread around the aquarium hobby, and ultimately sold to me at MACNA last month? Of course I do not. 

Reality and pragmatism tell me that a lack of paperwork today does not equate to automatic guilt over something that happened 20 years ago. 

To my coral example. It could very well be that my Bubblegum Digitata wasn't legally harvested. But you'd have to prove it. And from my standpoint, I would have no way of knowing in either direction, so I don't think I should be held accountable if the information required for me to *know* was never made available.

Of course, that cuts to the heart of the matter. Generally speaking, widespread public availability has connoted legality, because we have all these processes in place to prevent illegal trade. 

I'm OBVIOUSLY NOT saying that availability EQUATES to legality, I'm just addressing the reality of our EVERYDAY LIVES....whether it's buying bananas or iPhones. 

What if your iPhone was made with child labor? Should you be held considered "guilty" and held to the fire in a court of law for breaking child labor laws when you purchased your iPhone from Verizon? Should everyone else around you condemn you for "not knowing" that the IPhone you got at the local phone store was "made with child labor?"



Calivet said:


> Because that's the only way this is "alleged".


It requires a trial in a court to _prove_ guilt. Not the _allegations _of people on the Internet. This is all alleged. It may all be TRUE, and it's absolutely well argued and supported, but it's still allegations based on the information at hand.



Calivet said:


> The laws clearly state that without specific proof of legal importation, they're illegal. The laws aren't remotely hidden.


First off, the law in our country affords for innocence until guilt is proven. That is being completely left out of the discussion. Perhaps that's the first reason why I'm still so engaged with this discussion. 

When you raise "documentation" as "proof of legality", you'll wind up with folks pointing to things like approved CITES permits as "valid examples" of legal importation. THEY got the paperwork THEY were on the hook to get. That IS what the law requires in order to import. That is "proof" of a legal and sanctioned transaction in the mind of many. 

*I get the "laundering" aspect of that, *you don't need to try to re-explain it to me. 

However, if you're going to be so adamant about "paperwork", then having the paperwork that YOU would be reasonably expected to have at YOUR point in the chain of custody, does kinda point the finger back up the chain a bit, and the fact that the USFWS cleared it is pretty substantive. 

I argue that having the CITES permits for the animals, and the clearance of FWS, would create a pretty big legal defense. 

If I want to own a native gamefish in some states of the US, the burden of proof is a paper receipt from a store. A receipt which shows that I purchased the animal vs. caught it. Once I provide that, the blame shifts to the vendor if there's a problem. I may still have to give up the animal if in fact there turned out to be a problem, but to have charges pressed against me despite following the law? Again, innocence needs to be respected. Good faith efforts to do things by the book need to be recognized. 

Again, if investigators were to find evidence that the people who imported knowingly conspired to deceive or "sneak one past", then you have all you need to throw the book at 'em. But if you don't have that proof, then that person is innocent until proven otherwise. 



Calivet said:


> You're correct. That's fraud. But that doesn't mean your intent matters at all. You're buying species that you damned well ought to know are CITES controlled.


What a sanctimonious viewpoint.

How is the average person new to frogs supposed to find out that ALL Dendrobatidae frogs are CITES controlled? 

Let me ask you this - without looking, how many different freshwater and saltwater aquarium fish, corals and inverts, are CITES controlled? 

Now, maybe you'd know the answer because you've been keeping aquariums for 35 years. So go ask a family member who's only kept a dog that question.

How often do you walk into Petco and see a note with the purchase of that animal saying ANYTHING about "CITES"? Where are all the mentions of CITES in the hobby literature, the blogs, but more importantly, at the herp swaps and the online sellers? 

Please, go onto Josh's Frogs, who I gather is a reasonably respected vendor of Poison Dart Frogs...it is certainly one of the online sources that a new hobbyist is going to turn to. Now, I'm not trying to disparage Josh's Frogs (they sent some real nice frogs to my friend)...

*...How many times is CITES and its related issues mentioned there, on the Josh's Frogs website, for the budding Dart Frog Hobbyist to find? *Here, let me save you the trouble: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:joshsfrogs.com+CITES&filter=0&biw=2133&bih=1082

*That's 7 hits for the word CITES...and 5 of those are for CHOLLA Cactus Skelton, the other two for Phyllobates bicolor.*

*All stop. You're going to tell me that the new frog hobbyist should "damned well ought to know" what CITES is, how it applies, and be wary of it, when it's effectively not even mentioned on the website of one of the first places most people are going to wind up when researching their first frog purchase?*

No, these types of positions are fundamentally invalid, and these assertions of responsibility are inappropriate to put upon the average layperson.

Given this reality, I'll repeatedly come to the defense of the ignorant and uninformed because it is very clearly not their fault. Particularly because of their newness, and the resources that they will go to.



Calivet said:


> If someone makes the decision to jump in without knowing what that means, and without knowing that there are ignorant, unscrupulous, and unsavory people in the world,, that's still on them.


No, I think this amounts to an unreasonable expectation of the general public's awareness, combined with a simple reality that at no point in my general reading did I come across ANYTHING about CITES, illegal frogs, or so forth, until I wound up here on this forum looking for information on one particular frog.

No, this information is not "out there" in the forefront of the frog hobby. You don't get to throw the newbie or uninformed under the bus because _YOU_, in your informed and presumably somewhat veteran experience, somehow came to know better.



Calivet said:


> I get it that you're aggrieved. I get it that it's justified. What I don't get is what you're trying to accomplish with these repeated posts.


Well, for starters I'm just having a conversation. I'm not aggrieved per say, I'm just aggravated by the general level of disdain that seems to be repeatedly displayed here, directed at the average person in all this. The "you would be guilty," "you should have known" condemnation. I think the above examples I've posted in the past, and now here again, serve to thoroughly illustrate that the information IS burried. Now, it's OUT THERE, but it's at the needle-in-a-haystack level. And it's NOT out there in the forefront for any new hobbyist to encounter.

There is a lot of finger-pointing and condemnation here. No one cares to address the years' worth of "for sale" posts made here, on this very board, offering up the apparently "illegal" Galacts, with nary a remark as the years ticked by? 

But all the veteran frog keepers knew it? And you said nothing about it until now? But you're gonna tell me that "I" as the newcomer and outsider to all this, "ought to have known better?" 

Preposterous assertions if you ask me.



Calivet said:


> The laws are the laws, the Brazilian government's position is well known





Ed said:


> I'm not sure where you're getting this position that there is extremely minimal information out there. Its not a secret that Brazil has banned exports since before 1970 of wildlife....Its been known for a very long time that animals from Brazil are likely illegal, all that was lacking was the proof from USFW that cb animals from Brazil were still illegal despite being given CITES paperwork from another country.


How many foreign laws do you think the average person on the street is aware of?

How many new, or even well-established frog keepers, know this back story? How many even know that Galacts come from Brazil? How many would learn these individual data points, and then to have the intelligence, and overall awareness, to connect all the dots as you've done?

To Ed specifically, ask yourself how long it took YOU to realize all this, and ask yourself how you came to the knowledge and understanding. This is where all the other "you should have known better" arguments fail to hold up.

I'm a darn start guy, I respect your arguments, and I think you make a compelling case. But it is by dumb luck that I stumbled across them here, and I've been on this planet a long enough time to know that hey...there is a LOT I'm going to never know.



Calivet said:


> You don't have to look very hard to find out just how little USFW cares about excuses.


I am not contesting that. But I am arguing that needs to be addressed.



Calivet said:


> You complain that there's nobody warning anyone about how these frogs are illegal, this thread is warning people that these frogs are illegal, and...


Up until this evening, I have been aware of only one thread on one Internet forum (here), and a second "important note" on a husbandry thread (of course, not the one that I found here, as has already been discussed). Turns out there are maybe a few more discussions that dug up by others as I can now see above...but it seems like you all knew they were there. I did not, and my searches for "illegal galacts" and similar did not turn them up. You'll have to trust my integrity when I say I would have tallied them and shared them. The simple truth is that if you're searching to look for where to buy these animals, or how to care for them, the status doesn't come up. You have to really go LOOKING for specific information to find it. That, to me, means it's not widely known, and furthermore, if you DO look for it and you still don't find it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

Then there's 1 recent Facebook discussion (which by its very nature will be lost in the next few weeks anyway...because Facebook doesn't create a nice searchable repostitory of publicly searchable content to show up in later web searches). We cannot count on this FB discussion for anything.

Now, there's one post on a website where the frogs are offered for sale, but no mention of the legal quandary on the for-sale pages themselves, which means you can buy the frogs without ever coming across the information about their dubious legal status from the vendor. So on the one hand, the vendor has done a "full disclosure", except it's only on 1 out of 5 pages dealing with the species on the site. 20% coverage means I have an 80% change of not finding this information...nevermind the downplaying of it in the context.

Yes, there's the PDF from CITES proper, which ties directly back to this post here. Again, how are you going to find this PDF? And what IS this PDF? It's basically allegations.

A handful of posts do not constitute "well known" or "widespread information". The quality of these statements, when found, don't necessarily come up as authoritative and absolute, and one even directly downplays the issue. Consider these facts and contrast them, buried amongst with dozens of free, publicly-facing offerings to deal in these animals. There are no mentions in the vast majority of documentation about the care of husbandry of the species, and no US FWS intervention for 2 decades. 



Calivet said:


> you're arguing with people that they may not be illegal.


No, not at all. I'm simply choosing my words carefully. I'm not the judge here. I am not qualified to render a verdict. Again, I get the premise that Ed lays out. It is a sound logical argument.



Calivet said:


> Someone (not me, several very knowledgeable someone's) took the time out of their day to do exactly what you're asking for, and you're arguing with them.


I'm sorry, what is it that you think I'm asking for that's been given to me? I'm honestly confused.

Has the law been updated to protect the ignorantly-innocent victims of a fraud, or are they still considered perpetrators themselves? Because that IS what I asked my Senator to do...



Calivet said:


> The repeated return to the word "alleged" I do not, because all you're doing is confusing the next newbie who comes across this thread.


We use the word charges/allegations where appropriate, such as the case here. The charges have been made. I cannot PROVE them, but I do acknowledge that the evidence is very compelling.



Calivet said:


> Stop saying you need to research it and research it.


Once again, I'm confused.

I'm looking at the same thing you're all looking at. And skimming through my own replies, I can't say that I ever said I needed to "research" something further; the information was presented here and I acknowledged it's compelling nature. Feel free to clarify what you're getting at.

But I'm not in a position to say that this person is guilty of smuggling, nor can I saw with absolute certainty that _every_ Galact in the hobby is illegal. *It does APPEAR to be that way*, but the only people who can render an actual verdict on the legal and enforcement status of the Galacts in the hobby is the US FWS and the courts...not you or me.

*And, now, to MARK:*



Encyclia said:


> Whether we all like it or not, mpedersen brings up some things that we need to think about. There is so much gray here, in terms of the information that's out there, and I think many of us are looking through the lens of experienced hobbiests....However, too much of what mpedersen was saying rang true in my own experience to stay silent. I think lots of people have forgotten what it was like when you first start out in the hobby.
> 
> Mark


LOOK, Mark gets what I'm saying. But as I've been digging into this more, it's rapidly become apparent that these issues extend well beyond Galacts. How many of you are keeping animals that are in these "gray areas". And maybe we should stop calling them "gray areas" if in fact the position is now that they are most certainly illegal. It is "gray" only in the fact that there is no OFFICIAL Verdict. It is gray only in the reality that the animals are available if not ubiquitous despite the overwhelming evidence that they are illegal.

Now, I hadn't looked into this before tonight, but this was brought to my attention by someone I trust, and then was almost immediately reiterated to me by a completely unrelated 2nd party, whom I also trust. And so I looked into it...

*BEARDED DRAGONS. *

https://books.google.com/books?id=2...rt of bearded dragons from australia?&f=false

Where do Bearded Dragons Come From? | PogoPogona

*These references would seem to suggest that the completely ubiquitous Bearded Dragon is in exactly the same situation as all the Galacts in the frog hobby. *

*To apply Ed's arguments, these references state that every Bearded Dragon in the country is illegal.*

Yeah, so PETCO is violating the Lacey Act every time they bring in Bearded Dragons from an out of state supplier. Every kid who gets a bearded dragon as a pet is owning an illegal animal.

Look, that realization, as an outsider and new hobbyists, completely reframes the view of this whole "Galact" problem. I mean...seriously. _Bearded Dragons_. If you're going to state that every Galact in the US is "illegal", then by the exact same application of the law, every Bearded Dragon is "illegal"."
*
YOU know, this right here, speaks to one of my initial questions - "am I over-reacting?"! * *Now, it has me inadvertently saying "are you all overreacting?" *Or at least a little bit hypocritical? THAT is a question that everyone here probably needs to do a little soul searching on. Because if you're going to start to condemn Galact purchasers, and you're going to wag the finger at them that they "should have known better", then you better look at every Bearded Dragon owner the same way. Certainly seems to deflate the issue of historic Galacts given this context.

And that raises a REALLY thought-provoking question that I'd have to morally and ethically address myself. I've already said I wouldn't pursue Galacts in light of these allegations, and I still feel strongly about that, although honestly, not as strongly as I did 48 hours ago. But if I'm candidly honest in my self-assessment, would I still go out and buy a Bearded Dragon for my 4-year-old daughter? Honestly, *probably*. Does that make me a bit of a hypocrite? *_Probably_*. You could argue that I now exist in a "gray area".

But more to the point, are we going to lock up all the Bearded Dragon owners, breeders, distributors etc.? And is it right that THEY are all now, *technically* in the same legal limbo with regards to the Lacey Act? 

You have to really think about what innocence and guilt are in this scenario.

I think it's truly fair to say that the laws need to be modified, or position statements need to be made and amnesty provided. I think the "outrage" and "condemnation" displayed by some here needs to be tempered.


----------



## Ravage

> mpedersen What if your iPhone was made with child labor? Should you be held considered "guilty" and held to the fire in a court of law for breaking child labor laws when you purchased your iPhone from Verizon? Should everyone else around you condemn you for "not knowing" that the IPhone you got at the local phone store was "made with child labor?"


Actually, Yes. Not in a court of laws, but since Apple HAS been involved in child labor, killed people in their factories due to horrible conditions lacking any concern for safety (Foxcon- coming to America soon), and refused (for a time) to join the trade group that banned conflict minerals (slaves of war, environmental desecration, theft of property) the purchaser is Absolutely party to crimes against humanity and nature. So maybe this isn't a great example to use.
Because this is the inverse of our discussion: the buyer is legally insulated from the crimes of origin with Icrap products; as opposed to the buyer being (potentially) criminally culpable in the case of A. galactonotus.
It is a Mad world out there, and corporations get away with all sorts of crap and get to wrap them in catchy ad campaigns and buy politicians when the heat really gets going. Or dodge taxes- just like Apple. But is that any way to live? As consumers we MUST take responsibility for our actions, because no one is doing it for us.
The word is out. A. galctonotus is illegal, That Iphone is a blight on the planet. Do with this information what you will.


----------



## Calivet

mpedersen said:


> And that raises a REALLY thought-provoking question that I'd have to morally and ethically address myself. I've already said I wouldn't pursue Galacts in light of these allegations, and I still feel strongly about that, although honestly, not as strongly as I did 48 hours ago. But if I'm candidly honest in my self-assessment, would I still go out and buy a Bearded Dragon for my 4-year-old daughter? Honestly, *probably*. Does that make me a bit of a hypocrite? *_Probably_*. You could argue that I now exist in a "gray area".
> 
> But more to the point, are we going to lock up all the Bearded Dragon owners, breeders, distributors etc.? And is it right that THEY are all now, *technically* in the same legal limbo with regards to the Lacey Act?
> 
> You have to really think about what innocence and guilt are in this scenario.
> 
> *I think it's truly fair to say that the laws need to be modified, or position statements need to be made and amnesty provided. I think the "outrage" and "condemnation" displayed by some here needs to be tempered*.


The bolded makes it look like everything I snipped is just sophistry to justify wanting the frogs. Do a little research on what legalizing/amnesty does to increasing pressures on wild populations. THAT is a very easy search. 

The moral guilt is on the people who originally illegally imported them, and anyone who knowing that status buys them, and on anyone who either knowingly refuses to look into the topic and/or sticks their head in the sand (saying that there may somewhere be a mystical document that they were legally exported from a country that claims to have never legally exported them, in spite of people thinking these frogs were illegal for decades and no document ever being produced, smacks of this IMO). The legal guilt is on anyone who currently has one of these frogs. Period. USFW has decided not to do anything about it, but that doesn't make it legal. I've done 75 in a 65 on the highway next to a highway patrol car plenty of times, but that doesn't mean I wasn't speeding, it means that the officer used their discretion to not enforce the law. It doesn't mean the law no longer exists.


----------



## JPccusa

mpedersen said:


> To Ed specifically, ask yourself how long it took YOU to realize all this, and ask yourself how you came to the knowledge and understanding. This is where all the other "you should have known better" arguments fail to hold up.
> 
> I'm a darn start guy, I respect your arguments, and I think you make a compelling case. But it is by dumb luck that I stumbled across them here, and I've been on this planet a long enough time to know that hey...there is a LOT I'm going to never know.


I'm ignoring your "To Ed specifically" statement on purpose () to say that there is a reason why a lot of good folks are raising a big stink about Blue galacts, and it is the very reason why Ed started this thread - to catch folks like you, who do not know better and who cares about doing the right thing. A lot of us are doing the same on Facebook and on the seller's post about these frogs. We hope to help as many people as possible.


----------



## Ed

mpedersen said:


> Look, I get what you're saying, I really do. But, do we even know who this hypothetical person or group would be? Do we know the lineage of these frogs back to the source? Of which, no doubt there were multiple.


Of galactanotus? No legal ones. 



mpedersen said:


> Who has their import papers from 20 years ago?


CITES in a easily searchable data base, USFW via a FOIA, Brazil if you can translate into Portuguese. I have documents from 1992 when I loaned a pair of Standing's Day Geckos to the Zoo... 



mpedersen said:


> Again, do I have copies of the CITES paperwork covering the originally imported specimen of _Montipora digitata_ "Bubblegum" that was harvested from Indonesia (presumably), sent through to the US to an importer, distributed to a wholesaler of frag farmer, propagated, spread around the aquarium hobby, and ultimately sold to me at MACNA last month? Of course I do not.


Your ignoring the problem in that CITES paperwork by itself or clearance into the US mean that the organism (or its parts) are legal under CITES or in the US. This argument is really useless as it continues to rely on the "idea" that CITES paper work in and of itself conveys legality. This is not true and even CITES admits it since organisms are laundered all the time by simply having a country issue permits claiming it was "propagated in some way". That is exactly what the Netherlands, and Germany do with it, for that to change it would require those countries to be dealt with as outlined in the treaty but politics means that doesn't always happen. 

It doesn't matter how much you (or we) might want that to be different but it is clear that laundering animals by countries occurs all the time and it is a problem for everyone for an example of scale I suggest reading http://www.vincentnijman.org/files/a88_nijmanshepherd_poisonarrowfrog_biodivconserv_2.pdf 



mpedersen said:


> Reality and pragmatism tell me that a lack of paperwork today does not equate to automatic guilt over something that happened 20 years ago.


Since when? See my comments above, your still trying to hang onto the idea that both clearance and CITES paperwork means its legal. There is an odd phrase that is put out whenever these sorts of arguments are made regardless of the item being sold and bought, and that is *caveat emptor*. It is a well understood principle... and given how commonly it is a foundation of contract and commerce law in the US, its hard to continue for you to make the claim that is reasonable and pragmatism over the guilty issue. 

As for the reasonable guilty timeline, the Lacey Act language puts that to bed. The statute of limitations for each individual offense is 5 years but you can keep that clock ticking through many actions including selling offspring or cuttings/fragments/clones... and its not that compelling of an argument given I can pull records for 30 years for dendrobatids which could be used as proof of guilt in violation of the Lacey Act. Again, caveat emptor. 

As I mentioned before does it suck? Absolutely. 



mpedersen said:


> To my coral example. It could very well be that my Bubblegum Digitata wasn't legally harvested. But you'd have to prove it. And from my standpoint, I would have no way of knowing in either direction, so I don't think I should be held accountable if the information required for me to *know* was never made available.


And so what? The case here is clear cut and easy to demonstrate. The frogs *have never *, note the emphasis, been legally exported for the commercial trade from the only country in which they live. IN addition, that country prohibits trafficking in those animals going back to pre-1970. Which is pretty close to predating the time frame in which Dendrobatids as a group were available in the pet trade at all. This was when the first reports were occuring in Germany and those were specifically of D. auratus... and occurred in 1974.... (Zimmermann, H. "Die Aufzucht des Goldbaumsteigers Dendrobates auratus." Aquarienmag 12 (1974): 526-531.). The documentation on the frogs is well established and clear, your continual attempts to make this seem like a difficult case to disprove is really not helping your position. All of this information is readily available to the average person, not just to specific people... Willful disregarding resources puts this argument directly in caveat emptor as it is available to the average person. Whether or not they know about it or choose to look for it, is on them (just like it would be when purchasing a stereo from the trunk of someone's car). As I've noted before, this information is out there and its been out there in the hobby for a really long-time. 




mpedersen said:


> Of course, that cuts to the heart of the matter. Generally speaking, widespread public availability has connoted legality, because we have all these processes in place to prevent illegal trade.


So those designer clothers, DVDs, CDs and other similar goods at the local flea markets can be purchased and sold on e-bay as the real deal without any risk of running into issues with trafficking counterfeit goods? 



mpedersen said:


> What if your iPhone was made with child labor? Should you be held considered "guilty" and held to the fire in a court of law for breaking child labor laws when you purchased your iPhone from Verizon? Should everyone else around you condemn you for "not knowing" that the IPhone you got at the local phone store was "made with child labor?"


Your really working to conflate the argument here. Since it is apples and oranges, this generalization isn't equitable.. might as well compare infanticide in Africa with littering at the Jersey shore... Its a false premise and has no merit on the case.



mpedersen said:


> It requires a trial in a court to _prove_ guilt. Not the _allegations _of people on the Internet. This is all alleged. It may all be TRUE, and it's absolutely well argued and supported, but it's still allegations based on the information at hand.


You do realize that this argument doesn't apply to outside the filing charges right? Your not bolstering your case by weaseling here... As none of these facts are framed in a charged complaint, they are not alleged, they are facts. 
In addition, your ignoring the reason that alleged is used in law, its a cover in case the person was falsely accused as opposed to having to prove a "fact". Facts are facts, and unless the defense can show that they are not facts, they will remain facts. As I noted above your really close to weaseling.... 



mpedersen said:


> First off, the law in our country affords for innocence until guilt is proven. That is being completely left out of the discussion. Perhaps that's the first reason why I'm still so engaged with this discussion.


And here we see the justification that really has nothing to do with legality of the frogs under the law. 



mpedersen said:


> When you raise "documentation" as "proof of legality", you'll wind up with folks pointing to things like approved CITES permits as "valid examples" of legal importation. THEY got the paperwork THEY were on the hook to get. That IS what the law requires in order to import. That is "proof" of a legal and sanctioned transaction in the mind of many.


Does not make it legal... nor will it in the near future. Again, caveat emptor. 




mpedersen said:


> However, if you're going to be so adamant about "paperwork", then having the paperwork that YOU would be reasonably expected to have at YOUR point in the chain of custody, does kinda point the finger back up the chain a bit, and the fact that the USFWS cleared it is pretty substantive.


If you get laundering then you wouldn't have typed that paragraph. Its really simple (even though your really trying to cloud it)... if there isn't any legal paperwork from the country of origin and it is only found in one country, then it is illegal regardless of who then gives it paperwork. Your trying to ignore the fact that countries can be actively involved in laundering. 



mpedersen said:


> I argue that having the CITES permits for the animals, and the clearance of FWS, would create a pretty big legal defense.


So go out and get a bunch of E. mysteriosus and try that defense. Your making an assumption that we've seen a lot of this over and over again on why people can keep smuggled animals. 



mpedersen said:


> Again, if investigators were to find evidence that the people who imported knowingly conspired to deceive or "sneak one past", then you have all you need to throw the book at 'em. But if you don't have that proof, then that person is innocent until proven otherwise.


You mean like the fact that the guy admitted in 2015 that they were illegal? 



mpedersen said:


> How is the average person new to frogs supposed to find out that ALL Dendrobatidae frogs are CITES controlled?


How about buy a book? My older pet books and magazines are packed but I can confirm that by 2004 it was well in the pet trade's hands see the Schmidt, F., and F. W. Henkel. "Professional Breeders Series: Poison Frogs." Frankfurt: Chimaira (2004). 



mpedersen said:


> How often do you walk into Petco and see a note with the purchase of that animal saying ANYTHING about "CITES"? Where are all the mentions of CITES in the hobby literature, the blogs, but more importantly, at the herp swaps and the online sellers?


Conflation. This really has nothing to do with the legality of the blue galactanotus.... either your trying to justify a legal defense for yourself or your just arguing for the sake of arguing, neither of which helps the thread. 



mpedersen said:


> *...How many times is CITES and its related issues mentioned there, on the Josh's Frogs website, for the budding Dart Frog Hobbyist to find? *Here, let me save you the trouble:


As with buying fish from anywhere, caveat emptor. 




mpedersen said:


> *All stop. You're going to tell me that the new frog hobbyist should "damned well ought to know" what CITES is, how it applies, and be wary of it, when it's effectively not even mentioned on the website of one of the first places most people are going to wind up when researching their first frog purchase?*


Its not a new discussion.... ut still your just trying to muddy the water. If it is in the pet trade books more than a decade ago, it makes it pretty hard for your claim that it isn't well known.... 



mpedersen said:


> Given this reality, I'll repeatedly come to the defense of the ignorant and uninformed because it is very clearly not their fault. Particularly because of their newness, and the resources that they will go to.


As for this claim, the argument that CITES impacts the reptile and amphibian trade is well disseminated, consider that at least by 2010, Reptiles Magazine routinely made updates on changes to it and the animals added (see for example Changes To CITES Appendices 

You cannot argue that the idea of CITES, how it works are also novel to the average herpetoculturist when its been discussed repeatedly in multiple contexts for more than a decade (including the ad required as part of the settlement for Operation ShellShock in Reptiles magazine). If it is discussed in the largest trade magazine in the US, it is difficult to argue ignorance. It has also been all over the message boards for a long time, particularly in reference to the ban coming out of Florida. 




mpedersen said:


> No, this information is not "out there" in the forefront of the frog hobby. You don't get to throw the newbie or uninformed under the bus because _YOU_, in your informed and presumably somewhat veteran experience, somehow came to know better.


So it is unreasonable that the new hobbyist would purchase literature related to the hobby? How is that unreasonable, to expect a hobbyist to do due diligence and acquire relevant literature? Your really working to make this into a case here. If it is in the popular literature, how is it unreasonable? 




mpedersen said:


> There is a lot of finger-pointing and condemnation here. No one cares to address the years' worth of "for sale" posts made here, on this very board, offering up the apparently "illegal" Galacts, with nary a remark as the years ticked by?


I'm going to call this BS... illegality of the various frogs as it has become clear all have been called out... this is nothing except trying to pass the buck to others when the hobby literature did provide a way to verify legality. 




mpedersen said:


> But all the veteran frog keepers knew it? And you said nothing about it until now? But you're gonna tell me that "I" as the newcomer and outsider to all this, "ought to have known better?"


Your refusing to acknowledge that this has been addressed more than once in this thread. I suggest going back through the thread and not just skimming it. 



mpedersen said:


> How many foreign laws do you think the average person on the street is aware of?


Doesn't matter given that the CITES information is in the hobby literature. 




mpedersen said:


> How many new, or even well-established frog keepers, know this back story? How many even know that Galacts come from Brazil? How many would learn these individual data points, and then to have the intelligence, and overall awareness, to connect all the dots as you've done?


Again, caveat emptor. 



mpedersen said:


> To Ed specifically, ask yourself how long it took YOU to realize all this, and ask yourself how you came to the knowledge and understanding. This is where all the other "you should have known better" arguments fail to hold up.


If you ask around, I've been saying the same thing that CITES permits don't make it legal for a long time now... and this issue has been out there for a long time.. 

from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...gal-export-mysteriosis-europe.html#post151059 
*



America adheres (kind of) strictly to CITES. If the country of origin never issued CITES papers they can't be legal in U.S.

Click to expand...

*


> In Europe frog smugglers smuggle frogs in. They get caught and the frogs are confiscated. The zoos breed the frogs and sell to public. The frog smugglers buy the frogs back and they are now "legal." This is an oversimplification of a complex issue but in my little mind that's how it works.





mpedersen said:


> These references would seem to suggest that the completely ubiquitous Bearded Dragon is in exactly the same situation as all the Galacts in the frog hobby.


Did you even read that page closely? Its not even close, and the only reason its important to your argument is that you have to try and cast doubt on CITES records. 

On that same page, they list those lizards outside of Australia as "probably" smuggled, and at the bottom, this interesting quote 



> *If you live outside of Australia and you see species other than a Vitticeps or Lawsons/ Rankins then question the legality of it and where it’s come from and it’s lineage*.


That in no way compares to the galactanotus issue... and unlike Dendrobates, Pogona is not listed in CITES and I can remember legal exports of shingle back skinks, green tree pythons, blue tongue skinks and other Australian species as a kid.. Australia outlawed export of its wildlife significantly after Brazil. 



mpedersen said:


> *To apply Ed's arguments, these references state that every Bearded Dragon in the country is illegal.*


Not even close but a good try.... and your own sources are a problem for you as they cast doubt on your claims and position. 

I have to ask, did you write that as big as possible to try and keep people from working through it? 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

I chose to sit on this for quite a while...just because....



Calivet said:


> I've done 75 in a 65 on the highway next to a highway patrol car plenty of times, but that doesn't mean I wasn't speeding, it means that the officer used their discretion to not enforce the law. It doesn't mean the law no longer exists.


But what if there was no speed limit posted on the road you were on? Or maybe what if the sign had fallen over in the ditch? And what if you'd also never been on that particular road before because you were from out of town, a tourist...?

Because that would be a little more analogous to what's going on here. And you and I both know that if you can prove these things, your ticket will *usually* get thrown out. There's descretion on that side of all this too.

*Ed, *before I go back in here and argue/converse/address/rebutt, I feel I must again clearly state that I believe your fundamental argument and position is valid. It informs my decision to not own Galacts. BUT...

To point by point discuss everything you wrote is overly time consuming and some of it was rather repetitious. Do not presume that if I didn't respond to a specific counterpoint that I either a) agreed or b) conceded on that point. It's more likely that I felt such points were sufficiently addressed indirectly by the response below.



Ed said:


> mpedersen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we know the lineage of these frogs back to the source? Of which, no doubt there were multiple.
> 
> 
> 
> Of galactanotus? No legal ones.
Click to expand...

That you are aware of. That I am aware of. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. THAT is my problem here, and why I chose to not go 100% all in. 

You do not know because you cannot trace it back, you cannot know what's missing from databases, from country records and so forth. You don't know what paperwork folks hold and don't hold. So the best you or I can do is to levy a solidly argued *allegation*. We don't know that in the past, an incorrect code was used...eg. were "specimens" at one point erroniously used for "live"? The data may not be 100% accurate. People make mistakes. I happen to know that CITES paperwork missteps result in numerous confiscations...it's not always an actual intentional "smuggling attempt". So, I have to look at the data and say that I cannot 100% hang my hat on it, because I know it is likely imperfect.

AGAIN, so there is no confusion by anyone here, I think Ed is right. But I stop short of calling it fact for these simple reasons. This is not to muddy or cloud the issue. This is in fact to clarify the solid, but not air-tight nature of what's being alleged to have occurred, at least in my opinion.



Ed said:


> Your ignoring the problem in that CITES paperwork by itself or clearance into the US mean that the organism (or its parts) are legal under CITES or in the US. This argument is really useless as it continues to rely on the "idea" that CITES paper work in and of itself conveys legality.


Except _Paphiopedilum vietnamense_? USFWS. CITES Appendix I on top of it...Oh boy...

https://web.archive.org/web/2014070...aphiopedilum-vietnamense-conservation-program

https://trade.cites.org/en/cites_tr...]=14600&filters[reset]=&web_disabled=&filters[report_type]=comptab

In a nutshell, no one doubts the legality and status of _Paphiopedilum vietnamense_ in the orchid world _now_. It wasn't always legal to own, and those links above detail the pathway by which it was taken from illegitimate trade to legitimate trade, here in the US, by our government's blessing.

But yet, the ONLY CITES record for them as live exports from the country of origin, which notes in fact that they were smuggled.

So, to apply YOUR logic and the Lacey Act, I must conclude that the US FWS and CITES permits cannot confer legality of these plants, because they were smuggled out of Vietnam and therefore, no legal exit from Viet Nam, which means every _P. vietnamense_ around the globe is "illegal." 

To apply your strict interpretation. They'd be in violation of CITES export rules...heck I think the very notion that they are clearly denoted as SMUGGLED is proof right their of their illegal status when they arrived in the US. SO...how do we have these plants legally and freely traded around the globe, but even here at home, in light of the Lacey Act?

*I *don't* know the answer to all that,* and I suspect you don't either. But I do know that all of this suggests that you can't exactly dismiss CITES and US FWS in all this, and maybe, just maybe, CITES permits DO confer a cetain BASE LEVEL OF LEGALITY when properly traded (because this CITES Appendix 1 genus has culture exemptions which thankfully are basically impossible to fake/forge/spoof), and in this case, CITES permits may even be the root for legalizing smuggled plants all the way back in 1999.

Effectively, I have to ask, as an outsider armed with the information above, this seems VERY SIMILAR to the allegations of "zoos" and institutions being used to "launder" animals through Europe....happening right here on our own soil. In public view. Openly discussed and disclosed by parties involved.

I am not saying it's right. I'm not saying, Ed, that your interpretation is incorrect. But I am saying that this is a direct parallel here that plays out in the real world VERY DIFFERENTLY from how you're arguing it should be. It is suggestive that there is more to the story than simply "They violate the Lacey Act, they're 100% illegal."



Ed said:


> your still trying to hang onto the idea that both clearance and CITES paperwork means its legal.


SMH...nope. That's not what I said, and in fact, I didn't even make a statement, I posed a hypothetical question. You completely sidestepped the premise of the question I posed.



Ed said:


> There is an odd phrase that is put out whenever these sorts of arguments are made regardless of the item being sold and bought, and that is *caveat emptor*. It is a well understood principle... and given how commonly it is a foundation of contract and commerce law in the US, its hard to continue for you to make the claim that is reasonable and pragmatism over the guilty issue.


And you and I both know that's not really how "caveot emptor" is actually legally applied, and the legal limitations on it which protect the buyer. They buyer has certain protections, particularly when unwittingly duped.



Ed said:


> The case here is clear cut and easy to demonstrate. The frogs *have never *, note the emphasis, been legally exported for the commercial trade from the only country in which they live.


To the best of our (in this case your) ability to prove. Again, I do not dispute that you make a compelling argument. Just that you cannot know with absolute certainty this to be true. And even IF true, it may not pan out quite the way you think (see _Paph. vietnamense_ above).



Ed said:


> In addition, your ignoring the reason that alleged is used in law, its a cover in case the person was falsely accused as opposed to having to prove a "fact". Facts are facts, and unless the defense can show that they are not facts, they will remain facts. As I noted above your really close to weaseling....


Or, to reframe your statements and behaviors...the prosecution never presumes innocence...

This jury reserves judgment.

And that may simply be why we don't see eye to eye 100% here.



Ed said:


> Your trying to ignore the fact that countries can be actively involved in laundering.


You're implying that Brazil's own government may have knowingly sanctioned and purposely smuggled the frogs out of their country with the intention to circumvent their own laws?



Ed said:


> mpedersen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How often do you walk into Petco and see a note with the purchase of that animal saying ANYTHING about "CITES"? Where are all the mentions of CITES in the hobby literature, the blogs, but more importantly, at the herp swaps and the online sellers?
> 
> 
> 
> Conflation. This really has nothing to do with the legality of the blue galactanotus.... either your trying to justify a legal defense for yourself or your just arguing for the sake of arguing, neither of which helps the thread.
Click to expand...

_Niether. _This is one piece of evidence in support of my position that it's unreasonable to expect the layperson new to the hobby to be aware of CITES and what it is, and to have all the personal responsibility you'd like to heap on them.

Along with all the other examples I pointed out, to which you simply replied: "buyer beware".



Ed said:


> mpedersen said:
> 
> 
> 
> All stop. You're going to tell me that the new frog hobbyist should "damned well ought to know" what CITES is, how it applies, and be wary of it, when it's effectively not even mentioned on the website of one of the first places most people are going to wind up when researching their first frog purchase?
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a new discussion.... ut still your just trying to muddy the water. If it is in the pet trade books more than a decade ago, it makes it pretty hard for your claim that it isn't well known....
Click to expand...

The fact that it's not a "new discussion" is irrelevant. The fact that it was published in a book in 2004 is irrelevant. The fact that it's mentioned in passing on specialist boards is irrelevant. The fact that it was covered in a magazine in 2010 is irrelevant. 

*Why? 
*
Becuase none of these resources are where the new, and inexperienced dart frog hobbyists, are going to go for their information. NOR is this the type of information the new, or inexperienced dart frog hobbyist, would ever know to go looking for.



Ed said:


> You cannot argue that the idea of CITES, how it works are also novel to the average herpetoculturist when its been discussed repeatedly in multiple contexts for more than a decade (including the ad required as part of the settlement for Operation ShellShock in Reptiles magazine).


At some point, you're correct, enough experience to become the "average herpetoculturist" and you'll come into contact with these matters. I think it took me 15, maybe 20 years, in various plant and animal trades and interests, until I learned what CITES was. 

So forgive a guy who's been interested in frogs for a few weeks....I don't think I'm the "average herpetoculturist...I'm a newbie and I clearly framed myself as such. And I can clearly see that these issues are nowhere near the forefront in this interest group and in the commercial space. So you can't blame the newbie for being uninformed....and from here my argument once again repeats...so...



Ed said:


> If it is discussed in the largest trade magazine in the US, it is difficult to argue ignorance. It has also been all over the message boards for a long time, particularly in reference to the ban coming out of Florida.


1. "Trade Magazine" is not "mainstream". Nor is it necessarily accessible to a new hobbyist. Not everyone chooses to subscribe to or buy a magazine...although boy do I wish more would.

2. Message Boards - it's 2017. Message boards have been dying for years. And no, again, you can downplay or try to reframe it all you want, but no, CITES, Blue Galact legalities, Brazil's laws, they're not "all over this message board". 

I'm not going to rehash the evidence...it was up there and valid.



Ed said:


> So it is unreasonable that the new hobbyist would purchase literature related to the hobby? How is that unreasonable, to expect a hobbyist to do due diligence and acquire relevant literature? Your really working to make this into a case here. If it is in the popular literature, how is it unreasonable?


The answer to your question. YES. Yes, it IS an unreasonable expectation on your part to expect that of the newcomer. 

Magazines, Books, are generally NOT how people get into new hobbies. These days it's friends, the Internet, Facebook (oh don't get me started on how bad the information is on Facebook), or maybe if you're lucky walking into a shop. Granted, it was that way in the past too for most people. 

Getting a new aquarium hobbyist to buy a $10 book? IF the whole setup cost $100? Nope, too much money...maybe later. And that was 25 years ago!

How did I get into dart frogs? A friend. And then another friend, who made a gift of a couple tads I knew nothing about, at which point I started using Google. And mostly found info on them via commercial outlets. And for MOST people, that's probably where the search would have ended...because I had all I _needed_ to know.



Ed said:


> I'm going to call this BS... illegality of the various frogs as it has become clear all have been called out... this is nothing except trying to pass the buck to others when the hobby literature did provide a way to verify legality.


And I believe all my examples thoroughly refute your claim of my argument being BS. I have to just reiterate: none of the listings for Galacts for sale have folks chiming in to say "hey, these are illegal frogs". Sorry, that IS what it IS.



Ed said:


> IDoesn't matter given that the CITES information is in the hobby literature.


Doesn't matter what's in "hobby literature" if new hobbyists aren't going to that as their primary source. I pointed to all my primary sources, many RIGHT HERE, and the information IS NOT PRESENT. 

*ON THE BEARDED DRAGONS:*




Ed said:


> That in no way compares to the galactanotus issue... and unlike Dendrobates, Pogona is not listed in CITES and I can remember legal exports of shingle back skinks, green tree pythons, blue tongue skinks and other Australian species as a kid.. Australia outlawed export of its wildlife significantly after Brazil. Not even close but a good try.... and your own sources are a problem for you as they cast doubt on your claims and position.


Perhaps it is you who needs to go re-read those references and then apply your own logic.

*Presumed Fact #1* - "*Since the 1960s *the export of Bearded Dragons outside of Australia became illegal. "

*Reasonable Presumption #2* - "This means that all beardies found outside of Australia are captive bred and descend probably from dragons that were illegally exported. It also means that the genetic diversity may be limited in the captive bred population. There were rumours that most dragons in the US were bred from stock in Germany (Illegally exported from Australia) back in the 1980s."

Based on Fact #1, the only legal Bearded Dragons to have left Australia would have had to do so prior to the 1960s. Based on Information #2, while not as strict and strong evidence as referencing the CITES database, in order to PROVE that your Bearded Dragons are legal, you'd have to have a papertrail predating the 1970s, back to Australia itself. 

And this is why I have to once again point to the realities of what you a) expect people to learn/understand/know and b) that simply lack of proof is not enough to outright condemn.

*But, to the actual counterpoints:*

CITES is irrelevant in your argument here about the GALACTS when it comes to WHY you say they're illegal. Your illegality stems from the application of the Lacey Act.

As such, whether Bearded Dragons are CITES monitored or controlled is irrelevant. CITES is not what makes Galacts illegal.

Bearded Dragons are an exact parallel to the Galacts, per the references above. No legal exports from their native country, all offspring the presumed descendants of illegal broodstock. That IS the Bearded Dragon story linked to above. 

It's irrelevant that the references suggest that the captive-bred offspring are "LEGAL". Why? Well, for starters, does the author consider the Lacey Act implications? It's just an off-handed presumption on the part of the author. 

But hey, let me just Devil's Advocate argue that: just like many frog keepers are keeping Galacts, so too, many herp hobbyists are keeping Bearded Dragons. The bearded dragon references imply the legality of Bearded Dragons in the exact same general dart frog trade implies the legality of Galacts with their own routine offerings, downplaying the issues in mentions of it, a lack of self-policing, combined with no US FWS intervention over decades.

Or maybe, in fact, there IS something more here about the Lacey Act and why it's not being applied to say, Bearded Dragons...and all the owners of them.

I'm _not_ saying it's RIGHT. I'm saying it's a dead parallel. A parallel that forces everyone to have to really think about this issue with a bigger viewpoint.

And as it pertains to Blue Galacts (and all the others), I'll simply restate it again. I think you're right. I think your allegations have merit. I think now would be a great time for US FWS to get involved and draw an official statement and policy on the entire species as it exists in captivity in the US.

But, at the end of the day....



Encyclia said:


> Whether we all like it or not, mpedersen brings up some things that we need to think about....I think many of us are looking through the lens of experienced hobbiests. When I first joined the hobby, I wouldn't have known (and didn't know!) that there was even a reason to check if something someone sold on a legitimate board was legal. ...I do not, however, agree that it is easy to come across that information for someone that is new to this hobby...Many times, new hobbiests start out basically alone and they don't know what they don't know...


Mark gets why I'm still fired up. And I agree with virtually everything he wrote. So go back up there and read his response, because maybe he frames so much of my sentiments better than I've done here myself.

*Read it here: *http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/science-conservation/327849-illegal-frogs-4.html#post2949329


----------



## S2G

Keep putting lipstick on that pig....

Ed has disproven everything you're trying to argue. He even put references and spoon fed it so anyone can understand. If your still arguing at this point then your just in denial or trying to derail the thread from its purpose. 

It is so blatantly obvious the legality of these at this point it's ridiculous.

Ed: I commend you for your patience and quality rebuttals.


----------



## mpedersen

S2G said:


> Keep putting lipstick on that pig....
> 
> Ed has disproven everything you're trying to argue. He even put references and spoon fed it so anyone can understand. If your still arguing at this point then your just in denial or trying to derail the thread from its purpose.
> 
> It is so blatantly obvious the legality of these at this point it's ridiculous.


Respectfully, how many times do I have to repeatedly state that **I THINK ED IS CORRECT** before we move beyond this endless, mindless bashing of anything contrary or questioning that, to actually get to the meat of the matter. Ed's arguments have flaws and unknowns. His reading of the Bearded Dragon example is incorrect, provable by the very links I referenced. 

To blindly accept what he's posted as gospel, and only consider his evidence, is to ignore the parallels and unknowns...you're not *thinking* critically then. Me, I don't just take this all spoonfed.


----------



## Dane

mpedersen said:


> Respectfully, how many times do I have to repeatedly state that **I THINK ED IS CORRECT** before we move beyond this endless, mindless bashing of anything contrary or questioning that, to actually get to the meat of the matter. Ed's arguments have flaws and unknowns. His reading of the Bearded Dragon example is incorrect, provable by the very links I referenced.
> 
> To blindly accept what he's posted as gospel, and only consider his evidence, is to ignore the parallels and unknowns...you're not *thinking* critically then. Me, I don't just take this all spoonfed.


But how much time are you willing to spend just to prove that someone else is right, but for the wrong reasons?
Edit: You are serving to dilute an issue which you yourself were initially incensed about because it wasn't public enough. Now that it finally is a hot topic, you seem to be trying to discredit those at the forefront of disseminating awareness.


----------



## mpedersen

Dane said:


> But how much time are you willing to spend just to prove that someone else is right, but for the wrong reasons?
> Edit: You are serving to dilute an issue which you yourself were initially incensed about because it wasn't public enough. Now that it finally is a hot topic, you seem to be trying to discredit those at the forefront of disseminating awareness.


Valid point, but the reality is that while I *think* Ed is right, I think there's a bit of a double standard going on here and no, one hot topic on a forum does not make this a high profile issue.

The hardlined attack and condemnation that I've witnessed in this discussion is in fact quite offputting, and in discussions with friends who are "not active" in the "frog community", I've heard repeatedly about "oh man those frog people"...implications of arrogance and closed-mindedness. 

I try to keep an open mind, and I try to be intellectually honest. Which is why I don't view this as an open and shut case. If I'm going to hang my decision to not keep Galacts on the statements of Ed, then I have to thoroughly examine the facts that drive that statement. And when I dig in deeper, the flaws and unknowns become apparent.

My examples in _Paph. vietnamense_, and the Bearded Dragons, are things that MUST be addressed. And frankly they are cause to raise questions about Ed's well-reasoned argument. For a hobby that's largely science-oriented, we can't pick and choose the data and the evidence. These are huge contradictions to some of the tenets of Ed's position. I have to think hard about that, and I think you all do too.

This is not clouding the issue, this is acknowledging the _actual nature_ of the issue. It is not nearly as black and white as Ed tries to make it out to be. If we can actually pin that down, think about that. 

What if Ed is actually wrong? How does that change the "status" of everyone who HAS been keeping and breeding Galacts in the past and present? That, to me, is an intriguing question. Examing that is important, particularly if you're going to come to the conclusion that these widely available animals are "illegal". 

So it may not be that Ed is wrong in his logic or his conclusion, but rather that Ed's postulate is not the final chapter when it comes to these animals in the herp hobby here in the US and abroad.

But again, this isn't simply about Ed's stance, my frustration does go back to this notion of all of this being widespread knowledge; I think I've more than adequately proven that it's not...and I think that should be acknowledged. I think ignoring that data allows people to continue to condemn folks that don't deserve it, and THAT doesn't make for an "inviting" community, which I *think* is what most herp hobbyists would want their hobby to be?


----------



## Ravage

mpedersen said:


> And you and I both know that's not really how "caveot emptor" is actually legally applied, and the legal limitations on it which protect the buyer. They buyer has certain protections, particularly when unwittingly duped.[\QUOTE]
> 
> As my Boss likes to query me: "So you're a lawyer now?" I'm not sure you are correct about how it is used legally. Here is how:
> Caveat Emptor
> Latin for "let the buyer beware." A doctrine that often places on buyers the burden to reasonably examine property before purchase and take responsibility for its condition. Especially applicable to items that are not covered under a strict warranty. See, e.g. SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/caveat_emptor
> 
> So, a warranty-less purchase is what we are talking about. And legality of the purchase is its "condition". So I think ED is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> mpedersen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it took me 15, maybe 20 years, in various plant and animal trades and interests, until I learned what CITES was. [\QUOTE]
> That's not a flattering comment. This board is here to help folks research and understand all the ramifications of this exciting hobby. This thread is essentially important reading for all members and visitors alike. I hope it becomes a sticky.
> 
> On the subject of the Government making Vietnamese orchids legal: yes, that could happen. And when it does we'll have a new thread. Until such time, it has absolutely no bearing on this issue. None whatsoever.
> 
> So how far down the rabbit hole do we go?
> One could argue that the sky is not blue, it only scatters blue light. But where does this get us? I think we should drop this line of evasive reasoning and stick with our plea to the frogging community:
> 
> Caveat Emptor- Galactonotus are illegal.
Click to expand...


----------



## mpedersen

Ravage said:


> [As my Boss likes to query me: "So you're a lawyer now?" I'm not sure you are correct about how it is used legally. Here is how:
> Caveat Emptor
> Latin for "let the buyer beware." A doctrine that often places on buyers the burden to reasonably examine property before purchase and take responsibility for its condition. Especially applicable to items that are not covered under a strict warranty. See, e.g. SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/caveat_emptor
> 
> So, a warranty-less purchase is what we are talking about. And legality of the purchase is its "condition". So I think ED is correct.


And I'm inclined to think you've joined Ed in the ranks of the incorrect. See:

Implied Warranty
Warranty of Fitness
Warranty of Title
Fraud
etc....

There are many cases were "caveat emptor" is not simply a blanket application of holding the buyer responsible.



Ravage said:


> mpedersen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it took me 15, maybe 20 years, in various plant and animal trades and interests, until I learned what CITES was.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a flattering comment.
Click to expand...

I"m also going back to when I was 5 years old, and there wasn't an Internet. Again, a classic example of making a presumption without having all the facts. Which is one of my concerns with the "absolutist" nature of the statements being made here.



Ravage said:


> On the subject of the Government making Vietnamese orchids legal: yes, that could happen. And when it does we'll have a new thread. Until such time, it has absolutely no bearing on this issue. None whatsoever.


Clearly, you didn't read that section carefully. The US Government worked with 3rd parties and commercial vendors to bring species into trade and deem it legal - FROM PLANTS THAT WERE CONFISCATED FROM SMUGGLING. These plants were smuggled out of Viet Nam. The CITES database actually denotes the occurrence of them coming into the US as being illegal.

Which means, all stop, these plants should be in flat out violation of the Lacey Act, and yet this species was put INTO THE TRADE by the very same body charged with enforcing these laws.

So...Viet Nam has little to do here, this is exactly parallel to the supposed "laundering" of Galacts through Europe. The implication is that what's happening in Europe is illegal, but then so too, how is what the US FWS did with Paph. vietnamense *not* illegal?

And all of this leaves anyone with enough of a brain to comprehend the situation to realize that there is clearly *more to the story* here, and as such, it DOES draw into question the black and white assertion that you make:



> I think we should drop this line of evasive reasoning and stick with our plea to the frogging community:
> 
> Caveat Emptor- Galactonotus are illegal.***


**maybe/probably/likely/possibly....*


----------



## S2G

mpedersen said:


> Respectfully, how many times do I have to repeatedly state that **I THINK ED IS CORRECT** before we move beyond this endless, mindless bashing of anything contrary or questioning that, to actually get to the meat of the matter. Ed's arguments have flaws and unknowns. His reading of the Bearded Dragon example is incorrect, provable by the very links I referenced.
> 
> To blindly accept what he's posted as gospel, and only consider his evidence, is to ignore the parallels and unknowns...you're not *thinking* critically then. Me, I don't just take this all spoonfed.


Your not making any sense. I understand what your trying to get at. However, its just rambling nonsense the way your presenting it. Ed has posted everything you had a question about in regards to blue galacts and why they're illegal. Then he dumbed it down to the spoonfed version, because it was obviously just not clicking with some people. Now we're at the point of people just being blatantly in denial and trying to make excuses of why they didn't feel like doing their do diligence....or just straight up ignoring the law.

It's also mucking up a thread that's meant to bring up an important issue and enlighten people who didn't realize these were smuggled in.

Thinking critically is one thing...thinking logically is another. When the information is straight from the organization that governs the importation of wildlife that is the gospel.

2+2=4. Why? Well we can have a whole big math discussion on it, but it ultimately boils down to it is defined that way. Why are galacts illegal? The lacey act defines it that way.


----------



## S2G

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/2942113-post6.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/2942185-post11.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/18744-illegal-dart-frogs.html

https://www.fws.gov/le/commercial-wildlife-shipment.html

Also if you really want to own a red galact (not blue) then you can without too much worry. Its really an ethical issue. The non Tesoro terribilis etc fall into this category as well. Technically they're illegal, but its a grey area. It's a dark history that we're trying not to repeat. It hurts the hobby, it hurts the country of origin, and it hurts the animals.

These blue galacts are an entirely different story and can be proven illegal rather easily/quickly. As Tom (carola) mentioned we now have the exact up-to-date taxonomy and the official CITES position stating these are illegal. It would be a huge risk for someone to keep these in the US. The penalties are hefty especially if you have more than one.


----------



## kimcmich

@mpedersen,

Some of us get your point.

You came on a bit strong in your first post in this thread. It sounded alot like you were blaming the participants in the thread for your ignorance about Galactonotus. I understood you to be leveling a "cultural" critique at the widespread ignorance in the hobby rather than faulting individuals - but I don't think everyone had that interpretation.

A few DB members seem to feel they are entitled to deference and can't seem to argue their positions without being dismissive and condescending. Clearly frogs skills do not equal people skills 

That said, I think you are getting into hair splitting territory about the legality of Galactonotus. Given a bit of research, it's pretty easy to establish that, while they have been deemed nominally legal by European and US authorities, they are clearly illegal by the terms of CITES and (in the US) the Lacey Act.

I think there is a substantive discussion to be had regarding the relative levels of harm (to wild populations) one creates by owning/buying "grey-area" frogs. Red/orange galacs are likely little harm whereas owning/purchasing blue galacs, because they are still scarce and the smuggling so recent, creates greater harm by encouraging continued smuggling. That discussion should be its own thread, however. (Something similar could be said of bearded dragons - which would _seem_ to be illegal by CITES standards but which are so established in the hobby that buying or owning one is harmless.)

However, having practical discussions about what some people view as objective moral/legal principles can sound like self-serving excuse making. And indeed, some people who make such arguments *are* trying to do exactly that. Naivete is a classic tactic by bad actors to justify or cover malfeasance - but that doesn't mean everyone willing to discuss such matters is actually a bad actor.

You are clearly the kind of diligent hobbyist we should encourage - even if your looong posts threaten to wear-out our eyeballs!


----------



## JPP

mpedersen said:


> I think it took me 15, maybe 20 years, in various plant and animal trades and interests, until I learned what CITES was.





mpedersen said:


> I"m also going back to when I was 5 years old, and there wasn't an Internet. Again, a classic example of making a presumption without having all the facts. Which is one of my concerns with the "absolutist" nature of the statements being made here.


...and this is where your arguments in this thread completely 'jumped the shark' for me. Obviously you didn't know what CITES was when you were 5; most people are just starting to learn how to read at that age. That said, I'm sure many of the members posting in this thread recall their entire childhood without having the internet (myself included).


----------



## cam1941

Can anyone link me to a complete list of "gray area" or illegal frogs?


----------



## mpedersen

JPP said:


> ...and this is where your arguments in this thread completely 'jumped the shark' for me. Obviously you didn't know what CITES was when you were 5; most people are just starting to learn how to read at that age. That said, I'm sure many of the members posting in this thread recall their entire childhood without having the internet (myself included).


And now you're arguably only looking at the "start date" of that range. Consider the 15-20 years range I cited, starting at age 5, also includes setting up my first marine tank by the time I was 10, reading like crazy, plus then nearly 10 years in the aquarium industry in that range working retail and wholesale and hatchery, and goes up to me being 25 and a professional interactive/web developer. At some point in there, the whole Internet thing DID happen, and I had read plenty of books, briefly studied Marine Bio, sold corals, bred fish...and not once was CITES on the radar. 

I think it literally was not until I was in the Orchid hobby, and happened to be keeping CITES Appendix I orchids, when I actually finally first encountered CITES. BUT...BUT....it wasn't even then. It wasn't until I looked into buying plants from OVERSEAS that I finally encountered this. Think about all the things, all the knowledge, all the reading I had already done, and yet literally I had not become aware of CITES until that point.

And that's the point. I can go through a large portion of my entire formative life, and hobby, and not once encounter the notion of CITES, illegal animals etc. And that's how I can sit here today, pointing to all the sources where new dart frog hobbyists get their information, with no mentions of these issues, and say it's unreasonable to look at even somewhat well-established hobbyists of a few years perhaps, and say they should be aware of CITES, illegal frogs, and that the onus is on them.

I'm sorry, but to look at the average person on the street and blame them is victim blaming horse-excrement. 

*SG2, Kimcmich*, I'll respond to your comments some other time!


----------



## MasterOogway

CITES and the Lacey Act are *literally* first semester college topics for anyone in *any* kind of wildlife field (HINT! They're in books too!! I can read plenty on them IN BOOKS without any kind of internet.) If you can work with exotics in any fashion and remain ignorant of what these acts are and what they are supposed to do, I feel like you probably deserve whatever legal ramifications come your way. I do not have a lot of sympathy for people who play the ignorance card. Simply because you're not aware of a law doesn't make you not culpable. And the more you debate on here, the more you seem to be trying to question the legal status of these blue galacts, which makes your entire premise sketchy, at best. Why would you want these to come into the hobby?? All it appears you are doing at this point is trying to make a case for them to be questionably legal. What is your ultimate goal here???


----------



## Encyclia

TarantulaGuy said:


> CITES and the Lacey Act are *literally* first semester college topics for anyone in *any* kind of wildlife field (HINT! They're in books too!! I can read plenty on them IN BOOKS without any kind of internet.) If you can work with exotics in any fashion and remain ignorant of what these acts are and what they are supposed to do, I feel like you probably deserve whatever legal ramifications come your way. I do not have a lot of sympathy for people who play the ignorance card. Simply because you're not aware of a law doesn't make you not culpable. And the more you debate on here, the more you seem to be trying to question the legal status of these blue galacts, which makes your entire premise sketchy, at best. Why would you want these to come into the hobby?? All it appears you are doing at this point is trying to make a case for them to be questionably legal. What is your ultimate goal here???


I see the whole attacking of the Lacey Act, CITES, etc. as a red herring here. Blue Galacts are illegal (as are, probably other Galacs and probably some other frogs that are readily available in the hobby). It doesn't matter how well the legislation/regulation works or whether it's unethical, against conservation principals or otherwise ill advised. It is the law of the land. We have to deal with it. Each individual is responsible for violating laws, regardless of ignorance. 

HOWEVER, I am really getting tired of the elitism that I see over and over again in this thread. Come on, TarantulaGuy, we have to be in college studying some kind of wildlife field to get this information now? (This was NOT true when I took my college biology classes, by the way). Books are a good resource, but the ones I have don't mention the Lacey Act or CITES (probably because they are old like me). The bar you guys are setting was fine for you, but it is too high for many other folks, myself included because I have been blindsided by finding out that certain animals are, at best, "gray" and at worst outright illegal. 

I can't remember the last time I read a book about frogs and I certainly can't remember my biology classes from years gone by. Those are just a couple of ways that people learn. I have learned a lot from this board. I can't tell all of you how much I appreciate the information they have shared on this board. People are HERE, reading this message board right now. They are trying to do research. They are trying to be responsible animal owners and do the right thing. If you read long enough, you will come across the right information by sheer dumb luck. That was only after A LOT of reading on here, though, for me. Why can we not jot down an updated list of stuff that is illegal/unethical and stop leaving things to chance? This could be a sticky in the general discussions and the frog classifieds so that it is right there at the top before people go down and buy stuff that's questionable.

In the meantime, I propose that we not take such a hard line stance against people that are new to the hobby that may not know as much about all of this as you do. In my view, you are picking a definition of "responsible hobbyest" that suits how you came up and how you learn things. That doesn't seem fair to folks that haven't had the same experiences you have. Let's not perpetuate the "elitist board" reputation that we have. 

Finally, I really appreciate the passion that everyone in this thread feels about these topics. I may not always agree with the approach, but I certainly see the importance that so many of you place on conserving the animals that we all love. I think this is a great discussion (even if it is a bit tangent to the initial purpose of the thread 

Mark


----------



## Ed

Encyclia said:


> .
> 
> HOWEVER, I am really getting tired of the elitism that I see over and over again in this thread. Come on, TarantulaGuy, we have to be in college studying some kind of wildlife field to get this information now? (This was NOT true when I took my college biology classes, by the way). Books are a good resource, but the ones I have don't mention the Lacey Act or CITES (probably because they are old like me). The bar you guys are setting was fine for you, but it is too high for many other folks, myself included because I have been blindsided by finding out that certain animals are, at best, "gray" and at worst outright illegal.


It is hard to argue this point as the information has been available to the hobby for quite awhile as I noted above particularly since it has been discussed in hobby magazines (Reptile Magazine) as I have shown above (including that Reptiles has printed CITES updates as well as posting it to their website). It has been discussed on forums and as platforms for groups like USARK which are pretty much all aimed at the average hobbyist. I made mention of this in my discussions above...so it really is hard to make the college/book defense on this topic but I understand your frustration (see next paragraph). 

*In reality the only point of new information is that clearance through import doesn't mean that the frogs are legal* (which has been discussed on this forum more than once) and that it is not only the blue galactanotus that are illegal but all galactanotus as none have ever been legally exported from Brazil. 

*I've mentioned that this sucks more than once*, and I've also mentioned that USFW is unlikely to go running around confiscating old lines (non-blue) of galactanotus unless you are part of something larger and then those charges are likely to be added to the whole mess. I also get the desire for denial for animals that they are attached to and enjoy but we shouldn't let those things cloud the discussion on the frogs. 




Encyclia said:


> Why can we not jot down an updated list of stuff that is illegal/unethical and stop leaving things to chance? This could be a sticky in the general discussions and the frog classifieds so that it is right there at the top before people go down and buy stuff that's questionable.


This has been done more than once but like many other aspects of the hobby, it initially attracted a lot of talk but little interest in self-regulating. 



Encyclia said:


> In the meantime, I propose that we not take such a hard line stance against people that are new to the hobby that may not know as much about all of this as you do. In my view, you are picking a definition of "responsible hobbyest" that suits how you came up and how you learn things. That doesn't seem fair to folks that haven't had the same experiences you have. Let's not perpetuate the "elitist board" reputation that we have.


If you read back through my posts, I don't think I've taken the hard line on the average hobbyist, I've taken issue with the its okay because no one told me argument and therefor the frogs should be allowed to be legal position. 

If you search pretty much any iteration of a dendrobatid and smuggled you will get a lot of hits that mention CITES so the elitist argument does present a problem in this respect and some other respects. It is one thing for a new person to not know and an entirely different one to discover it to be true and then spend time trying to create an elaborate defense (not that you have done so but it is happening in this thread) that has no merit to justify the presence of the frogs. That is the problem here people are getting a little fed up of bad arguments to justify the presence of the frogs (and again, you aren't doing that) so in some respects, if people are trying to use elitism as a defense for a bad argument/justification then that is a problem for them... as they clearly cannot support their argument and are finding excuses to try and do so by attacking the person/source as opposed to the information... 

I get called elitist because I cite the references to support my arguments and positions and because I'm direct about calling out bad information. It is a way of attempting to discredit another person's position by attacking them personally as opposed to their argument. We see it all the time by a wide range of people who attack "fake news", propagate false memes on Facebook and perpetuate dogma on forums and elsewhere and the vast majority of those people don't like to have to face that their facts are in reality not facts but bad information. The popularity of Facebook enables that kind of information to be passed around continually regardless if it has a basis in fact or not... 

The information about CITES has been here on the forum for a really long time, the trade database has been discussed repeatedly on this forum (along with links to it and how to use it) and (if I remember correctly) on frognet before Dendroboard ever existed. 


some comments 

Ed


----------



## S2G

It's not like your going to be purchasing these truly illegal animals via legit commercial vendors. The old terribs, red/orange, etc should of never been here. However they were accepted on a loop hole/technicality/whatever. Now they're here with a dark past. These are what I consider gray area. All this is explained in the first page and why. I'm not getting into bearded dragons etc etc that's a topic for illegal (insert animal name here) thread.

If your buying animals (or anything really) privately via facebook etc. You better dang well do your research before hand. If you want to try the whole poor pitiful me I didn't know plea while sitting in a jail cell with thousands of dollars worth of fines looming be my guest. I doubt a judge is going to care if your a "newb". 

The hardline stance is justified. Not just from a conservation point of view, but the seriousness of the punishment you will receive if caught. It's about making people aware of what's going on. I think the issue is getting buried on purpose for obvious reasons.


----------



## Encyclia

Ed said:


> It is hard to argue this point as the information has been available to the hobby for quite awhile as I noted above particularly since it has been discussed in hobby magazines (Reptile Magazine) as I have shown above (including that Reptiles has printed CITES updates as well as posting it to their website). It has been discussed on forums and as platforms for groups like USARK which are pretty much all aimed at the average hobbyist. I made mention of this in my discussions above...so it really is hard to make the college/book defense on this topic but I understand your frustration (see next paragraph).
> 
> *In reality the only point of new information is that clearance through import doesn't mean that the frogs are legal* (which has been discussed on this forum more than once) and that it is not only the blue galactanotus that are illegal but all galactanotus as none have ever been legally exported from Brazil.
> 
> *I've mentioned that this sucks more than once*, and I've also mentioned that USFW is unlikely to go running around confiscating old lines (non-blue) of galactanotus unless you are part of something larger and then those charges are likely to be added to the whole mess. I also get the desire for denial for animals that they are attached to and enjoy but we shouldn't let those things cloud the discussion on the frogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been done more than once but like many other aspects of the hobby, it initially attracted a lot of talk but little interest in self-regulating.
> 
> 
> 
> If you read back through my posts, I don't think I've taken the hard line on the average hobbyist, I've taken issue with the its okay because no one told me argument and therefor the frogs should be allowed to be legal position.
> 
> If you search pretty much any iteration of a dendrobatid and smuggled you will get a lot of hits that mention CITES so the elitist argument does present a problem in this respect and some other respects. It is one thing for a new person to not know and an entirely different one to discover it to be true and then spend time trying to create an elaborate defense (not that you have done so but it is happening in this thread) that has no merit to justify the presence of the frogs. That is the problem here people are getting a little fed up of bad arguments to justify the presence of the frogs (and again, you aren't doing that) so in some respects, if people are trying to use elitism as a defense for a bad argument/justification then that is a problem for them... as they clearly cannot support their argument and are finding excuses to try and do so by attacking the person/source as opposed to the information...
> 
> I get called elitist because I cite the references to support my arguments and positions and because I'm direct about calling out bad information. It is a way of attempting to discredit another person's position by attacking them personally as opposed to their argument. We see it all the time by a wide range of people who attack "fake news", propagate false memes on Facebook and perpetuate dogma on forums and elsewhere and the vast majority of those people don't like to have to face that their facts are in reality not facts but bad information. The popularity of Facebook enables that kind of information to be passed around continually regardless if it has a basis in fact or not...
> 
> The information about CITES has been here on the forum for a really long time, the trade database has been discussed repeatedly on this forum (along with links to it and how to use it) and (if I remember correctly) on frognet before Dendroboard ever existed.
> 
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed


Thanks for taking the time to respond, Ed, but it wasn't really your posts that I was referring to. You have done nothing but bring good information to our attention, and I am grateful for that. I don't see you as elitist in the least.

What has been bothering me is the amount of "dog piling" on people who, God forbid, might have a legitimate reason for not being aware of some of this stuff that "everybody ought to know by now." People (not you, Ed) are going out of their way to point out how easy this information is to come across. That is where I take issue. (The other stuff, as I said, is just red herring to me.) If you are steeped in the conservation aspects of the hobby, CITES and the Lacey Act are part and parcel for you. You seek this type of information out to read it. So, you re-enforce what you know and "hang out" with the subset of people on this board that are interested in such things. If, however, you are not familiar with this stuff already, you maybe disinclined even to click on topics that give you such information. At the beginning, you are worried about threads that help you build your first viv and select your first animals. You certainly wouldn't be searching for info on CITES or the Lacey Act, because you aren't aware of the subject in the first place. So, if you are like me, you check threads using the "home" link and get the most recent 20 or 30 topics. Among those, you click on what you are looking for at the time. It maybe a lot later that you have a firm enough grasp on your immediate needs in the hobby that you start to branch out into what you perceive at the time as non-essential information. 

My point is that, especially at first (and for a long time after, for me), you don't know what you don't know! We can be hitting people in the face with this information, but, instead, we park it in the archives along with 1 MILLION other posts and expect people to hunt it down. I say sticky it and come as close as we possibly can to hitting people in the face with it. That's what stickies are for. If we are serious about helping people understand the issues and how they can help, this is not a high cost to put our time where our mouths are. The information is here on the board, yes. It is not readily accessible, though, and I think we can do a better job with that. I don't read trade publications or Reptile Magazine or the other avenues that have been discussed where I could have come across this information sooner. I do read stuff on here. Why not make this info more accessible and make it easier for people that want to do the right thing to do it?

That is my only issue. All the rest of this stuff, you guys keep fighting the good fight. I am with you 100%. 

Mark


----------



## Ed

So the response is too long so I have to split it into two parts... 



mpedersen said:


> But what if there was no speed limit posted on the road you were on? Or maybe what if the sign had fallen over in the ditch? And what if you'd also never been on that particular road before because you were from out of town, a tourist...?


You'd still be responsible for speeding as the majority of states have default speed limits and you are still able to be ticketed under them regardless if you are a tourist or there isn't a sign. You can actually pull up a lot on this via law searches and it is clear that while a judge may throw out the ticket, you are still punishable under the law. As an example see https://newyorkspeedingfines.com/defense-traffic-sign-obstructed/

Your still trying to appeal to reason and creating hypothetical examples that when compared against the rules have no actual validity. 



mpedersen said:


> Because that would be a little more analogous to what's going on here. And you and I both know that if you can prove these things, your ticket will *usually* get thrown out. There's descretion on that side of all this too.


That discretion doesn't mean that it is okay to speed on that road or even permissible/acceptable to do so, it means that a judge and the officer involved have some discretion on whether to prosecute you but it doesn't mean you can just break the law whenever you want or to use ignorance of the law as a blanket defense. 



mpedersen said:


> To point by point discuss everything you wrote is overly time consuming and some of it was rather repetitious. Do not presume that if I didn't respond to a specific counterpoint that I either a) agreed or b) conceded on that point. It's more likely that I felt such points were sufficiently addressed indirectly by the response below.


If a person doesn't seem to understand the validity of a point, then repetition is of value as the repeating can enable it to be accepted.... and in rebuttals and responses, ignoring a point is generally accepted as conceding it.... 



mpedersen said:


> You do not know because you cannot trace it back, you cannot know what's missing from databases, from country records and so forth. You don't know what paperwork folks hold and don't hold. So the best you or I can do is to levy a solidly argued *allegation*.
> We don't know that in the past, an incorrect code was used...eg. were "specimens" at one point erroniously used for "live"? The data may not be 100% accurate. People make mistakes. I happen to know that CITES paperwork missteps result in numerous confiscations...it's not always an actual intentional "smuggling attempt". So, I have to look at the data and say that I cannot 100% hang my hat on it, because I know it is likely imperfect.


Your repeating yourself and this totally ignores the points previously made on this topic. As for example, alleged is used contextually as a form of legal cover your butt to prevent later lawsuits for defamation etc. It has no place in this discussion regardless of your claim. The body for the enforcement of the laws has stated that if there is no record of export from the country of origin, those animals cannot be legal. Additionally you keep trying to shift the argument as if I originated the statement or came up with it on my own but that is the position of those who enforce the laws. Now can a agent decide to not enforcement something yes, but that doesn't set a precedent laundering all future incidences of those offenses by that individual(s) as acceptable or legal. Go back to your speeding issue, do you think after the second or third time being caught speeding that officer or judge would be as lenient? This is part of the crux of your argument, it got through once, it should okay forever just because and you start throwing out excuses on why that should be true. With respect to your "human error" claims, given that there would have had to be two permits issues (one from Brazil to collect for export, and then the CITES permit) the fact that there is no record in two separate areas is a pretty good indication that human error has no place in this argument because, if they weren't collected legally before export then they are still illegal under CITES and the US under the Lacey Act. In Brazil you also need to apply for a permit to export so now we have three spots in a chain where "human error" had to happen... and that is before we get into the documents for the countries to allow import as well all of the separate color morphs which appeared in different years.... Your argument here has no compelling value to it. 




mpedersen said:


> Except _Paphiopedilum vietnamense_? USFWS. CITES Appendix I on top of it...Oh boy...


You do realize that the plant regulations under CITES are different than those that are applied to animals right? The plants were made available legally by following the *CITES regulations for confiscated plants* that are refused return to their country of origin. (this is the actual story of that orchid http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/443/44339813028.pdf). There is a paper trail supporting the CITES regulations for a CITES listed species and for those who know CITES plant regulations, it is possible to commercially transact CITES 1 plants provided that they are artificially cultivated and that examples like flasked orchids are allowed for commercial trade s provided that there isn't any direct pieces from the collected plant. These regulations don't apply to animals so your ignoring the applicable CITES rules and the orchid argument can be discarded as being of no value as the same rules do not apply. For those interested see this simple checklist by USFW https://www.fws.gov/permits/faqs/FaqNOPQ.html 




mpedersen said:


> So, to apply YOUR logic and the Lacey Act, I must conclude that the US FWS and CITES permits cannot confer legality of these plants, because they were smuggled out of Vietnam and therefore, no legal exit from Viet Nam, which means every _P. vietnamense_ around the globe is "illegal."


Once again your trying to shift the argument to a position that I somehow derived as opposed to the position provided by USFW... You need to pay attention to it as your skating an ad hominem position here. As for the legality argument, your position isn't supported as the rules for plants are different than animals. First and foremost, there are avenues for plant exemptions that are not there for animals under CITES (artificially propagated for example), second Brazil didn't refuse acceptance of the return of the animals as did Viet Nam... and there is a paper trail for those plants that does not exist for the frogs, do I need to continue? 





mpedersen said:


> To apply your strict interpretation. They'd be in violation of CITES export rules...heck I think the very notion that they are clearly denoted as SMUGGLED is proof right their of their illegal status when they arrived in the US. SO...how do we have these plants legally and freely traded around the globe, but even here at home, in light of the Lacey Act?


See above. 





mpedersen said:


> *I *don't* know the answer to all that,* and I suspect you don't either. But I do know that all of this suggests that you can't exactly dismiss CITES and US FWS in all this, and maybe, just maybe, CITES permits DO confer a cetain BASE LEVEL OF LEGALITY when properly traded (because this CITES Appendix 1 genus has culture exemptions which thankfully are basically impossible to fake/forge/spoof), and in this case, CITES permits may even be the root for legalizing smuggled plants all the way back in 1999.


See above. Your still relying heavily on an argument that has no application here. Under CITES, there are different rules for plants than there are for animals and given the explicit nature of those regulations, I have to question whether or not you know that and are deliberately using an incorrect comparison and hoping for a lack of due diligence. 






mpedersen said:


> Effectively, I have to ask, as an outsider armed with the information above, this seems VERY SIMILAR to the allegations of "zoos" and institutions being used to "launder" animals through Europe....happening right here on our own soil. In public view. Openly discussed and disclosed by parties involved.


This isn't a question. It is a statement attempting to detour around the fact that without the multiple permits required for the frogs to be legally exported from Brazil into the Netherlands and other countries, that the frogs should be legal despite the incorrect application of plant regulations under CITES when a country of origin refuses the return of the plants. If you are that aware under CITES then you shouldn't be attempting to apply inappropriate rules since you should be aware of the CITES rules. 



mpedersen said:


> I am not saying it's right. I'm not saying, Ed, that your interpretation is incorrect. But I am saying that this is a direct parallel here that plays out in the real world VERY DIFFERENTLY from how you're arguing it should be. It is suggestive that there is more to the story than simply "They violate the Lacey Act, they're 100% illegal."


Actually you are very clearly working to prove that the frogs are indeed legal despite what USFW says from attempting to shift the position from one given by USFW to me, attempting to incorrectly use alleged, to making multiple appeals to reason with inappropriate examples, to ignoring all of the steps in the chain to claim legality... And it is clear that you are arguing that my position is wrong given the extensive attempts to undercut the data provided by the regulatory bodies by not only ignoring it when it is inconvenient to your position but attempting to cloud it with inappropriate examples. 





mpedersen said:


> And you and I both know that's not really how "caveot emptor" is actually legally applied, and the legal limitations on it which protect the buyer. They buyer has certain protections, particularly when unwittingly duped.


So what is the recourse for the buyer if they are then prosecuted for the frogs, sue? As with your speeding example above which runs afoul of the state laws on unmarked roads in most states, possession of illegal animals is no defense in the US courts. Outside of live arrival, there is pretty much no guarantee on many pets across the US so it is on the buyer to do due diligence on any animal(s) they are purchasing since last I checked they are treated as property under the law. Not a compelling support for your argument. 





mpedersen said:


> Or, to reframe your statements and behaviors...the prosecution never presumes innocence...
> 
> This jury reserves judgment.
> 
> And that may simply be why we don't see eye to eye 100% here.


The above is a logical fallacy and has no merit in your argument. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Part 2 



mpedersen said:


> You're implying that Brazil's own government may have knowingly sanctioned and purposely smuggled the frogs out of their country with the intention to circumvent their own laws?


I'm not implying anything. I'm sticking with the facts and the position given unequivocally by USFW. 





mpedersen said:


> _Niether. _This is one piece of evidence in support of my position that it's unreasonable to expect the layperson new to the hobby to be aware of CITES and what it is, and to have all the personal responsibility you'd like to heap on them.
> 
> Along with all the other examples I pointed out, to which you simply replied: "buyer beware".


Bunk. It is still appropriate for buyer beware. You have yet to show reasonable proof for anything to support your argument. Your appeals to reason all ignore the actual legalities, you attempt to rely on "discretion" by an agent or judge which does not convey legality, you try to use inappropriate comparisons between plant and animal regulations which have fundamental differences. Nothing above makes your argument reasonable. 



mpedersen said:


> The fact that it's not a "new discussion" is irrelevant. The fact that it was published in a book in 2004 is irrelevant. The fact that it's mentioned in passing on specialist boards is irrelevant. The fact that it was covered in a magazine in 2010 is irrelevant.


No it isn't irrelevant, the information was and is readily available for more than decade to anyone in the hobby. Your attempting to stand on ignorance as a defense when that is not an acceptable defense under any condition... but judge I didn't know it was wrong to shoot the bank teller while committing a robbery... but judge, I didn't know it wasn't okay to leave the scene of an accident, but judge I didn't know it was illegal to shoot deer at night from a vehicle using a spot light, but judge I didn't know it wasn't okay to cut the tops off parking meters while drunk.. the list is endless. This is clearly not an acceptable defense and as you can see it doesn't fly regardless of your attempts to appeal for it to be acceptable. 



mpedersen said:


> Becuase none of these resources are where the new, and inexperienced dart frog hobbyists, are going to go for their information. NOR is this the type of information the new, or inexperienced dart frog hobbyist, would ever know to go looking for.


still relying on a bad argument here... Reptiles magazine is aimed at a ten year old audience... so are you claiming that your less likely to know something related to your hobby than a ten year old?? 






mpedersen said:


> 1. "Trade Magazine" is not "mainstream". Nor is it necessarily accessible to a new hobbyist. Not everyone chooses to subscribe to or buy a magazine...although boy do I wish more would.


Actually it is mainstream. It is available in Pet Co and Petsmart and other big chain stores, they sponsor shows (swaps), offer discounted subscriptions, gift bags and so forth.. Its the only trade magazine published in the US and it is marketed for ten year old kids.... 



mpedersen said:


> 2. Message Boards - it's 2017. Message boards have been dying for years. And no, again, you can downplay or try to reframe it all you want, but no, CITES, Blue Galact legalities, Brazil's laws, they're not "all over this message board".


So your claiming that removes the information from being easily found?? Its still going to be cached in an easy to read format and available on a search. Do a search on galactanotus care on the web (I used google)... the first link that comes up is surprise http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/57790-adelphobates-galactonotus-intermediate.html where the first line in the first post documents them as illegal. So are you going to claim that the information isn't readily available to the novice or are you now going to go with the average person isn't going to search for the frog and how to take care of it?



mpedersen said:


> The answer to your question. YES. Yes, it IS an unreasonable expectation on your part to expect that of the newcomer.


Bunk. see above. 



mpedersen said:


> Magazines, Books, are generally NOT how people get into new hobbies. These days it's friends, the Internet, Facebook (oh don't get me started on how bad the information is on Facebook), or maybe if you're lucky walking into a shop. Granted, it was that way in the past too for most people.


See above particularly if you search "galactanotus care" on google.




mpedersen said:


> And I believe all my examples thoroughly refute your claim of my argument being BS. I have to just reiterate: none of the listings for Galacts for sale have folks chiming in to say "hey, these are illegal frogs". Sorry, that IS what it IS.


No, it doesn't you attempt to apply bad analogies, apply incorrect terminology, appeal to reason, incorrectly apply statements as well as attempt to cloud the argument as much as possible. Each and everyone of your claims is easily refutable on its own and in total. Your entire defense really boils down to ignorance makes it okay but we know that is incorrect as it is not acceptable under the law. 




mpedersen said:


> ON THE BEARDED DRAGONS:


Dude, I really wish you would do better fact checking before trying to double down on something easily disprovable. 

Let us start with a history of the laws regarding wildlife export in Australia.... There are a number of sites that list Australia having strong wildlife protection laws going to back to the 1950s (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950) but that only applies to Western Australia which is one state of many in the country. As a commonwealth the country did not outlaw wildlife exports until 1975 (Wildlife Act 1975) so until that point and time, it was legal to export reptiles and amphibians from Australia provided they did not come from the state of Western Australia (and vitticeps has a range well outside of Western Australia). 

This is important because if you dig back through the claims of smuggling of bearded dragons they lead back to this source Grenard, S. 1999. An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet: The Bearded Dragon. New York, NY: Howell Book House. who speculates that the animals were smuggled out of Australia sometime between 1974 to 1990. Now this is a problem because it was legal to export them out of Australia prior to 1975 so if they were in the pet trade in 1974, they are pre-act (as with shingleback skinks, blue tongue skinks and other Australian fauna that was exported pre-Act. This is why your "sources" listed the role of smuggling as "probably" and then went to exclude vitticeps as being "probably legal". There is no comparable problem with the galactanotus. 







mpedersen said:


> *Presumed Fact #1* - "*Since the 1960s *the export of Bearded Dragons outside of Australia became illegal.


 See above about the timeline for the laws. That is why I remember the exports and those animals sitting in pet stores pre-Act... I was there at that time.... 




mpedersen said:


> *Reasonable Presumption #2* - "This means that all beardies found outside of Australia are captive bred and descend probably from dragons that were illegally exported. It also means that the genetic diversity may be limited in the captive bred population. There were rumours that most dragons in the US were bred from stock in Germany (Illegally exported from Australia) back in the 1980s."


Not supported by the data. 




mpedersen said:


> Based on Fact #1, the only legal Bearded Dragons to have left Australia would have had to do so prior to the 1960s. Based on Information #2, while not as strict and strong evidence as referencing the CITES database, in order to PROVE that your Bearded Dragons are legal, you'd have to have a papertrail predating the 1970s, back to Australia itself.


*You do realize that Pogona isn't regulated via CITES right? Its not listed and Australia has never put it forth for listing so there wouldn't be any record of it in CITES.* In short if it hasn't been listed for CITES, there isn't going to be any records of it in CITES unless someone decides to report it just because. So the lack of CITES proof is typical in this case (and doesn't help your argument that you understand CITES and how it is used). 





mpedersen said:


> CITES is irrelevant in your argument here about the GALACTS when it comes to WHY you say they're illegal. Your illegality stems from the application of the Lacey Act.


Really? This is bunk and it's been refuted more than once. 




mpedersen said:


> As such, whether Bearded Dragons are CITES monitored or controlled is irrelevant. CITES is not what makes Galacts illegal.


Actually it does, since they were never exported legally following the terms of the treaty (CITES is a treaty) they are illegal. Bearded dragons aren't illegal under CITES as they aren't regulated by CITES, in other words bearded dragons aren't listed as CITES category 1,2 or 3.... 




mpedersen said:


> Bearded Dragons are an exact parallel to the Galacts, per the references above. No legal exports from their native country, all offspring the presumed descendants of illegal broodstock. That IS the Bearded Dragon story linked to above.


Bunk, I've shown why this is untrue as a parallel above. 




mpedersen said:


> It's irrelevant that the references suggest that the captive-bred offspring are "LEGAL". Why? Well, for starters, does the author consider the Lacey Act implications? It's just an off-handed presumption on the part of the author.


If you are using it to claim support for your illegality argument then a supposition doesn't help you particularly when it contradicts your claim. And as I demonstrated how it doesn't apply above... 




mpedersen said:


> I'm _not_ saying it's RIGHT. I'm saying it's a dead parallel. A parallel that forces everyone to have to really think about this issue with a bigger viewpoint.


Its only a parallel if you ignore the history of Australia's laws, how CITES works, which species are regulated by CITES, and using suppositions as facts for yourself but then trying to downplay them when it is pointed out that they contradict your claims. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Encyclia said:


> What has been bothering me is the amount of "dog piling" on people who, God forbid, might have a legitimate reason for not being aware of some of this stuff that "everybody ought to know by now." People (not you, Ed) are going out of their way to point out how easy this information is to come across. That is where I take issue. (The other stuff, as I said, is just red herring to me.) If you are steeped in the conservation aspects of the hobby, CITES and the Lacey Act are part and parcel for you. You seek this type of information out to read it. So, you re-enforce what you know and "hang out" with the subset of people on this board that are interested in such things. If, however, you are not familiar with this stuff already, you maybe disinclined even to click on topics that give you such information. At the beginning, you are worried about threads that help you build your first viv and select your first animals. You certainly wouldn't be searching for info on CITES or the Lacey Act, because you aren't aware of the subject in the first place. So, if you are like me, you check threads using the "home" link and get the most recent 20 or 30 topics. Among those, you click on what you are looking for at the time. It maybe a lot later that you have a firm enough grasp on your immediate needs in the hobby that you start to branch out into what you perceive at the time as non-essential information.
> 
> My point is that, especially at first (and for a long time after, for me), you don't know what you don't know! We can be hitting people in the face with this information, but, instead, we park it in the archives along with 1 MILLION other posts and expect people to hunt it down. I say sticky it and come as close as we possibly can to hitting people in the face with it. That's what stickies are for. If we are serious about helping people understand the issues and how they can help, this is not a high cost to put our time where our mouths are. The information is here on the board, yes. It is not readily accessible, though, and I think we can do a better job with that. I don't read trade publications or Reptile Magazine or the other avenues that have been discussed where I could have come across this information sooner. I do read stuff on here. Why not make this info more accessible and make it easier for people that want to do the right thing to do it?
> 
> That is my only issue. All the rest of this stuff, you guys keep fighting the good fight. I am with you 100%.
> 
> Mark


As I noted above, I get the frustration and how the legality of the older lines may have been missed but for blue galactanotus, I have to admit that is a different story on "not knowing" particularly if you know anything about the importer's history and that is part of the frustration of some of the people who posted in this thread. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Encyclia

Ed said:


> As I noted above, I get the frustration and how the legality of the older lines may have been missed but for blue galactanotus, I have to admit that is a different story on "not knowing" particularly if you know anything about the importer's history and that is part of the frustration of some of the people who posted in this thread.
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed


Yes, I should have made it clearer that my frustration is not with the current situation. I think you got way out in front of things on this one and, in my mind, there is no ambiguity with regard to the legal (and ethical) status of the blue galactonotus. This is a great time for a line in the sand. 

My frustration is derived from the situation with what we are calling "gray" frogs in this thread. I would love to have known from the very beginning that certain frogs that are freely traded on this board have a questionable ethical background. I want to prevent others from having to come to that realization too late.

The elitism comments come from what I perceived to be a failure on the part of some to acknowledge that the history of of some of these "gray" frogs is not that easy to discover. I could have done a better job of constraining my comments to the broader "gray" frog topic rather than the current blue galactonotus situation. I'm sorry if that wasn't apparent.

Mark


----------



## S2G

Ed said:


> Part 2
> 
> No, it doesn't you attempt to apply bad analogies, apply incorrect terminology, appeal to reason, incorrectly apply statements as well as attempt to cloud the argument as much as possible. Each and everyone of your claims is easily refutable on its own and in total. Your entire defense really boils down to ignorance makes it okay but we know that is incorrect as it is not acceptable under the law.
> 
> Ed


Exactly. Thank you for taking the time to disprove this line item by line item. I should take more time to break down things down like this.


----------



## kimcmich

Ed and mpedersen,

I admire your endurance. In your exchange concerning the relevance of CITES & the Lacey Act to the illegality in the US of galactonotus, you've argued yourselves into both being a little wrong.

Mdepersen is clearly wrong to say that CITES is irrelevant to galac legality in the US but he is right to say that CITES listing is not (necessarily) relevant to legality under the Lacey Act (for galacs and Pogona). 

The Lacey Act is not merely a wrapper on CITES - it has its own teeth. The Lacey Act's purview extends to all wildlife traded in violation of US *or foreign law* (I'm sure you have the links already but: https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/lacey-act.html and https://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf). 

As such, even if the US were not party to CITES or Galacs were not CITES listed, the fact that Brazilian law prohibits commercial exportation of its wildlife (prior-to and independent-of CITES ratification) means Galacs are illegal in the US under the Lacey Act. 

The Lacey Act's teeth are even sharper than CITES' because it incorporates CITES as well. That means the Lacey Act, in principle, has even stricter implications for the legality of plants and animals - especially those that CITES does not itself regulate.

Of course, all of this just means that there is even more agreement, not less, that US law should deem Galactonotus illegal and their import should never have been allowed.


----------



## mpedersen

To S2G:



S2G said:


> Also if you really want to own a red galact (not blue) then you can without too much worry....These blue galacts are an entirely different story and can be proven illegal rather easily/quickly.


^This is a clear example of the somewhat double-standard / hypocritical standpoint in the frog community that I referred to earlier. Not picking on you S2G, but I have to be blunt here when I say that if you're going to call Blue Galacts out as firmly, 100%, undeniably illegal, then you really have to apply the same firm stance on all the others. Why? Because the same rules, standards, and tests would have to apply equally to their legal status. Unless there's more to the story...and that's why I'm so curious and invested in this general topic.



S2G said:


> As Tom (carola) mentioned we now have the exact up-to-date taxonomy and the official CITES position stating these are illegal. It would be a huge risk for someone to keep these in the US. The penalties are hefty especially if you have more than one.


Except that the CITES "position stating these are illegal" is not an official statement as has been already pointed out. It's a statement on record by delegates, but that's not the same thing. Let's just be clear on that.



kimcmich said:


> @mpedersen, Some of us get your point.
> 
> You came on a bit strong in your first post in this thread. It sounded alot like you were blaming the participants in the thread for your ignorance about Galactonotus.


Some of the condemnation felt very personal in all that, and yes, there is a certain amount of my viewpoint directed directly at the participants of this thread, in part because they are the ones actively doing all the condemnation.



kimcmich said:


> I understood you to be leveling a "cultural" critique at the widespread ignorance in the hobby rather than faulting individuals - but I don't think everyone had that interpretation.


Yes, but also no. Both would be valid.



kimcmich said:


> That said, I think you are getting into hair splitting territory about the legality of Galactonotus. Given a bit of research, it's pretty easy to establish that, while they have been deemed nominally legal by European and US authorities, they are clearly illegal by the terms of CITES and (in the US) the Lacey Act.


I think that's a fair assesement if that's the limits to how far you look into it.



kimcmich said:


> I think there is a substantive discussion to be had regarding the relative levels of harm (to wild populations) one creates by owning/buying "grey-area" frogs. Red/orange galacs are likely little harm whereas owning/purchasing blue galacs, because they are still scarce and the smuggling so recent, creates greater harm by encouraging continued smuggling.


I'm not so sure I agree...of course, it depends on which side of the tired argument you want to take? Does a captive-population discourage or encourage poaching? Does it help or hinder the black market? I suppose you'd argue that it's unique in every instance, and thus, why you view them differently. I'd buy into the plausible nature of such a discussion and argument.

However, the legality arguably is not so varied and case-by-case, and that's part of the issue I have here.



kimcmich said:


> That discussion should be its own thread, however. (Something similar could be said of bearded dragons - which would _seem_ to be illegal by CITES standards but which are so established in the hobby that buying or owning one is harmless.)


Nope, CITES has nothing to do with Bearded Dragons legality, only Lacey Act. I'll get back to that in a little bit.



kimcmich said:


> However, having practical discussions about what some people view as objective moral/legal principles can sound like self-serving excuse making. And indeed, some people who make such arguments *are* trying to do exactly that. Naivete is a classic tactic by bad actors to justify or cover malfeasance - but that doesn't mean everyone willing to discuss such matters is actually a bad actor. You are clearly the kind of diligent hobbyist we should encourage - even if your looong posts threaten to wear-out our eyeballs!


THANK YOU for recognizing that aspect, especially when others are clearly willing to insinuate more self-serving motivations to my arguments (see below). Frankly, I don't like things like "gray areas", nevermind a community saying "it's illegal, but it's probably OK anyway because it's been going on for so long". 



TarantulaGuy said:


> CITES and the Lacey Act are *literally* first semester college topics for anyone in *any* kind of wildlife field...


And how many Frog hobbyists went into that line of collegiate studies? Certainly wasn't brought up in my Marine Bio classes....



TarantulaGuy said:


> And the more you debate on here, the more you seem to be trying to question the legal status of these blue galacts, which makes your entire premise sketchy, at best.


Well, the more and more I dig into it, the more and more Ed's arguments, while well-reasoned and *LIKELY CORRECT,* fall short of the iron-clad absolute final word that is being presented here.



TarantulaGuy said:


> Why would you want these to come into the hobby?? All it appears you are doing at this point is trying to make a case for them to be questionably legal. What is your ultimate goal here???


My ultimate goal is for people to acknowledge the weaknesses in their arguments, and then maybe we can endeavor to button them up! #TRUTH is what I'd rather have in all this. What we have now is a compelling case, but then a lot of things that raise questions. MORE and MORE questions, the more and more I dig into this. Ignoring those questions certainly doesn't foster my buy-in to the initial premise.



Encyclia said:


> I see the whole attacking of the Lacey Act, CITES, etc. as a red herring here. Blue Galacts are illegal (as are, probably other Galacs and probably some other frogs that are readily available in the hobby). It doesn't matter how well the legislation/regulation works or whether it's unethical, against conservation principals or otherwise ill advised. It is the law of the land. We have to deal with it. Each individual is responsible for violating laws, regardless of ignorance.


Except that some of what I pulled up *might* suggest that the illegality is not as cut-and-dry as it's being presented. Questions....lots of questions...



Encyclia said:


> HOWEVER, I am really getting tired of the elitism that I see over and over again in this thread.....The bar you guys are setting was fine for you, but it is too high for many other folks, myself included because I have been blindsided by finding out that certain animals are, at best, "gray" and at worst outright illegal.


BLINDSIDED is how I felt about this entire topic, more-so not the Blue Galacts that were new, but how this also applies to all the older versions of the species...thanks for putting that feeling into words Mark. That's definitely the emotion behind my initial post, the one kimcmich alludes to with me "coming on strong".



Encyclia said:


> in my mind, there is no ambiguity with regard to the legal (and ethical) status of the blue galactonotus. This is a great time for a line in the sand.


Agreed, and I probably posted that already. If in fact Blue Galact is going to be "illegal", USFWS should say so now, and look to the past ones and say either they are too, or they're going to be grandfathered in. OR none of these are. 



Encyclia said:


> My frustration is derived from the situation with what we are calling "gray" frogs in this thread. I would love to have known from the very beginning that certain frogs that are freely traded on this board have a questionable ethical background. I want to prevent others from having to come to that realization too late.


And yet here and now, directly above, examples of folks who feel it's OK to continue on with the gray area frogs too.

*PERHAPS I MUST RAISE THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION - What happens 5-10 years from now when Blue Galatcs are all over the place and no one has ever been arrested for importing/owning them? Do they then too fall into the "gray area"?!*




kimcmich said:


> Ed and mpedersen,
> 
> I admire your endurance. In your exchange concerning the relevance of CITES & the Lacey Act to the illegality in the US of galactonotus, you've argued yourselves into both being a little wrong.


Ha, this should be interesting!  Bring it on!



Encyclia said:


> Mdepersen is clearly wrong to say that CITES is irrelevant to galac legality in the US but he is right to say that CITES listing is not (necessarily) relevant to legality under the Lacey Act (for galacs and Pogona).


Point of order; context is required here. I wrote:



> CITES is irrelevant *in your argument here* about the GALACTS when it comes to WHY you say they're illegal. Your illegality stems from the application of the Lacey Act.
> 
> As such, whether Bearded Dragons are CITES monitored or controlled is irrelevant. CITES is not what makes Galacts illegal.
> 
> Bearded Dragons are an exact parallel to the Galacts, per the references above. No legal exports from their native country, all offspring the presumed descendants of illegal broodstock. That IS the Bearded Dragon story linked to above.


You will absolutely someday see me write "I was wrong." But I was not "wrong" in the above context. I was referring specifically to the latter instance, as my context shows.



Encyclia said:


> The Lacey Act is not merely a wrapper on CITES - it has its own teeth. The Lacey Act's purview extends to all wildlife traded in violation of US *or foreign law*....As such, even if the US were not party to CITES or Galacs were not CITES listed, the fact that Brazilian law prohibits commercial exportation of its wildlife (prior-to and independent-of CITES ratification) means Galacs are illegal in the US under the Lacey Act...Of course, all of this just means that there is even more agreement, not less, that US law should deem Galactonotus illegal and their import should never have been allowed.


On that statement, I can agree. But then by that same logic, _Paphiopedilum vietnamense_ cannot be legal either. And thus, this interpretation cannot be the final, conclusive word, on the Lacey Act and its implications on Galacts, or Bearded Dragons.

more to come...


----------



## mpedersen

Ed said:


> It is hard to argue this point as the information has been available to the hobby for quite awhile as I noted above particularly since it has been discussed in hobby magazines (Reptile Magazine) as I have shown above (including that Reptiles has printed CITES updates as well as posting it to their website).


On this, we will have to disagree. I've clearly shown all the evidence to the contrary...your refusal to acknowledge it means that you're not going to change your mind. 



Ed said:


> *In reality the only point of new information is that clearance through import doesn't mean that the frogs are legal* (which has been discussed on this forum more than once) and that it is not only the blue galactanotus that are illegal but all galactanotus as none have ever been legally exported from Brazil.
> 
> *I've mentioned that this sucks more than once*, and I've also mentioned that USFW is unlikely to go running around confiscating old lines (non-blue) of galactanotus unless you are part of something larger and then those charges are likely to be added to the whole mess. I also get the desire for denial for animals that they are attached to and enjoy but we shouldn't let those things cloud the discussion on the frogs.


Don't have a single Galact in my possession, so I'll just clear up any suspicions of that conflict of interest right now. I wonder how many of the posters and viewers of this thread can't say the same...




Ed said:


> If you search pretty much any iteration of a dendrobatid and smuggled you will get a lot of hits that mention CITES so the elitist argument does present a problem in this respect and some other respects.


I think it is rather out-of-touch to think that the average person would be inclined to even think to make such a search... 



Ed said:


> It is one thing for a new person to not know and an entirely different one to discover it to be true and then spend time trying to create an elaborate defense (not that you have done so but it is happening in this thread) that has no merit to justify the presence of the frogs.


^If there was any doubt there, Ed is presumably refering to me.



Ed said:


> That is the problem here people are getting a little fed up of bad arguments to justify the presence of the frogs (and again, you aren't doing that) so in some respects, if people are trying to use elitism as a defense for a bad argument/justification then that is a problem for them... as they clearly cannot support their argument and are finding excuses to try and do so by attacking the person/source as opposed to the information...


The Ad Hominems are getting pretty thick here Ed...irony of ironies...I'll just not bother to requote the rest of the character attacks.



Ed said:


> The information about CITES has been here on the forum for a really long time, the trade database has been discussed repeatedly on this forum (along with links to it and how to use it) and (if I remember correctly) on frognet before Dendroboard ever existed.


Restating your position and these realities doesn't change the fact that these don't constitute valid sources of information and the depth of information that a community should reasonably expect newcommers to have perused and digested.



Ed said:


> it is clear that while a judge may throw out the ticket, you are still punishable under the law.


Thus, you are acknowledging and agreeing to my point, which is that there is discretion at play here.



Ed said:


> Your still trying to appeal to reason and creating hypothetical examples that when compared against the rules have no actual validity.
> 
> That discretion doesn't mean that it is okay to speed on that road or even permissible/acceptable to do so, it means that a judge and the officer involved have some discretion on whether to prosecute you but it doesn't mean you can just break the law whenever you want or to use ignorance of the law as a blanket defense.


Discretion may, in fact, have a lot to do with this overall situation, and discretion can lead to precedent which in turn "creates" law. So while you can choose to dismiss it, I have to acknowledge its existence in all this. No, that doesn't mean you can *count on discretion* to save you from breaking the law here...so don't bother to attribute such a sentiment to me.



Ed said:


> If a person doesn't seem to understand the validity of a point, then repetition is of value as the repeating can enable it to be accepted.... and in rebuttals and responses, ignoring a point is generally accepted as conceding it....


Or simply put, I'm going to keep saying it's true whether it is or not, until it becomes so. We have a president inclined to that line of thinking as well...



Ed said:


> Your repeating yourself and this totally ignores the points previously made on this topic. As for example, alleged is used contextually as a form of legal cover your butt to prevent later lawsuits for defamation etc. It has no place in this discussion regardless of your claim.


"prevent lawsuits for defamation" - considering you are stating publicly that the people who imported Blue Galacts and are distributing them have broken the law, you might wish to adopt this particular legal jargon yourself...just to err on the side of caution...



Ed said:


> The body for the enforcement of the laws has stated that if there is no record of export from the country of origin, those animals cannot be legal.


Which, via the Lacey Act, then also makes Bearded Dragons and _Paphipedilum vietnamense _illegal. Which reality on the street would suggest isn't the case. But continue...



Ed said:


> Additionally you keep trying to shift the argument as if I originated the statement or came up with it on my own but that is the position of those who enforce the laws. Now can a agent decide to not enforcement something yes, but that doesn't set a precedent laundering all future incidences of those offenses by that individual(s) as acceptable or legal.
> 
> Go back to your speeding issue, do you think after the second or third time being caught speeding that officer or judge would be as lenient? This is part of the crux of your argument, it got through once, it should okay forever just because and you start throwing out excuses on why that should be true.


While I certainly understand and acknowledge the logic of your argument, you're simply ignoring reality on the ground, with, again, reference to the aforementioned lizard and orchid as but examples of the bigger picture.



Ed said:


> With respect to your "human error" claims, given that there would have had to be two permits issues (one from Brazil to collect for export, and then the CITES permit) the fact that there is no record in two separate areas is a pretty good indication that human error has no place in this argument


...going to stop you right there, because human error was with reference to the TYPE CODES on existing permits. And things like species names. So...your argument fails and ends there as you're arguing a point that was never contested.



Ed said:


> You do realize that the plant regulations under CITES are different than those that are applied to animals right? The plants were made available legally by following the *CITES regulations for confiscated plants* that are refused return to their country of origin. (this is the actual story of that orchid http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/443/44339813028.pdf).


A better link for those who want to download the PDF, visit https://www.researchgate.net/public...chid_Paphiopedilum_vietnamense_O_Gruss_Perner and click "download full text" PDF




Ed said:


> There is a paper trail supporting the CITES regulations for a CITES listed species and for those who know CITES plant regulations, it is possible to commercially transact CITES 1 plants provided that they are artificially cultivated and that examples like flasked orchids are allowed for commercial trade s provided that there isn't any direct pieces from the collected plant.


Ed, I'm sorry, but I have to stop you right there because you're preaching to the choir and you're also wrong. I'm well aware of the in-vitro exceptions for Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium under CITES Appendix I. This is also irrelevant to the LACEY ACT implications here, which is what you're ignoring.



Ed said:


> These regulations don't apply to animals so your ignoring the applicable CITES rules and the orchid argument can be discarded as being of no value as the same rules do not apply. For those interested see this simple checklist by USFW https://www.fws.gov/permits/faqs/FaqNOPQ.html


Except you are wrong in your general argument about CITES as it applies to animals. Just as one example, we have similar exemptions for things like _Scleropages formosus_ (Asian Arowana) which would be legal to own in the US, were it not for the ESA...

And you're really missing the point. IN the case of Paphiopedilum, again, your argument is that CITES cannot make the Galacts legal. Then so to, nothing about what was done with _Paph. vietnamense_, under CITES, can make the plant illegal. 

Of course, go back and read the PDF you cited. It makes no mention of the Lacey Act implications whatsoever.

A direct excerpt of the main premise for anyone who doesnt' want to hunt it down:



> An example of this type of collaboration was the
> legal propagation and distribution of
> Paphiopedilum vietnamense from nine plants that
> arrived at the U.S. Botanic Garden in 1999 (the
> same year the species description was published).
> These plants were part of a larger seizure at the port
> of Seattle by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initially contacted
> the government of Vietnam which declined
> to repatriate the orchids. As a result, the orchids
> remained at the U.S. Botanic Garden under the sole
> jurisdiction of the U.S. Government. Subsequently,
> The Fish and Wildlife Service permitted a private
> orchid growing facility access to the P. vietnamense
> housed at U. S. Botanic Garden. Sibling crosses
> were made from the surprisingly genetically varied
> collection. The seeds were subsequently grown in
> vitro at the New York laboratory and flasks offered
> for sale with the condition that plants be offered to
> other botanical institutions. The benign intent of
> this collaboration was to offer legal plants in quantities
> that would serve to reduce collecting pressure
> on wild populations. Unfortunately, despite successful
> cultivation of the seedlings and the best of
> intentions, these propagated plants have still not
> been distributed to their intended recipients. This is
> attributable more to the vicissitudes of life than to
> anyone’s greed or bad intent, but is indicative of the
> need for accountability when such collaborations
> are undertaken. Beyond this however, certain legal
> and ethical concerns are generated when such partnerships
> are entered into. Activities involving
> CITES Appendix-I plants need to be approached
> with the utmost consideration of the implications
> for the species’ conservation.
> 
> 
> 
> LANKESTERIANA 7(1-2): 150-151. 2007.
> THE ROLE OF CITES RESCUE CENTERS IN ORCHID CONSERVATION:
> CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COLLABORATION
> ON AN ENDANGERED SLIPPER ORCHID
> (PAPHIOPEDILUM VIETNAMENSE O. GRUSS & PERNER)
> THOMAS MIRENDA1,4, KYLE WALLICK2 & ROBERT R. GABEL3
> 1 Smithsonian Institution Horticulture Services Division, Washington, DC 20013 USA 2 US Botanic Garden, Washington, DC 20032 USA 3 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA 22203 USA 4 Author for correspondence: [email protected]
> KEY WORDS: CITES, Paphiopedilum vietnamense, Vietnam





Ed said:


> Once again your trying to shift the argument to a position that I somehow derived as opposed to the position provided by USFW...


OK, so I went back to your prior posts, but also from others, and here's a few key points that aren't up for debate:

1. Clearance of importation doesn't "connote legality" - that was an official response you got from the USFWS per you.



> Regulations at the following link indicate that the clearance of these poison dart frogs does not constitute a certification of the legality of the importation under the laws or regulations of the United States: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...4_152&rgn=div8


2. Smuggled wildlife can't be laundered:



> Dear Edward,
> 
> Thank you for your follow-up inquiry.
> 
> If a given zoo receives illegally imported and/or confiscated CITES-listed specimens, then offspring from those specimens would not be legal to distribute within that country and could not be legally exported to other countries.


All well and good. Except this is PRECISELY and EXACTLY what the US FWS is documented to have done themselves with _Paphiopedilum vietnamense_. THUS, this statement from the US FWS is false, or at least incorrect. It is disproven by facts on the ground, which you yourself have linked to. Therefore, it cannot be taken as gospel. And that's my problem here....



Ed said:


> You need to pay attention to it as your skating an ad hominem position here.


You went directly headlong into it above...but I digress...



Ed said:


> As for the legality argument, your position isn't supported as the rules for plants are different than animals. First and foremost, there are avenues for plant exemptions that are not there for animals under CITES (artificially propagated for example)


WRONG - The CITES rules are different often on a case by case basis across the board across the range of Appendixes, including animals. Stony Coral, Tridacnid Clams, Asian Arowana....how many more exemptions and special cases do you want me to cite?

Asian Arowana is Appendix I, and is legal to trade when microchipped at a farm. Except we cannot have it here because it's on the ESA, which trumps CITES. I'm sorry, but you're wrong Ed. Captive-propagation exemptions are not unique to Appendix I orchids.



Ed said:


> second Brazil didn't refuse acceptance of the return of the animals as did Viet Nam... and there is a paper trail for those plants that does not exist for the frogs, do I need to continue?


A total logical failure, as there hasn't been a seizure of frogs in the first place. But there HAS been multiple CITES permits approved for their importation.

Nevertheless, the premise here is that a CITES permit doesn't connote legality. None of the US-produced P_aph. vietnamense_ sold in the US would have to come with a CITES permit, but once they are exported...they have to be issued one. And it's clear that the US FWS has done so, repeatedly, despite the clear case that can be made that _Paph. vietnamense_ would be in violation of the Lacey Act. And it also completely shreds the second response from the FWS itself.

So ultimately, these two real cases on the ground exist in conflict. It DOES call into question the aspects of discretion and what CITES / US FWS can CONFER with regards to legality. They are clearly acting as if this orchid is now legal, irrespective of the Lacey Act. 

The problem, which you've failed to address, is how they are able to DO THAT, especially since they say they can't. You imply that the rules are different for plants, yet they aren't. And in doing so, what does that mean for past and present Galacts?



Ed said:


> Your still relying heavily on an argument that has no application here. Under CITES, there are different rules for plants than there are for animals and given the explicit nature of those regulations, I have to question whether or not you know that and are deliberately using an incorrect comparison and hoping for a lack of due diligence.


It is not I who's lacking the due diligence. You're simply dismissing the argument rather than addressing it.


----------



## mpedersen

Ed said:


> This isn't a question. It is a statement attempting to detour around the fact that without the multiple permits required for the frogs to be legally exported from Brazil into the Netherlands and other countries, that the frogs should be legal despite the incorrect application of plant regulations under CITES when a country of origin refuses the return of the plants. If you are that aware under CITES then you shouldn't be attempting to apply inappropriate rules since you should be aware of the CITES rules.


Ok, rather than just simply say you're wrong, humor me. You're saying that in the case of _Paph. vietnamense_, these plants are legally distributed worldwide because the US FWS made it so through their application of CITES, regardless of the Lacey Act.

You are hanging your entire argument one point, that the plants were not returned to sender, and that by doing so, the US could take them over and do with them as they please. Correct?

Well..what do you think happens to every STONY CORAL that's confiscated coming into the US? Those are all CITES regulated too. You know where they all go? If they actually make it, they typically wind up at a public aquarium. Basically the exact same thing. And I know, from firsthand experience, that aquariums house these corals separately, and can't do anything with them really.

But, if they had US FWS permission, as the propagators DID in the case of Pahp. vietnamense, boom..they are let out in a fashion deemed "legal" by the US FWS, regardless of what Viet Nam may have said about whether they wanted them propagated or not. And this all happened under CITES. REGARDLESS of the Lacey Act. 

So following the exact same logic, it is entirely possible that US FWS could ultimately give permission to a public aquarium to dispense with the confiscated corals as the aquarium sees fit...apparently rendering them legal. 

Which...WHICH...is EXACTLY the "LAUNDERING" scenario that is being decried in Europe.

Of course, in this case, we are one more-removed from that scenario. This is where WE, in the US, are:

So from where I sit, looking at the person who imported the Blue Galact, I have to kinda just stop and draw another parallel. What he did, would be like like someone sitting in German, the recipient of the first "legally US-Exported" _Paph. vietnamense,_ cites permits in-hand, export and import governing bodies all approving, and their fellow orchid enthusiasts crying bloody murder and denouncing them as smuggling poachers for bringing the plant into Germany.

*I don't see how the US can legally export Paph. vietnamense* given the Lacey Act, unless there is something ELSE at play here. Frankly, I don't see how the US FWS was able to condone and approve the species' release into the trade at all. 

Thus, something else may be why the US FWS is willing to accept properly documented Galacts into the country, despite your well-argued Lacey Act violation they may represent. And in contradiction to the official email responses you got.

THIS is the problem, and it is not a problem you've addressed in your responses. The evidence is clear that in the case of the US FWS, there was a choice to make this plant "legal", which then ultimately conveys legality across the world as it gets exported. This is exactly on par with how we got Galacts into the country; they are deemed legal prior to getting here. No different than the guy getting _Paph. vietnamense_ from the US.



Ed said:


> Actually you are very clearly working to prove that the frogs are indeed legal....


If the Galacts are illegal, then these other things (_Paph. vietnamense_, bearded dragons) are as well. That's where it all breaks down for me. Show me why these other things AREN'T *in violation of the Lacey Act*, which is the basis for why the Galacts are fundamentally illegal, and then we have something....



Ed said:


> So what is the recourse for the buyer if they are then prosecuted for the frogs, sue?


Possibly countersue for malicious prosecution, citing the approved permits, the widespread existence of the species already in the hobby and commercial trade....

And of course, I already know your counter argument would be to cite my "traffic speeding" example and say "that'd be like saying 'you can't fine me unless you fine every other speeder too'"...but you and I both know that's not really quite the same thing.

To your part II, as time permits.


----------



## mpedersen

Ed said:


> I'm not implying anything. I'm sticking with the facts and the position given unequivocally by USFW.


So you are saying it's a "FACT" provideed by the USFWS that Brazil's government "may have knowingly sanctioned and purposely smuggled the frogs out of their country with the intention to circumvent their own laws?"




Ed said:


> Bunk. It is still appropriate for buyer beware.


No, it's not a "buyer beware" situation. When there is ubiquitous availability through prominent everyday commercial outlets it constitutes fraud and implied fitness. You can say it's "bunk" all you want, doesn't change a thing.




Ed said:


> No it isn't irrelevant, the information was and is readily available for more than decade to anyone in the hobby.


So many others have already publicly sided with me on this argument, so I'm going to consider my position as having been amply proven and this debate won.



Ed said:


> still relying on a bad argument here... Reptiles magazine is aimed at a ten year old audience... so are you claiming that your less likely to know something related to your hobby than a ten year old??


And now the Ad Hominems continue again...



Ed said:


> Actually it is mainstream. It is available in Pet Co and Petsmart and other big chain stores, they sponsor shows (swaps), offer discounted subscriptions, gift bags and so forth.. Its the only trade magazine published in the US and it is marketed for ten year old kids....


And I wonder how many times frog smuggling, galacts, the lacey act, and CITES appear in each and every issue? SMFH....you've lost this argument Ed.



Ed said:


> So your claiming that removes the information from being easily found?? Its still going to be cached in an easy to read format and available on a search. Do a search on galactanotus care on the web (I used google)... the first link that comes up is surprise http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/adelphobates/57790-adelphobates-galactonotus-intermediate.html where the first line in the first post documents them as illegal. So are you going to claim that the information isn't readily available to the novice or are you now going to go with the average person isn't going to search for the frog and how to take care of it?


FAILED, because the first CARE SHEET right here on Dendroboard that I FOUND didn't have that note. AND STILL DOESN'T. Even after that glaring oversight was pointed out weeks ago. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/care-sheets/17152-dendrobates-galactonotus-intermediate.html




Ed said:


> Good luck trying to argue against me when the reality is that I first had to find Dendroboard (not the first place I went looking for care information on this frog) and then, even so, I had only a 50/50 shot of hitting the *right* post?
> 
> SORRY, you've _LOST _this part of the debate Ed. I will not humor it further.
> 
> Dude, I really wish you would do better fact checking before trying to double down on something easily disprovable.
> 
> Let us start with a history of the laws regarding wildlife export in Australia.... There are a number of sites that list Australia having strong wildlife protection laws going to back to the 1950s (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950) but that only applies to Western Australia which is one state of many in the country. As a commonwealth the country did not outlaw wildlife exports until 1975 (Wildlife Act 1975) so until that point and time, it was legal to export reptiles and amphibians from Australia provided they did not come from the state of Western Australia (and vitticeps has a range well outside of Western Australia).
> 
> This is important because if you dig back through the claims of smuggling of bearded dragons they lead back to this source Grenard, S. 1999. An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet: The Bearded Dragon. New York, NY: Howell Book House. who speculates that the animals were smuggled out of Australia sometime between 1974 to 1990. Now this is a problem because it was legal to export them out of Australia prior to 1975 so if they were in the pet trade in 1974, they are pre-act (as with shingleback skinks, blue tongue skinks and other Australian fauna that was exported pre-Act. This is why your "sources" listed the role of smuggling as "probably" and then went to exclude vitticeps as being "probably legal". There is no comparable problem with the galactanotus.


Pointless to argue this with you, so I'm not going to bother. If true, and I have no reason to bother fact checking it as I don't think you're apt to make it up, all this does is insert "gray area" vs. a "cut and dry" view on the Lacey Act implications of Bearded Dragons. Absolutely doesn't confer legality on the captive population, only interjects doubt and suggests there are both legal and illegal dragon lines. Which pretty much plays into my arguments anyway as it pertains to Galacts. Particularly since many illegal dragons likely did exist in some capacity, and they may well have even been bred into the legal animals...thus tainting those lines too. 

So in that regard, you have yet to fully disprove the following statement, and you can't. You've only opened up a few loopholes. Which arguably is all I've done with regards to the Galacts.



> Based on Information #2, while not as strict and strong evidence as referencing the CITES database, in order to PROVE that your Bearded Dragons are legal, you'd have to have a papertrail predating the 1970s, back to Australia itself.


I must repeat, because folks don't read: CITES is irrelevant to the Bearded Dragons, which I already explained many times above and stated in my original arguments. As such, all the CITES+Galacts issues are irrelevant to the comparison I make. This is purely a Lacey Act issue. Ed, you completely misunderstood my contextual reference to the CITES Database in relation to Bearded Dragons (as in we don't have that like we do for Galacts)...so the entire tirade thereafter is irrelevant and unnecessary to respond to.

In the end, I've said it REPEATEDLY NOW ED - I THINK you're RIGHT on the GALACTS. But if they are illegal top to bottom, then I think other things are too (which clearly isn't the case). You've done nothing to absolve the Bearded Dragon population from the Lacey Act, only inserted gray. The fact that we are not rounding up Bearded Dragon owners speaks volumes to the notion of "discretion"if nothing else.

The _Paph. vietnamense_ case stands in stark contradiction to the US FWS's own response that you provided, and is an exemplary example of the US laundering a plant in exactly the same way we'd like to allege that Europe launders frogs. The fact that CITES is the primary mechanism in play here strongly calls into question the notion of permits being issued and what legality the US FWS confers by doing so, particularly in contrast to the Lacey Act implications of this species being unchanged...they were never harvested legally from their country of origin.

It is clear to me that there is MORE TO THE STORY than you or I can contribute, and that rests squarely with the US FWS...and that is why it does not sit well with me to simply consider this all 100% case closed, illegal top to bottom, you damned well should've known better. To say so is disingenuous.


----------



## mpedersen

*Correction:*



mpedersen said:


> And you're really missing the point. IN the case of Paphiopedilum, again, your argument is that CITES cannot make the Galacts legal. Then so to, nothing about what was done with _Paph. vietnamense_, under CITES, can make the plant illegal.


I meant to write, "nothing...under CITES...can make the plant _legal_."


----------



## Encyclia

mpedersen, please just stop. I think maybe you are now arguing just to be right. I don't even have the stamina to read all of this anymore. I think this thread has established that blue galacs ARE illegal, at least to my satisfaction. There is still a lot of "gray area" with previous imports, but the current situation is clear to me. Whether they SHOULD be illegal or whether an owner of blue galacs or other "gray area" frogs has to worry about getting tangled up with USFWS is a different topic and probably is a thread derail (for which I am partly responsible - sorry...). 

At this point, though, my concern is that this particular derail is in danger of fatiguing the people that are engaged in this discussion and the people trying to read through the sheer volume of information. I would really rather Ed and others continue to spend their not-infinite time advancing the hobby and bridging it with the scientific literature on a variety of topics rather than getting dragged into the weeds on this thread. After all this, I think that people have already formed an opinion and further debate is unlikely to sway them. It is, however, likely to demand time and resources that might be better spent other places. mpedersen, use your considerable persistence to advance the hobby forward as Ed has been doing for 10s of thousands of posts. Apply that tenaciousness to the hobby at large and help us all move toward better ways to keep our frogs healthy and happy!

Mark


----------



## Encyclia

Oh, and for the record, I believe these (from mpedersen's posts) were kimcmich, not me as quoted. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Encyclia 
Mdepersen is clearly wrong to say that CITES is irrelevant to galac legality in the US but he is right to say that CITES listing is not (necessarily) relevant to legality under the Lacey Act (for galacs and Pogona).
Point of order; context is required here. I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Encyclia
The Lacey Act is not merely a wrapper on CITES - it has its own teeth. The Lacey Act's purview extends to all wildlife traded in violation of US or foreign law....As such, even if the US were not party to CITES or Galacs were not CITES listed, the fact that Brazilian law prohibits commercial exportation of its wildlife (prior-to and independent-of CITES ratification) means Galacs are illegal in the US under the Lacey Act...Of course, all of this just means that there is even more agreement, not less, that US law should deem Galactonotus illegal and their import should never have been allowed.


----------



## mpedersen

Encyclia said:


> Oh, and for the record, I believe these (from mpedersen's posts) were kimcmich, not me as quoted.


You are correct, my apologies, I was wrong (<- proof I can say it) and misattributed those quotes!

*I welcome the moderators to split off the entire thread starting with my initial post to address the concerns over "derailing" the post.*

I'm once again going to sit on my response to the rest because I have just as much fatigue here as the rest of you.


----------



## hypostatic

mpedersen said:


> To S2G:
> *PERHAPS I MUST RAISE THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION - What happens 5-10 years from now when Blue Galatcs are all over the place and no one has ever been arrested for importing/owning them? Do they then too fall into the "gray area"?!*


I don't know; what happens if someone illegally traffics any other small species? Like, I dunno, invertebrates? 

(I mention invertebrates because frogs seem to not be "as big of a deal" as other animals such as birds, mammals, fish... heck, even corals)


----------



## tardis101

Encyclia said:


> mpedersen, please just stop. I think maybe you are now arguing just to be right. I don't even have the stamina to read all of this anymore...


He should not stop. He's not arguing he's disagreeing with some of the points made. He's disagreeing because he sees value in pointing out the flaws in the arguments and assertions that have been made as he sees it. People should not stop reading this thread, unless they've made up their minds and nothing is going to change it.


----------



## kimcmich

@mpedersen,

I don't think you need to stop responding. I would, however, suggest a change to your style of separately responding to almost every single sentence of every prior post. It detracts from your arguments by making them nearly impossible to ingest.

At this point you seem to have hardened a defensive posture that doesn't seem to allow anyone to gain from further discussion (your jokes about admitting you are wrong suggests self-awareness on that topic). After having written ~zillion words and making many claims (some phrased more clearly than others), you are only willing to allow you might have erred in a single quote attribution and _nothing_ else. That's why Encyclia says you seem to be arguing just to be right. That's why I said you've move into hairsplitting territory concerning Blue Galacs.

I think several people (myself included) agree with you that "illegality" of various species/morphs in the hobby is not as cut, dried, objective or principled as some people have argued in this thread. I was one of the early commenters in this thread to note that Europe's decision to legalize (or launder depending on perspective) Blue Galacs should be seen in the context of larger concerns reducing demand and the pointless loss of animals confiscated by authorities who cannot take care of them. And these are the very kinds of pragmatic considerations that drove the release of Paph. vietnamense as you noted. I got the same mis-placed righteous disdain and officious dismissal of a reasonable point (and defended myself in several rambling responses).

But you've now ably argued that reasonable point - that illegality of imported taxa, when looked at as a class, is not black and white. Some people in the thread likely will not be persuaded. I wouldn't waste anymore time trying to convince them. After all, don't you have a first frog species to decide on?


----------



## Encyclia

tardis101 said:


> He should not stop. He's not arguing he's disagreeing with some of the points made. He's disagreeing because he sees value in pointing out the flaws in the arguments and assertions that have been made as he sees it. People should not stop reading this thread, unless they've made up their minds and nothing is going to change it.


Meh. Opinions vary. I will stick to mine.


----------



## S2G

@mpedersen,

I've fed the troll enough. You don't have a leg to stand on so give it a rest. At this point your either a troll or just (insert word of choice here).


----------



## S2G

Ed said:


> Part 2
> 
> No, it doesn't *you attempt to apply bad analogies, apply incorrect terminology, appeal to reason, incorrectly apply statements as well as attempt to cloud the argument as much as possible. *Each and everyone of your claims is easily refutable on its own and in total. Your entire defense really boils down to ignorance makes it okay but we know that is incorrect as it is not acceptable under the law.
> 
> some comments
> 
> Ed


I think this sums up this round as well.


----------



## tardis101

S2G said:


> I think this sums up this round as well.


Except for the fact that Ed isn't the law; he doesn't even work for anyone that implements any of the laws that he is interpreting. This boils down to, an interpretation of the laws. I get it. Several people think their interpretation of these laws means one thing. That's fine. But other people disagree. That should also be fine. People have different interpretations of laws all the time that have to be settled by the courts. When the Countries or Agencies that implement CITES, the U.S. Endangered Species Act, or the Lacey Act agree with Ed's position, then I'll believe it.


----------



## MasterOogway

tardis101 said:


> Except for the fact that Ed isn't the law; he doesn't even work for anyone that implements any of the laws that he is interpreting. This boils down to, an interpretation of the laws. I get it. Several people think their interpretation of these laws means one thing. That's fine. But other people disagree. That should also be fine. People have different interpretations of laws all the time that have to be settled by the courts. When the Countries or Agencies that implement CITES, the U.S. Endangered Species Act, or the Lacey Act agree with Ed's position, then I'll believe it.


There are two facts that you need only consider that render every single 'pro blue galact' argument invalid.

#1. These frogs are from Brazil.
#2. Brazil has never legally allowed export of these animals.

There's no arguing this, they are facts. Not opinions. Not interpretations. Facts. Therefore, they are illegal in the states. Why is this complicated for people? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## tardis101

TarantulaGuy said:


> There are two facts that you need only consider that render every single 'pro blue galact' argument invalid.
> 
> #1. These frogs are from Brazil.
> #2. Brazil has never legally allowed export of these animals.
> 
> There's no arguing this, they are facts. Not opinions. Not interpretations. Facts. Therefore, they are illegal in the states. Why is this complicated for people?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


#2 has already been shown to be inconclusive (and possibly even wrong) based on the CITES database.

#3 your ignoring all the Countries and agencies that implement the laws that you're saying make them illegal. Neither CITES nor the USFWS have said they are illegal. The interpretation and opinion that is coming into play is how CITES, ESA, and/or the Lacey Act make them legal or not. The entire premise of this thread started with a paper that was submitted to CITES. Which was strongly implied to not only have been written by CITES but an official position of CITES (it was even stated as such in a few places). When it was shown that not only was it NOT written by CITES it also isn't the position taken by CITES (that disclaimer at the bottom of the page in the PDF version was conveniently omitted in the "copy/paste" used in the first two posts of this thread. When that was pointed out the argument then shifted to the USFWS and the Lacey Act. But as has also been shown the USFWS has taken other organisms themselves and made them legal in the US (i.e., not in violation of the Lacey Act or CITES). 

We were also provided additional "copy/paste" text from the USFWS with a disclaimer that basically says just because something passed through customs doesn't automatically convey a legal status. Whether that is in fact what the USFWS said is unclear (see the Facebook thread where others got a different answer from USFWS), but what should be even more questionable is what information was presented to the USFWS in order to generate an answer.

Also one last point, which has also been mentioned repeatedly that you're ignoring. This isn't a "pro-blue galac" argument. It's a discussion about whether or not the interpretation of the status of them is correct or not. That's an opinion until the USFWS and/or CITES takes an official position on their legal status, which has not happened yet.


----------



## S2G

tardis101 said:


> Except for the fact that Ed isn't the law; he doesn't even work for anyone that implements any of the laws that he is interpreting. This boils down to, an interpretation of the laws. I get it. Several people think their interpretation of these laws means one thing. That's fine. But other people disagree. That should also be fine. People have different interpretations of laws all the time that have to be settled by the courts. When the Countries or Agencies that implement CITES, the U.S. Endangered Species Act, or the Lacey Act agree with Ed's position, then I'll believe it.


Your correct he isnt the law. He is only quoting the law and linking to where you can read it on your on. There's really no room for interpretation. It is what it is.


----------



## tardis101

S2G said:


> Your correct he isnt the law. He is only quoting the law and linking to where you can read it on your on. There's really no room for interpretation. It is what it is.


Quoting pieces of the law and then informing everyone what he thinks it means. That is the very definition of an interpretation. In fact the paper that opens this thread says in its very title "Interpretation and implementation of the Convention" which means it's an interpretation! Most of the environmental laws in the US have the language in the statute, then there are usually implementing regulations, secretarial orders (might even be executive orders), departmental manuals, policies, and guidance documents that interpret the statute. Not to mention case law. I don't recall seeing those described in this thread, so the reader doesn't know if there is more to it than just a quote of parts of the laws. Also permits under one law can serve as permits under another. Take for example the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which is a multi-nation treaty), doesn't really allow for incidental take of migratory birds. However, a migratory bird protected by the MBTA, that is also listed under the Endangered Species Act, which does allow for incidental take, can serve as a special use permit under MBTA, thereby bypassing the otherwise illegal act of taking a migratory bird that wouldn't be allowed under MBTA. But you wouldn't know that by reading just the language in the laws. You have to dig into the regulations and policies of USFWS to figure that out.

You're right, it is what it is, and when USFWS says they are illegal in the US is when you'll have your answer. But if you're willing to let Ed or others substitute for USFWS or the CITES Secretariat, by all means. However, for some of us that's not sufficient. It's certainly not sufficient to label someone a smuggler.


----------



## Encyclia

tardis101 said:


> Quoting pieces of the law and then informing everyone what he thinks it means. That is the very definition of an interpretation. In fact the paper that opens this thread says in its very title "Interpretation and implementation of the Convention" which means it's an interpretation! Most of the environmental laws in the US have the language in the statute, then there are usually implementing regulations, secretarial orders (might even be executive orders), departmental manuals, policies, and guidance documents that interpret the statute. Not to mention case law. I don't recall seeing those described in this thread, so the reader doesn't know if there is more to it than just a quote of parts of the laws. Also permits under one law can serve as permits under another. Take for example the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which is a multi-nation treaty), doesn't really allow for incidental take of migratory birds. However, a migratory bird protected by the MBTA, that is also listed under the Endangered Species Act, which does allow for incidental take, can serve as a special use permit under MBTA, thereby bypassing the otherwise illegal act of taking a migratory bird that wouldn't be allowed under MBTA. But you wouldn't know that by reading just the language in the laws. You have to dig into the regulations and policies of USFWS to figure that out.
> 
> You're right, it is what it is, and when USFWS says they are illegal in the US is when you'll have your answer. But if you're willing to let Ed or others substitute for USFWS or the CITES Secretariat, by all means. However, for some of us that's not sufficient. It's certainly not sufficient to label someone a smuggler.


Thanks for this comment, tardis. This really helps me understand how someone could still be on the fence on this issue.

I think you are conflating the laws as they are written with the probability of ever being prosecuted. Yes, the context of the laws (relative to other domestic laws and with international laws) is relevant. The interpretation and enforcement policy is also important to the overall picture.

However, ethically, I think that all that is necessary to know is contained in TaratulaGuy's post. I am going to go with a straightforward read of the law (since we are all just "interpreting," anyway) rather than follow the argumentative gymnastics necessary to view these frogs as legal. I am talking about things like implying that someone is hiding something by their copying and pasting (really? c'mon...) or the seemingly hundreds of times arguments in this thread have lead with maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, what if? what if? what if? what if? 

I am going to go with Occam's Razor (parsimony) in trying to decide between these alternatives. What is the simplest interpretation? It's exactly what TaratulaGuy wrote. The laws mean what they say. All of these other arguments require an X-Files or Oliver Stone level of belief that just seems disingenuous at best, to me. 

Are you wrong about the probability being low that anyone is prosecuted for owning blue galacs? Nah, I am betting you are correct. Is it right to own these frogs when even their staunchest defenders know they are smuggled (not into this country, perhaps, but certainly from Brazil in the first place)? Not in my opinion. I am going to buy into the argument that takes 4 lines to state rather than the thousands of words that it has taken to try to muddy the waters in this thread.

Mark


----------



## S2G

tardis101 said:


> Quoting pieces of the law and then informing everyone what he thinks it means. That is the very definition of an interpretation. In fact the paper that opens this thread says in its very title "Interpretation and implementation of the Convention" which means it's an interpretation! Most of the environmental laws in the US have the language in the statute, then there are usually implementing regulations, secretarial orders (might even be executive orders), departmental manuals, policies, and guidance documents that interpret the statute. Not to mention case law. I don't recall seeing those described in this thread, so the reader doesn't know if there is more to it than just a quote of parts of the laws. Also permits under one law can serve as permits under another. Take for example the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which is a multi-nation treaty), doesn't really allow for incidental take of migratory birds. However, a migratory bird protected by the MBTA, that is also listed under the Endangered Species Act, which does allow for incidental take, can serve as a special use permit under MBTA, thereby bypassing the otherwise illegal act of taking a migratory bird that wouldn't be allowed under MBTA. But you wouldn't know that by reading just the language in the laws. You have to dig into the regulations and policies of USFWS to figure that out.
> 
> You're right, it is what it is, and when USFWS says they are illegal in the US is when you'll have your answer. But if you're willing to let Ed or others substitute for USFWS or the CITES Secretariat, by all means. However, for some of us that's not sufficient. It's certainly not sufficient to label someone a smuggler.[/QUOTE
> 
> If the country of origin didn't approve export then its illegal. I'm really having a hard time trying to understand why people find this hard to find or in need if interpretation. I feel your doing the same as the other person and just clouding up the conversation.
> 
> So what exactly is hard to interpret about blue galacts (or galacts in general) being illegal?
> 
> Sorry if short and to the point comes across rude. It's just my preference not to torture people with reading a mile long paragraph when it can be summed up in a few sentences.


----------



## tardis101

S2G said:


> If the country of origin didn't approve export then its illegal. I'm really having a hard time trying to understand why people find this hard to find or in need if interpretation. I feel your doing the same as the other person and just clouding up the conversation.
> 
> So what exactly is hard to interpret about blue galacts (or galacts in general) being illegal?
> 
> Sorry if short and to the point comes across rude. It's just my preference not to torture people with reading a mile long paragraph when it can be summed up in a few sentences.


But that's exactly the issue. Illegal based on what? There are several possibilities.

Brazilian law? Maybe, but no one has posted the Brazilian law that says it's illegal. I can't read nor speak Portuguese so I can't check. If there is a Portuguese speaking member that would be sweet if they could let us know. 

CITES? That's not correct. The paper that opens this thread was the basis of the argument that CITES says they should be considered illegal, but that paper isn't from CITES, as has been pointed out (even though it was suggested it was). At best CITES has been silent on the issue. But there are CITES permits that have been issued for export and import for decades all over Europe, which implies that CITES considers galacs legal. But also has has been pointed out, Brazil has in fact issued export permits for galacs (more than once). The original basis for the argument was Brazil has never allowed legal exports of galacs. That was shown to be incorrect based on the CITES database. Then the argument shifted to there were no live legal exports from Brazil. That was also shown to be incorrect based on the CITES database. So then the argument shifted a third time to there were no live legal commercial exports from Brazil. That appears to be true as long as we assume there are no errors in the CITES database, which may or may not be a correct assumption.

US Laws? The Lacey Act has been presented as what makes them illegal in the US if you ignore CITES. It might make them illegal, but what I said in my previo8us post is you can't just look at the text of the Lacey Act and assume that's the end of the story. You've got to look at the regulations, policies, etc. that I mentioned in my last post because there are exceptions, exemptions, permits, etc. that can make something otherwise illegal legal.

The environmental laws in the US aren't nearly as cut as dry and what people sometimes make them out to be.


----------



## tardis101

Encyclia said:


> Thanks for this comment, tardis. This really helps me understand how someone could still be on the fence on this issue.
> 
> I think you are conflating the laws as they are written with the probability of ever being prosecuted. Yes, the context of the laws (relative to other domestic laws and with international laws) is relevant. The interpretation and enforcement policy is also important to the overall picture.
> 
> However, ethically, I think that all that is necessary to know is contained in TaratulaGuy's post. I am going to go with a straightforward read of the law (since we are all just "interpreting," anyway) rather than follow the argumentative gymnastics necessary to view these frogs as legal. I am talking about things like implying that someone is hiding something by their copying and pasting (really? c'mon...) or the seemingly hundreds of times arguments in this thread have lead with maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, what if? what if? what if? what if?
> 
> I am going to go with Occam's Razor (parsimony) in trying to decide between these alternatives. What is the simplest interpretation? It's exactly what TaratulaGuy wrote. The laws mean what they say. All of these other arguments require an X-Files or Oliver Stone level of belief that just seems disingenuous at best, to me.
> 
> Are you wrong about the probability being low that anyone is prosecuted for owning blue galacs? Nah, I am betting you are correct. Is it right to own these frogs when even their staunchest defenders know they are smuggled (not into this country, perhaps, but certainly from Brazil in the first place)? Not in my opinion. I am going to buy into the argument that takes 4 lines to state rather than the thousands of words that it has taken to try to muddy the waters in this thread.
> 
> Mark


With all due respect Mark, I didn't' say anything about the probability of being prosecuted. That's irrelevant in my opinion with regard to legality or not. 

It is not my intent to muddy the waters. If the thread had started about ethics I would have stayed entirely out of it. But it didn't. It started with the premise that blue galacs are illegal (which of course muddies the water in and of it's self because you cant separate out one color morph from another based only on what has been approved or not for export from Brazil because that's not how CITES lists them in Appendix II.

I see people trying to accurately portray the state of the various laws under which the opening posts in this thread claims the frogs are illegal. Neither mpedersen nor I have said they are definitely legal. We're simply pointing out one can't present the argument definitively one way or the other. If the thread had started that way, presenting the case for why they might be illegal, and presenting the case for why they might be legal I might have stayed out of it also.


----------



## Encyclia

tardis101 said:


> You've got to look at the regulations, policies, etc. that I mentioned in my last post because there are exceptions, exemptions, permits, etc. that can make something otherwise illegal legal.
> 
> The environmental laws in the US aren't nearly as cut as dry and what people sometimes make them out to be.


This is the stuff I was referring to. I didn't understand where this came in if we were talking about strict legality. I could only think of this in the context of likelihood of getting caught rather than regarding the legality issue. Thanks for clarifying. 

I still contend that, as you state in the "third shift" previously, relying on a possible error in a database (that we don't even know exists) to make your point is a reach. This is especially the case when you have a perfectly viable option in a straightforward read on the law. I admit that this line of reasoning is not the only one, but it is the simplest and the one least likely to impact these frogs in the wild in the future.

I don't hold out much hope for these animals (or others still in the wild) when people try so hard to find ways that a law protecting wildlife MIGHT not apply. I just don't understand the need to argue that there is a small chance that this import may have been legal.

Mark


----------



## tardis101

Encyclia said:


> This is the stuff I was referring to. I didn't understand where this came in if we were talking about strict legality. I could only think of this in the context of likelihood of getting caught rather than regarding the legality issue. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> I still contend that, as you state in the "third shift" previously, relying on a possible error in a database (that we don't even know exists) to make your point is a reach. This is especially the case when you have a perfectly viable option in a straightforward read on the law. I admit that this line of reasoning is not the only one, but it is the simplest and the one least likely to impact these frogs in the wild in the future.
> 
> I don't hold out much hope for these animals (or others still in the wild) when people try so hard to find ways that a law protecting wildlife MIGHT not apply. I just don't understand the need to argue that there is a small chance that this import may have been legal.
> 
> Mark


I'm not relying on an error in the CITES database. It's simply been pointed out. There could just as easily be errors in the CITES database about the galacs it does shows as being legally exported. The potential for error cuts either way.

No one is trying hard to find a way that one law or another might not apply. We are simply saying (as keeps being said - yet ignored, which is incredibly frustrating) is that this isn't a cut and dry case (which is how it was presented both here and on the facebook post that started all this). There is more to the various environmental laws than just the text of the statute that might be in play here. You can't just say "it's a straightforward read on the law." That's what I'm saying. If you don't know the law in depth and all the implementing regulations then you can't definitively say one thing or another. I've worked on the ESA, Clean Water Act, and NEPA for 15 out of my 17 years of my entire adult carrier and while those law often seem straightforward to members of the public, they aren't. Laws are often broadly written and the regulations are really where you need to go to understand them. I don't implement the Lacey Act, so I can't speak to it in any real detail. But the intricacies of the laws being mention in this thread to make the statement they are illegal needs to be understood before any absolute statements are made. That's the "need" at least as I see it. To keep the conversation away from absolutes that aren't actually absolutes.


----------



## Encyclia

tardis101 said:


> I'm not relying on an error in the CITES database. It's simply been pointed out. There could just as easily be errors in the CITES database about the galacs it does shows as being legally exported. The potential for error cuts either way.
> 
> No one is trying hard to find a way that one law or another might not apply. We are simply saying (as keeps being said - yet ignored, which is incredibly frustrating) is that this isn't a cut and dry case (which is how it was presented both here and on the facebook post that started all this). There is more to the various environmental laws than just the text of the statute that might be in play here. You can't just say "it's a straightforward read on the law." That's what I'm saying. If you don't know the law in depth and all the implementing regulations then you can't definitively say one thing or another. I've worked on the ESA, Clean Water Act, and NEPA for 15 out of my 17 years of my entire adult carrier and while those law often seem straightforward to members of the public, they aren't. Laws are often broadly written and the regulations are really where you need to go to understand them. I don't implement the Lacey Act, so I can't speak to it in any real detail. But the intricacies of the laws being mention in this thread to make the statement they are illegal needs to be understood before any absolute statements are made. That's the "need" at least as I see it. To keep the conversation away from absolutes that aren't actually absolutes.


I think I understand where you are coming from, tardis. I don't agree with the need to make argue this point as I think that more harm than good can come out of it nor do I agree with all of your arguments, but I think I understand your viewpoint. Thanks again for explaining.

Mark


----------



## Ravage

The Blue Galacts that once were free,
are now possessed and for sale on FB.
And if you buy, you just might find:
that you're not caught, or doing time.
But you've gone and given the smugglers' their Fee.
So they'll do it again; Just you wait and see.
-Not Dr Seuss


----------



## Encyclia

Ravage said:


> The Blue Galacts that once were free,
> are now possessed and for sale on FB.
> And if you buy, you just might find:
> that you're not caught, or doing time.
> But you've gone and given the smugglers' their Fee.
> So they'll do it again; Just you wait and see.
> -Not Dr Seuss


This thread has taken a turn that I did not expect ;-)


----------



## toostrange

I don't understand how it could be a cites error. He stated that they were offspring from smuggled animals. They were smuggled in,seized and given to a zoo. They zoo then bred them and are selling them. The parent animals were not legally imported from Brazil. The importer stated that in the FB post.


----------



## Ed

so there are some interesting rumors circulating about the blue galactanotus... If the rumors are correct, then the recent attempt to import more of them resulted in their confiscation for violation of the Lacey Act and CITES as USFW indicated in the responses listed above. IN addition the rumors also say that USFW is trying to find the animals imported in the first shipment that were advertised as legal.... 

Now these are rumors and I normally don't post rumors but these are becoming pervasive which shows that there is probably a nugget or two of truth behind them.... 

If they turn out to be true I wonder if the importer/seller is going to stand by his claim that he'll refund everyone if the frogs turn out to be illegal. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Amagaeru

Would prefer to have some meat behind the rumors. Would such a confiscation be open to public record?


----------



## Woodswalker

I'd imagine we'll see soon enough. I will say that this morning, when I looked up the vendor whom I had seen offering these for sale as, "legal," they were no longer listed on his site, and there is no trace of them in connection to him anywhere online that I can find, now. Perhaps he's been spooked by these rumors, and thinks they're sufficiently serious that he has deleted his footsteps. This is just my speculation.


----------



## carola1155

Amagaeru said:


> Would prefer to have some meat behind the rumors. Would such a confiscation be open to public record?


Yes. FOIA requests will likely get all the information you would ever want unless it is determined that that the release of it would harm a current investigation.




Woodswalker said:


> I'd imagine we'll see soon enough. I will say that this morning, when I looked up the vendor whom I had seen offering these for sale as, "legal," they were no longer listed on his site, and there is no trace of them in connection to him anywhere online that I can find, now. Perhaps he's been spooked by these rumors, and thinks they're sufficiently serious that he has deleted his footsteps. This is just my speculation.


Yeah, I got blocked on FB I think. Haven't interacted with him directly in weeks- Not since he was claiming this board was being unfair by allowing people to post this information when he couldn't respond since he was banned. (For the record, he was restricted from accessing the marketplace due to many complaints we received and then created another profile to try to get around that. That is a UA violation and resulted in both accounts being permanently banned.)

Either way, it looks like he has removed most (all?) of the public threads on facebook. There is one lone post on instagram left.


----------



## Dane

carola1155 said:


> Either way, it looks like he has removed most (all?) of the public threads on facebook. There is one lone post on instagram left.


Do these seem like the actions of a man confident in his infallibility, and the legality of his conduct?


----------



## oldlady25715

This importer for years had been accused of illegal deals and he walks around at reptile shows like he’s a godsend to the hobby preying on newbies. He found a way to skirt the laws and people defend him bacause gets rare Frogs. Thanks to everyone who sheds light on this unscrupioulus behavior that harms the hobby.


----------



## Ed

I sent in a request for a FOIA on the rumors and will let people know what they respond (if they respond) with for information. I should note that this is the first time they haven't responded to having received it (the FOIA request) within 24 hours but that could be coincidence. 


some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Amagaeru said:


> Would prefer to have some meat behind the rumors. Would such a confiscation be open to public record?


If it was a simple seizure or refusal to allow import then the information about that aspect should be able to be attained via a FOIA unless charges and/or arrests are going to be involved in which case I expect to either hear nothing from them or receive some form of no comment at this time. If the rumors on the second part are true and they are looking to find the previous shipment (which has happened in the past when castenoticus were released illegally to the hobby) then I again would expect there to be form of unable to comment or vague comment as that would be an active investigation. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Amagaeru

Will be interesting to find out.

The only confiscations I've heard of "recently" was 2014 bust on the dart owner in Hawaii. Who supposedly was known among internet froggers (don't know who he was).


----------



## Ed

Amagaeru said:


> Will be interesting to find out.
> 
> The only confiscations I've heard of "recently" was 2014 bust on the dart owner in Hawaii. Who supposedly was known among internet froggers (don't know who he was).


The only reason that one became a bigger issue was because the local news station picked it up and it got a wider audience. I know who the gentleman is and he was a long time founder in the hobby who actually had been keeping dendrobatids from before they were considered invasive there... 

It is unusual for a shipment that has been seized or refused entry to actually make the regular news and generally the information only comes out once an arrest is made. There is a loophole for importers to avoid arrest and prosecution and that is to "abandon" property interests in the import. (see https://www.fws.gov/policy/443fw1.html#sec116 specifically section 1.17 (3).). If the importer uses this method then it wouldn't come out unless someone files an FOIA for the information. If this is what happened it could explain at least half of the rumors but if they are going to chase the ones that were already imported we wouldn't find that out until seizures occurred and the people complained (and if arrests are to be made then we may not find out until the investigation is done). 

One of the rumors specifically stated that the blues could no longer be imported into the US (with the understanding because they were illegal under CITES and Lacey Act) which could easily fit the abandonment loophole above... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## bsr8129

any update on the FOIA, or these rumors?


----------



## thedude

Even if certain frogs are considered legal, does that make them ethical? Say Fish and Wildlife approves the blue galacts, so what? They still didn't leave their country of origin legally and were smuggled. I've been in the hobby for 10 years now, and the whole "they're a gray area frog" argument gets thrown around way too often. If a frog was smuggled it's not a gray area....it's smuggled. Those sylvatica that came in a few years ago have been labeled gray area frogs repeatedly. But they didn't leave Ecuador legally, so no, they aren't. Now, orange galacts (or similar frogs) are another story because they've been in the hobby for 20+ years and are all over the place. Not much to be done about those.

For some reason this is a difficult concept for some, and I've seen the same people make the same arguments over and over. Personally I think it comes down to what's convenient for them.


----------



## Ed

bsr8129 said:


> any update on the FOIA, or these rumors?


It'll take time. I did speak with one of the people in the office and apparently there is a lot going on at this time. 

The asked if I knew what state the point of import was through but I didn't have that information so it'll take time. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Reef_Haven

I spoke with a keeper from one of the zoos here in Florida, during the show last month. He told me they are holding a number of galacs in quarantine that were confiscated recently. He did say this is the first time he had seen blue.
Later I spoke with the Florida FW officer checking permits. He said he had not heard of the confiscation, because it was likely Federal FW; meaning an import issue.


----------



## Ed

Seems to put some backbone into the rumors.... 

Sounds like they might not be legal to import.... which means that the first shipment is unlikely to be legal to sell across state lines. The Lacey Act is pesky about that sort of thing. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

thedude said:


> If a frog was smuggled it's not a gray area....it's smuggled. Those sylvatica that came in a few years ago have been labeled gray area frogs repeatedly. But they didn't leave Ecuador legally, so no, they aren't. Now, orange galacts (or similar frogs) are another story because they've been in the hobby for 20+ years and are all over the place. Not much to be done about those.
> 
> For some reason this is a difficult concept for some, and I've seen the same people make the same arguments over and over. Personally I think it comes down to what's convenient for them.


I've been mulling this all over as I continue to watch, and the level of condemnation over things like Galacts in general, and these in particular, has me at a loss. What a quagmire this hobby is in. Having become more familiar with some of the hobby's frogs, a few additional things have become rather apparent.

For example, I purchased imitator "Varadero" this fall. I love 'em. They're great. And then only last week, on one random website out of dozens, I come to find out that unless they trace back to one particular point of origin, the ancestors were "smuggled"?! So much for me trying to stay away from frogs of "illegal" origin or ancestry. 

Oh, and then there's all the freely traded tincs that apparently are native to Brazil, no doubt they'd fall into the same realm as the overall "galacts". What the heck about the Green Sips I now own? Of course, I had to go to a foreign website and read about it translated in order to realize where they originate from...and plus I had to be involved with this whole thread. How many puzzle pieces can any casual hobbyist be expected to put together on their own??? Completely unrealistic.

This whole gray area thing...the hobby lost the moral highground a long time ago I'm afraid. Particularly when faced with the reality that it seems that "time" changes the viewpoint on any particular variety. Breed it enough, and distribute it widely enough, and apparently, it's no longer an issue. The quote from "Thedude" above as a quick example.

So pretty much you can all take this as my rescinding my public stance that I'll never own Orange Galatcs...what's the point (at this point)? It seems to me that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. I wonder if anyone can point to their collections and say they don't own something that, at some point going way back, has dubious origins. It seems a rather hopeless scenario at this point. Don't get me on what this revealed about the fish industry when I started chatting among friends, and how much THAT information truly made this all look like a big to-do about "nothing". Again, just gave me yet another frame of reference to compare this to.

If the Blue Galatcs were confiscated, great, but at this point, seeing the rather ubiquitous level of seemingly "gray area" frogs already present in the hobby, I really cannot blame anyone for TRYING to import Blue Galacts with a proper, bonafide CITES permit. I simply don't view such an effort as on par with effects to conceal what's being imported. It's the importer's risk to take. I lost hundreds in permit applications trying to import an Orchid species back in the day; my permits weren't approved (a he-said she-said between the US and Japan basically, both willing to approve if the other did first). I wasn't trying to smuggle anything, nor break any law. I was going down the legitimate pathways to attempt to bring a plant into cultivation in the US through a legal channel. My attempts failed, and my money was lost. But I was not some nefarious individual trying to game the system or break any law. Maybe you guys know the importer on a different level, but again, doing things "above board", "on the record", doesn't really strike me as ill-intentioned. 

What if FWS approved Blue Galacts? Well, we'd have a _Paph. vietnamense_ situation. And while some may disagree, there is validity in providing a pathway to legal trade to squelch future illegal trade and poaching. Preaching to the choir with this link perhaps, but I thought it was an enjoyable read. - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvdgkq/how-to-take-down-exotic-frog-smugglers

Still nothing but a bunch of rumors here at the moment...


----------



## carola1155

mpedersen said:


> What the heck about the Green Sips I now own? Of course, I had to go to a foreign website and read about it translated in order to realize where they originate from...and plus I had to be involved with this whole thread. How many puzzle pieces can any casual hobbyist be expected to put together on their own??? Completely unrealistic.


Except that it is widely available online that these frogs are from Suriname- specifically the Sipaliwini Savannah. Josh's frogs website has this (https://www.joshsfrogs.com/dendrobates-tinctorius-green-sip.html), so does Patrick Nabors (Saurian Enterprises, Inc :: Dendrobates tinctorius “Green Sipaliwini ”). Suriname has been exporting tinctorius for many years.


I don't know if you are willfully ignoring the point, or what... but you seem to be missing the part where we are simply advocating to stop the laundering/smuggling of NEW morphs. You say that we "lost the moral high ground a while ago" and then seemingly imply that because of that- we are not allowed to advocate for improvement. 

Why can't we draw a line and say "no more"? Are we not allowed to try to improve because we made mistakes? How is the hobby supposed to ever make progress? Are you advocating that we just sit back and let the smuggling continue to happen?


----------



## Tricolor

All theses tincs seems to be from Suriname. I kind of find this hard to believe. I spoke directly to someone that was in Suriname and involved with robertus state they came from Brazil.


----------



## Tricolor

Let me clarify, This is what this fellow told me first hand. I know him to be a importer. Could he have been exaggerating maybe I don't know. Just throwing it out. I think more frogs are illegal then people think.


----------



## mpedersen

Tricolor said:


> All theses tincs seems to be from Suriname. I kind of find this hard to believe. I spoke directly to someone that was in Suriname and involved with robertus state they came from Brazil.


Guess who also owns multiple lines of Robertus?!?!! WTF...damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Oh, and damn it, the Orange Terribilis I own are likely the descendants of illegally harvested frogs? At least according to the info put out by Tesoros De Colombia? SMFH....


----------



## S2G

mpedersen said:


> Guess who also owns multiple lines of Robertus?!?!! WTF...damned if I do, damned if I don't.
> 
> Oh, and damn it, the Orange Terribilis I own are likely the descendants of illegally harvested frogs? At least according to the info put out by Tesoros De Colombia? SMFH....


Read post #226


----------



## MasterOogway

mpedersen said:


> Guess who also owns multiple lines of Robertus?!?!! WTF...damned if I do, damned if I don't.
> 
> Oh, and damn it, the Orange Terribilis I own are likely the descendants of illegally harvested frogs? At least according to the info put out by Tesoros De Colombia? SMFH....


For those of you who seem to be textually challenged; I've made a graphic to help you understand the key difference between your tinc species and the galact species. Maybe this will help you. 

The top picture is the home range of Dendrobates tinctorious, the bottom picture is the home range of galacts. Range data taken from IUCN. 




















Notice the key difference there? And most sources out there DO have them coming out of Suriname. Regardless tho, that's totally irrelevant to the point at large. The point here is the NEW GALACT MOPRH is totally illegal as it comes STRICTLY from Brazil, and Brazil Does. Not. Export. Animals. Why do you insist on trying to justify having them? This is succhhhhh an easy line to 'draw in the sand' as it were, for the hobby to actually make the stand that yes, we should have made years ago but didn't. And do you know why we didn't? Because people like you come in and muddy the waters with 'oh wait it could be legal if it happened like this' kind of utter rubbish. There's no excuse for pushing this kind of nonsense, and you are literally, actively harming the hobby by doing so. AND making it even harder for future 'lines in the sand' to be drawn if these frogs end up making it into the hobby. How's that make you feel?


----------



## mpedersen

TarantulaGuy said:


> F
> 
> Notice the key difference there? And most sources out there DO have them coming out of Suriname.


Coming/Exporting out of Suriname does not mean that's where they originate...SMFH...

Found several examples of Tumucumaque in captivity in German and Japan...but I guess those come from Suriname too? 



> The point here is the NEW GALACT MOPRH is totally illegal as it comes STRICTLY from Brazil, and Brazil Does. Not. Export. Animals.


Brazil exports hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of aquarium fish, every year. Unless fish aren't animals, I think that shoots this repeated assertion in the foot.

But...

They also have exported LIVE DENDROBATIDS many times according to the very same CITES Database we are all hanging our hats on. LIVE Galacts even.

https://trade.cites.org/en/cites_tr...de&web_disabled=&filters[report_type]=comptab

Now THAT, THAT REALLY kinda deflates all this visceral rhetoric to a great extent. 

I'm sorry, but I don't think for a moment that the CITES database of information is complete and 100% accurate, especially going back to earlier times. But note, you cannot even SEE 2017 data yet even...so...I KNOW it to be *incomplete* at least to that level.

All these absolutes, public condemnations, when simply put, you all don't have the facts. And then to come and start spreading "rumors"...sure, at least their disqualified as rumors, but unfounded rumors open people up to libel...


----------



## MasterOogway

Yes, yes there were some going out. Bodies. And specimens. For scientific research purposes. Literally *none* of those were live animals for commercial purposes. But hey, I only read the chart that YOU provided.


----------



## mpedersen

TarantulaGuy said:


> Yes, yes there were some going out. Bodies. And specimens. For scientific research purposes. Literally *none* of those were live animals for commercial purposes. But hey, I only read the chart that YOU provided.


So when disproven, rather than acknowledge it, you'll just reframe the argument. Classic. 

The initial purpose of the export has no bearing on the long-term subsequent use of their descendants. And hey, again, I've already proven this info to be incomplete anyway. Let's stick to the facts, and not the condemnation.


----------



## MasterOogway

mpedersen said:


> So when disproven, rather than acknowledge it, you'll just reframe the argument. Classic.
> 
> The initial purpose of the export has no bearing on the long-term subsequent use of their descendants. And hey, again, I've already proven this info to be incomplete anyway. Let's stick to the facts, and not the condemnation.


It absolutely does... Those animals are not allowed to be released into the hobby.... Most of those were not even live animals. Did you in fact read the chart you posted? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mpedersen

TarantulaGuy said:


> It absolutely does... Those animals are not allowed to be released into the hobby.... Most of those were not even live animals. Did you in fact read the chart you posted?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Sorry, no, you're just flat out wrong. Using smuggled seized _Paph. vietnamense_ to start a captive population of the plant and spread it worldwide is ample example to disprove this statement. If it's been done once, I can assure you it can be done and has been done, in other settings and scenarios. This is rehashing old arguments already proven at this point, so enjoy your holidays


----------



## MasterOogway

mpedersen said:


> Sorry, no, you're just flat out wrong. Using smuggled seized _Paph. vietnamense_ to start a captive population of the plant and spread it worldwide is ample example to disprove this statement. If it's been done once, I can assure you it can be done and has been done, in other settings and scenarios. This is rehashing old arguments already proven at this point, so enjoy your holidays


Being done doesn't make it lawful. And those were seized, not exported for scientific research. But hey, you go enjoy your illegally smuggled frogs that you seem so intent on trying to get. I can only hope USFW comes knocking on your door someday. I'm done with this debate with you. You're willfully naive on this issue. And no actual facts will convince you. I hope you have fun further alienating yourself in this quite small hobby. Good day sir. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mpedersen

TarantulaGuy said:


> Being done doesn't make it lawful.


Yes, it does when the US FWS itself is behind it. I have zero doubts one can legally own _Paphiopedilum vietnamese_.



TarantulaGuy said:


> And those were seized, not exported for scientific research.


Which is irrelevant. The purpose of import does not constrain the uses of subsequent progeny.

Eg. just here within the US, once those animals arrive here, what happens to them and more importantly their offspring is a matter of US Law, State Law, and organizational self-regulation. Eg. consider the recent release of _Gramma dejongi_, they very illegal fish to own from Cuba.

https://reefs.com/2016/05/25/gramma-dejongi-land-us-first-time/
https://www.reef2rainforest.com/2017/06/23/breeding-the-embargoed-cuban-basslet-gramma-dejongi/
https://reefs.com/2017/06/06/legal-path-citizenship-gramma-dejongi/

Now, this isn't CITES, this has to do with a trade embargo, but the important point is that there are far different rules governing the wild broodstock vs. the captive-bred offspring, and that's just here in the US.

CITES only governs international trade. What happens in the country is not controlled by CITES. 



TarantulaGuy said:


> But hey, you go enjoy your illegally smuggled frogs that you seem so intent on trying to get.


So when your argued points don't stand up to the evidence, you attempt to disparage me and libel me by implying that I personally am attempting to obtain illegally smuggled frogs? Nice. Total Holiday Class. I'm filled with the spirit.



TarantulaGuy said:


> I can only hope USFW comes knocking on your door someday. I'm done with this debate with you. You're willfully naive on this issue. And no actual facts will convince you.


No actual facts have been presented. I've offered data, historical fact, and come to this with an open and skeptical mind. And I've been able to amply disprove the claims you've made above.



TarantulaGuy said:


> I hope you have fun further alienating yourself in this quite small hobby. Good day sir.


If this "quite small hobby" is only concerned with being "right" to the point of being willing to ignore facts that are counter to their positions, then I really don't care about "fitting in".

No one has produced one shred of evidence that the Blue Galacts that came into the country have been confiscated. There's been only rumor, supposition, and innuendo. 

There's been well-reasoned arguments about why they *should* be *considered* illegal, but there are also several examples that put the arguments behind that stance on shaky ground. The fact that this entire hobby seems replete with example upon example of frogs that are ubiquitous, and yet could also be "claimed" illegal by these same mechanisms, kinda puts all this visceral condemnation into the realm of hypocrisy. I haven't seen anyone dispute my mentions of Varadero or Terribilis...but how many of you own them? Green Sips? It's funny that the in-situ images of Robertus are apparently all from Brazil...but we're all going to believe that they come from Suriname? SMFH...it really does seem laughable that you're going to all go after this one particular frog, and yet all these others get the pass...along with the orange, yellow, and red galacts.

Someone asked why it's not appropriate to make this particular frog import the line in the sand. I have to look back at the apparent highly checkered past of this hobby and ask why IS it appropriate that *this* is the line? Why wasn't every dubious import before it the line? Why do you all get to condemn an import now, when you all have possibly benefited from similar questionable imports in the past? Why is there still no all-encompassing document anywhere in the hobby that spells out the legal status of every frog morph there is? Geeze, that would be a great resource for people wanting a more ethical dart frog hobby.

It seems to me that this is as much about WHO was importing as WHAT was being imported, and perhaps, that's why I'm still so annoyed with the rumors and the arbitrary nature of all of this. The fact remains, if you're trying to bring them into the country in an above-board fashion, with permits that have the proper names on them, that both countries agreed to, well, that does not, in my personal book, constitute smuggling. Smuggling to me is frogs in a suitcase, not declared to anyone, not frogs bred in a zoo coming into the country with approved CITES export and import paperwork.

Riding a moral or ethical line? Maybe, but legality is often distinct from ethics and morals. And while you all may scream "illegal frogs", then I think you all better go through your entire collections and empty every vivarium of every questionable frog that you own. And that seems like a rather futile effort, knowing how many arguably "gray area" frogs I managed to wind up procuring even having done ample due diligence.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not nearly as cut and dry as you all would like it to be, and maybe that's why there really can't ever be a simple line-in-the-sand to be drawn. Maybe it really is a case-by-case, never ending, always evolving reality, always a scenario where people's viewpoints will never find middle ground.

I'd like to see FACTS posted here. Not rumors. DATA and links, not unsubstantiated claims. That'd be a great holiday gift to all of us still willing to be engaged in this discussion.


----------



## mpedersen

mpedersen said:


> Green Sips? It's funny that the in-situ images of Robertus are apparently all from Brazil...but we're all going to believe that they come from Suriname?


Correction to the above. I meant to write Green Sips, not Robertus. And the images are attributed to the animals being from Brazil, but not in-situ, a mistake on my part. Translations suck.


----------



## hypostatic

mpedersen said:


> Brazil exports hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of aquarium fish, every year. Unless fish aren't animals, I think that shoots this repeated assertion in the foot.


Fish actually *are* an exception, where I believe most are allowed out of the country, unless otherwise prohibited. I believe this stems from cultural reasons -- like how 2/3s of the country is Catholic, and how fish don't count as meat/animals for Lent? Like, I know that there are even supposedly pirarucu "farmers" that export meat...

But to be concise, anything and everything is "legal", as long as it has the correct paperwork (bureaucracy, amirite??). The "blue galacs" did not have the appropriate paperwork for export out of their country of origin -- which is why the US authorities consider these specific frogs illegal.

From what I understand, at the time, the red/yellow galacs DID have the correct paperwork, as at the time they are considered to pretty much be tincs (and I might be wrong on this particular point). I believe that even if that is NOT true, red/yellows are still legal due to other legal loopholes (again, bureaucracy). If any new reds were to be exported directly from Brazil, they would definitely be illegal. (As in, the US authorities might prosecute)

And as mentioned, actual businesses like Josh's Frogs have these animals. If these businesses thought that there was a chance that these animals were illegal, then they would not carry them anymore. I believe they would rather not carry them, then have their whole operation shut down and confiscated due to one frog


----------



## Ed

The attempt to argue a loophole with fish means that you don't understand the problem here (or a deliberately denying it) that the fish are regulated as to what can and cannot be exported and are required to have permits for legal export (and yes that also covers the requirement for CITES paperwork) . See https://www.ornamentalfishexporters.com/brazil-news-2/ 

As has been said more than a few times in this thread by several people, the older lines of galactanotus are probably just going to be ignored unless someone does something so stupid that they want to get that person on everything they possibly can throw at them. 

some comment 

Ed


----------



## mpedersen

hypostatic said:


> Fish actually *are* an exception


I never said they weren't legal. I'm just tired of hearing the factually 100% incorrect statement that "Brazil doesn't export animals". Sorry, accuracy matters here.



hypostatic said:


> where I believe most are allowed out of the country, unless otherwise prohibited.


I have a different understanding than that. Yes, there is a black list. But there is more than simply "if it's not on the black list..." But my point was not to argue about the legalities of fish export, but to shut down this fundamentally incorrect, yet repeated assertion that Brazil doesn't export "animals".



Ed said:


> The attempt to argue a loophole with fish means that you don't understand the problem here...


No, I raise fish for the reasons stated above. I cite CITES exports as proof positive that blanket statments are false. People here continue to argue in absolutes, which are easily disproven, and come off as incredibly arrogant and an attempt to squelch differing viewpoints by leaving no "wiggle room" in their positions to be proven wrong or to evolve an understanding.



hypostatic said:


> But to be concise, anything and everything is "legal", as long as it has the correct paperwork (bureaucracy, amirite??). The "blue galacs" did not have the appropriate paperwork for export out of their country of origin -- which is why the US authorities consider these specific frogs illegal.
> 
> From what I understand, at the time, the red/yellow galacs DID have the correct paperwork, as at the time they are considered to pretty much be tincs (and I might be wrong on this particular point).


And that would make total sense. Except we have people here stating to the contrary. It can't be both ways. The entire "all galacts are illegal" assertion goes against "correct paperwork" having ever been issued. 

And we have people here going after certain hobbyists/businesses/organizations now without having so much as any proof of wrongdoing. A very "guilty until proven innocent" approach that, for lack of a better way of framing it, is very "un-American".

But to recap, the reason the "Blue Galacts" are being cited as illegal stems back to the roots, not the origin of the current specimens. And that's where it gets murky, the whole "laundering" of frogs through Europe. I get it...but the hypocricy of drawing *this* as the line while everyone has probably kept other frogs that fell into the same legal lines....? 



hypostatic said:


> I believe that even if that is NOT true, red/yellows are still legal due to other legal loopholes (again, bureaucracy). If any new reds were to be exported directly from Brazil, they would definitely be illegal. (As in, the US authorities might prosecute)





Ed said:


> As has been said more than a few times in this thread by several people, the older lines of galactanotus are probably just going to be ignored unless someone does something so stupid that they want to get that person on everything they possibly can throw at them.


Not to dispariage, but I could frame ^this^ a bunch of people throwing out random ideas and suppositions without knowing any _facts_.



hypostatic said:


> And as mentioned, actual businesses like Josh's Frogs have these animals. If these businesses thought that there was a chance that these animals were illegal, then they would not carry them anymore. I believe they would rather not carry them, then have their whole operation shut down and confiscated due to one frog


Again, certainly an assumption unless you actually work for those businesses and know their internal policies. Why can't we deal with known facts?


----------



## S2G

It's like you have amnesia. These questions have been answered numerous times. I don't understand the regurgitation with slightly different wording.


----------



## Ed

S2G said:


> It's like you have amnesia. These questions have been answered numerous times. I don't understand the regurgitation with slightly different wording.



For some strange reasons those arguing against the significant probability of the illegality of those frogs aren't doing the simple thing of asking USFW about them. They could oddly enough ask for a postional statement which is what I did in my first request I asked specifically


> The importer/seller specifically challenged me to ask you that specific question regarding those specific Adelphobates galactanotus so I am interested in a positional statement on the potential legality of those specific frogs.


Which is what generated the replies that I posted above... if you want to argue about legality then why don't they just ask USFW themselves? 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## hypostatic

mpedersen said:


> I get it...but the hypocricy of drawing *this* as the line while everyone has probably kept other frogs that fell into the same legal lines....?


As others have replied above, this argument just keeps going around in circles. The "blue galacs issue" is a crime that is happening *now*. Here the *line* is pretty clear -- there is no possible way to explain that these animals have entered the US legally.



mpedersen said:


> Why can't we deal with known facts?


I'm afraid it sounds like the only thing that would satisfy you would be if you yourself made the FOIA requests to the US FWS to find out the information you are looking for. Ed has gone through some lengths to get a lot of this information for us; but if the information he has provided on the thread don't satisfy your questions, then the only other alternative would be to get the information you seek directly from the primary source. 

Otherwise, google would be your next best bet for finding information that is is "known" and has been posted about already. Good luck.


----------



## Scarecrow

Although this is illegal and frowned upon by a majority of people here I cannot really imagine this is ever going to stop. It's a never ending circle which is just going to keep going.

I hate to be that guy but this kind of thing has been happening for a very long time. All frogs in this hobby originated from wild stock that was removed from nature (despite it being endangered or not). People were just less educated on the impacts of removing said animals from the wild back then while they were collecting specimens for zoological study or the pet trade.

The best way to reduce this kind of issue is to have better border control and much harsher punishments for those who try to smuggle animals illegally.

I'd also like to add that the animals that are already in the hobby cannot be removed and the people who also own these animals are not in the wrong. These "legal yet illegal" frogs are now part of isolated populations just like the rest of the frogs in the hobby. I feel that the more people who breed and pass them through the hobby the less people will try to catch and illegally import these creatures as there would probably be less demand? If something is common it becomes less valuable.


----------



## Scott

Or, to have more ethical hobbyists that refuse to buy, be involved with, illegal frogs.

No demand, no smuggling.

Yeah, it's a dream.

s



Scarecrow said:


> ... The best way to reduce this kind of issue is to have better border control and much harsher punishments for those who try to smuggle animals illegally.


----------



## Scarecrow

Scott said:


> Or, to have more ethical hobbyists that refuse to buy, be involved with, illegal frogs.
> 
> No demand, no smuggling.
> 
> Yeah, it's a dream.
> 
> s


Most of this website probably have the same mindset that you are dreaming of. They seem to care an awful lot about the ethical and moral standpoint of frog keeping. An example of how much they care is the majorities negative view on hybrid frogs. 

People will still buy these frogs however. So like I said before, the best way to stop this is better border control so animals are saved before they enter new countries and harsher punishments for the people who smuggle these beautiful creatures. It's sadly out of our hands.


----------



## MasterOogway

Scarecrow said:


> Most of this website probably have the same mindset that you are dreaming of. They seem to care an awful lot about the ethical and moral standpoint of frog keeping. An example of how much they care is the majorities negative view on hybrid frogs.
> 
> People will still buy these frogs however. So like I said before, the best way to stop this is better border control so animals are saved before they enter new countries and harsher punishments for the people who smuggle these beautiful creatures. It's sadly out of our hands.


It just isn't. There are always things we can do. Not buying or promoting smuggled frogs is one of the easiest and also most effective. Letting USFW know when smuggled animals are hitting the market is another very easy thing to do. So many options. If you feel strongly enough, having a job centered on conservation is of immense benefit as well. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Ravage

The CITES list does show 22 A. galactonotus exported LIVE from Brazil to Australia in 2014. This could be contemporary with this discovery of the Blue strain. A second search of exports From Australia to *Anywhere* of any Adelphobates from 2014 to present yields no results.
So, MAYBE there are some legally in AU, but not anywhere else (legally). They could be yellows or reds too. The sheet doesn't have enough info be certain.
Right now we are in a strange time, where competing "facts" war with each other and "fake" news is used as an expletive to discredit any information a person does not like. Psychological research shows that personal views are extremely hard to change when they are core beliefs of an individual. This holds true across age, education, and political affiliations. Facts alone are not enough to change minds, and in fact can have the opposite effect, in the early 21st century.
We're seeing that right here. The facts are quite plainly laid out in this thread. What is not fact, is in fact, opinion. 
Opinions, not being facts, can not be changed by facts. SAD, really.


----------



## Ed

Scarecrow said:


> I'd also like to add that the animals that are already in the hobby cannot be removed and the people who also own these animals are not in the wrong. These "legal yet illegal" frogs are now part of isolated populations just like the rest of the frogs in the hobby. I feel that the more people who breed and pass them through the hobby the less people will try to catch and illegally import these creatures as there would probably be less demand? If something is common it becomes less valuable.


I have to ask, how familiar are you with the Lacey Act and laundered animals? Your argument that the people who them aren't in the wrong (specifically the blue galactanotus) doesn't jive with the law nor how it has been enforced with respect to laundered/smuggled wildlife). According to USFW, since those frogs were never legally exported from Brazil, they cannot be legally imported regardless if they were allowed into the country. That does not mean that they are legal so yes, everyone who has those blue galactanotus is in violation of a federal law since it is pretty clearly apparent that the animals were laundered in violation of the CITES treaty (by admission of the importer as well). 

As a result, those that hold the frogs are in risk of all kinds of problems if they get caught and that any commercial transactions across state lines runs the risks of legal problems so those who were hoping to make their money back by selling offspring now have another problem... 

If you don't want to believe me, feel free to contact USFW law enforcement branch and ask them.... 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## thedude

mpedersen said:


> I've been mulling this all over as I continue to watch, and the level of condemnation over things like Galacts in general, and these in particular, has me at a loss. What a quagmire this hobby is in. Having become more familiar with some of the hobby's frogs, a few additional things have become rather apparent.
> 
> For example, I purchased imitator "Varadero" this fall. I love 'em. They're great. And then only last week, on one random website out of dozens, I come to find out that unless they trace back to one particular point of origin, the ancestors were "smuggled"?! So much for me trying to stay away from frogs of "illegal" origin or ancestry.
> 
> Oh, and then there's all the freely traded tincs that apparently are native to Brazil, no doubt they'd fall into the same realm as the overall "galacts". What the heck about the Green Sips I now own? Of course, I had to go to a foreign website and read about it translated in order to realize where they originate from...and plus I had to be involved with this whole thread. How many puzzle pieces can any casual hobbyist be expected to put together on their own??? Completely unrealistic.
> 
> This whole gray area thing...the hobby lost the moral highground a long time ago I'm afraid. Particularly when faced with the reality that it seems that "time" changes the viewpoint on any particular variety. Breed it enough, and distribute it widely enough, and apparently, it's no longer an issue. The quote from "Thedude" above as a quick example.
> 
> So pretty much you can all take this as my rescinding my public stance that I'll never own Orange Galatcs...what's the point (at this point)? It seems to me that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. I wonder if anyone can point to their collections and say they don't own something that, at some point going way back, has dubious origins. It seems a rather hopeless scenario at this point. Don't get me on what this revealed about the fish industry when I started chatting among friends, and how much THAT information truly made this all look like a big to-do about "nothing". Again, just gave me yet another frame of reference to compare this to.
> 
> If the Blue Galatcs were confiscated, great, but at this point, seeing the rather ubiquitous level of seemingly "gray area" frogs already present in the hobby, I really cannot blame anyone for TRYING to import Blue Galacts with a proper, bonafide CITES permit. I simply don't view such an effort as on par with effects to conceal what's being imported. It's the importer's risk to take. I lost hundreds in permit applications trying to import an Orchid species back in the day; my permits weren't approved (a he-said she-said between the US and Japan basically, both willing to approve if the other did first). I wasn't trying to smuggle anything, nor break any law. I was going down the legitimate pathways to attempt to bring a plant into cultivation in the US through a legal channel. My attempts failed, and my money was lost. But I was not some nefarious individual trying to game the system or break any law. Maybe you guys know the importer on a different level, but again, doing things "above board", "on the record", doesn't really strike me as ill-intentioned.
> 
> What if FWS approved Blue Galacts? Well, we'd have a _Paph. vietnamense_ situation. And while some may disagree, there is validity in providing a pathway to legal trade to squelch future illegal trade and poaching. Preaching to the choir with this link perhaps, but I thought it was an enjoyable read. - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvdgkq/how-to-take-down-exotic-frog-smugglers
> 
> Still nothing but a bunch of rumors here at the moment...



Boy I sure hope nobody else takes your stance. Seems like it's basically "this is hard so I'm not even gonna try..."

As for Varadero imitator, the vast majority of them in the hobby are from Understory Enterprises, and are legal. Very few others came from, or are descended from European imports. And it's usually not hard to find out info from sellers. If they can't tell you their frogs origins, probably best to avoid buying their frogs.

Anyway the point I was trying to make is that some smuggled origin frogs have been here for a couple decades, and it would be impossible to do much about them now. But we should absolutely try to PREVENT newly imported smuggled/illegal frogs. That is something the hobby can actually do. And the people in question that imported the blue galacts are not new to the hobby, and definitely cannot plead ignorant.


----------



## hypostatic

thedude said:


> PREVENT newly smuggled/illegal frogs.


Exactly. THIS is the "line in the sand" we are trying to draw. We can't undo the mistakes of the past, but we CAN prevent them for the future (or try, at least).


----------



## Ed

Got a hard copy of my response to my FOIA request in the mail today. 

There were three typewritten pages basically on why they are withholding the information, who was in the decision making process and how to appeal the decision if I so choose. 

The short summation from the letter is as follows since the information was compiled for law enforcement purpose and are therefor exempt 


> We are withholding all of the materials responsive to your request under 7(A), as we have determined that they are law enforcement records for a pending or prospective investigation and releasing them could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings because their premature release could prematurely reveal the full scope of evidence obtained; the assessment of the evidence strengths and weaknesses of the government evidence and case; and the progress, status, direction, and limits of the government's investigation.


Now this leads to some interesting speculation, since I asked about confiscated or abandoned animals (specifically the blue color form of galactanotus), if they didn't exist then there would be no need to state the above since no frogs = no enforcement records. It seems conclusive proof of a confiscation will have to wait until there is some of release of the information by USFW which if given their past history could take several years depending on various factors. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## JPccusa

Can Article 7, section 5 of this CITES document allow ANYONE in the US to handle blue A. galactonotus?



> _Article VII_​*Exemptions and Other Special Provisions Relating to Trade​*
> 1. The provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to the transit or transhipment of specimens through or in the territory of a Party while the specimens remain in Customs control.
> 
> 2. Where a Management Authority of the State of export or re-export is satisfied that a specimen was acquired before the provisions of the present Convention applied to that specimen, the provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to that specimen where the Management Authority issues a certificate to that effect.
> 
> 3. The provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to specimens that are personal or household effects. This exemption shall not apply where:
> 
> (a) in the case of specimens of a species included in Appendix I, they were acquired by the owner outside his State of usual residence, and are being imported into that State; or
> 
> (b) in the case of specimens of species included in Appendix II:
> 
> (i) they were acquired by the owner outside his State of usual residence and in a State where removal from the wild occurred;
> 
> (ii) they are being imported into the owner's State of usual residence; and
> 
> (iii) the State where removal from the wild occurred requires the prior grant of export permits before any export of such specimens; unless a Management Authority is satisfied that the specimens were acquired before the provisions of the present Convention applied to such specimens.​
> 4. Specimens of an animal species included in Appendix I bred in captivity for commercial purposes, or of a plant species included in Appendix I artificially propagated for commercial purposes, shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II.
> 
> 5. Where a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that any specimen of an animal species was bred in captivity or any specimen of a plant species was artificially propagated, or is a part of such an animal or plant or was derived therefrom, a certificate by that Management Authority to that effect shall be accepted in lieu of any of the permits or certificates required under the provisions of Article III, IV or V.
> 
> 6. The provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to the non-commercial loan, donation or exchange between scientists or scientific institutions registered by a Management Authority of their State, of herbarium specimens, other preserved, dried or embedded museum specimens, and live plant material which carry a label issued or approved by a Management Authority.
> 
> 7. A Management Authority of any State may waive the requirements of Articles III, IV and V and allow the movement without permits or certificates of specimens which form part of a travelling zoo, circus, menagerie, plant exhibition or other travelling exhibition provided that:
> 
> (a) the exporter or importer registers full details of such specimens with that Management Authority;
> 
> (b) the specimens are in either of the categories specified in paragraph 2 or 5 of this Article; and
> 
> (c) the Management Authority is satisfied that any living specimen will be so transported and cared for as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.​


https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#VII

Asking for a friend.


----------



## Ibn

5. Where a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that any specimen of an animal species was bred in captivity or any specimen of a plant species was artificially propagated, or is a part of such an animal or plant or was derived therefrom, a certificate by that Management Authority to that effect shall be accepted in lieu of any of the permits or certificates required under the provisions of Article III, IV or V.

If I'm not mistaken, the management authority of the state of export is Brazil correct? Isn't it already stated that it's illegal to export or even keep them there?


----------



## Ed

The problem that the person trying to take that route runs into is that the original animals had to be legally acquired which means that they had to have been legally exported from Brazil to the EU.... 

There is no record of an export from Brazil nor an import of live animals to the Netherlands and the importer admitted that they were offspring of smuggled animals that were confiscated in his original posting which was subsequently sanitized. 

This is pretty clear in CITES since for them to be exported from Brazil and then imported into the Netherlands Article IV of CITES requires 


> 2. *The export of any specimen of a species included in Appendix II shall require the prior grant and presentation of an export permit. An export permit shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:*
> 
> (a) a Scientific Authority of the State of export has advised that such export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species;
> *(b) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in contravention of the laws of that State for the protection of fauna and flora; and*
> (c) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.


And


> 4. The import of any specimen of a species included in Appendix II shall require the prior presentation of either an export permit or a re-export certificate.


Under Article VI


> (iii) *the State where removal from the wild occurred requires the prior grant of export permits before any export of such specimens;* unless a Management Authority is satisfied that the specimens were acquired before the provisions of the present Convention applied to such specimens.


All of these criteria had to be met before that claim on captive breeding making it okay would be able to be applied. CITES itself notes that various countries do not adhere to the requirements regarding confiscated species and that it does not make those animals legal. To which I should again note that when I* asked USFW specifically for a positional statement on the frogs descended from confiscated animals being legal under CITES and the US laws this was the response I received.* 



> Dear Edward,
> 
> Thank you for your follow-up inquiry.
> 
> _*If a given zoo receives illegally imported and/or confiscated CITES-listed specimens, then offspring from those specimens would not be legal to distribute within that country and could not be legally exported to other countries*_.
> 
> Thank you for your interest in our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter.


some comments 

Ed


----------



## carola1155

This seems to be a common theme... "lets find a singular excerpt and try to interpret it in a manner that suits my needs".

I don't know if the rest of the context is being intentionally ignored or if it is just naivety, but it doesn't give me much confidence in the level of due-diligence applied by the importers. At this point, I would advise anyone doing business with them to thoroughly (and independently) investigate things before purchasing.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in: The assertion that they are "legal" because they have CITES paperwork completely ignores the entire concept of "laundering" that has been done for soooo many years now. This is literally a textbook example of it. Sure, it was the source of many morphs that are in the hobby now... but that doesn't mean we should just keep doing it!

The part that is most confusing to me is the presumed assertion that CITES paperwork overrides the Lacey Act. The only mention of CITES in the entire Lacey Act is in relation to plants... and it definitely does not say anything along the lines "CITES rules supersede our own", because why would it? 

My biggest question is...*Why would these people want a foreign treaty to outweigh a domestic law?*

In reality, we simply defer to the convention for guidelines. The issue at stake here however is clearly defined in the Lacey Act:


> it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants *taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.*"


Keeping in mind that "Wildlife" is defined in this manner:


> The term "fish or wildlife" means any wild animal, whether alive or dead, including without limitation any
> wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other
> invertebrate, whether or not bred, hatched, or born in captivity, _*and includes any part, product, egg, or
> offspring thereof.*_


(emphasis mine)

https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/lacey-act.html


So to be clear- Yes, CITES was violated when the frogs were brought into the Netherlands from Brazil and that is a problem because CITES is generally used for guidelines on our own enforcement, which is probably why paperwork was originally (mistakenly) accepted... However, even if it wasn't a CITES violation- the whole situation is still a violation of the Lacey Act, which is more important because its our actual US Law.


----------



## DragonSpirit1185

From what I understand the individual is claiming that since they (Europe authorities) determined that the blue galactanotus that were smuggled into Europe are now legal that it's okay for people in Europe to export them to other countries.
The individual thinks that because those frogs have been deemed legal that it's okay for them to be exported. 
I think export of these frogs should be banned because of the way they were acquired.
If the export is allowed they could easily smuggle in other frogs claiming they are from their own captive breeding collection that was determined to be legal.

Sent from my Samsung GALAXY Note4 using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonSpirit1185

Any updates on this matter? Do you think they will release the results of the investigation once it's wrapped up?


----------



## MrBiggs

Wow. This thread is quite the quagmire. Even as a brutally fast reader, this took me a long time to pore over, not to mention the many, many linked articles and research papers. I won't claim to have read all of the links, but I tried to read through as many of the relevant ones as possible.

After all of that, I've come to a few conclusions. You can take them or leave them.

1) All galacts are illegal here in the US. Blue, orange, red... whatever. All illegal. I won't own any of them. 

2) A lot of posts try to draw a line in the sand over the blues, as if they are somehow worse than the reds or the oranges. All of those posts rest on the idea that, with the blues, there's something that we can do RIGHT NOW! However, while admirable, it's simultaneously illogical. Red and orange galacts are readily available RIGHT NOW, too. If the hobby is serious about the issue of smuggled/illegal frogs (and it should be), we should be taking a stand every. single. time. Not just when the next new thing comes up.

Ed made several quality posts early on in this thread that showed that increased captive breeding does not decrease demand for WC animals. Research articles were linked, and I found them very compelling. The counter point was that those research articles seem to violate basic laws of supply and demand. I propose that all galacts, re-read that, ALL galacts, be immediately put down. As has been discussed thoroughly, there exists no practical way to accommodate the return of all of those animals to Brazil. There aren't zoos that are going to take them. The only way to stop breaking the law is to immediately cease ownership of said animals. The only way to do that is to kill them.

Fortunately, as the research clearly shows, eliminating all of these animals will not increase the demand for WC animals.

Unfortunately, this is also going to need to happen to a lot of other illegal species and lines. Non-tesoros Terribilis spring to mind.

3) There really, really, REALLY, needs to be a sticky list of illegal species in either the beginner forum or this one.

Separately, although I was tempted to quote quite a few different posts, I'll just stick with this one:



S2G said:


> Do you really think "your honor I didn't know" will work? Oh they're illegal my bad haha.


I don't know, it may. It would depend upon the mens rea. Could we cite the specific law(s)? What do they say?


----------



## MrBiggs

Also wow, timing. This popped up on my Facebook directly after I posted.


----------



## Ravage

MrBiggs said:


> Also wow, timing. This popped up on my Facebook directly after I posted.


OUCH!
Let's add: "Aids in the marketing of contraband" to the Facebook list. Very succinct summation of an epic thread MrBiggs. I agree I will never own a Galact. I have also decided to buy from direct legal lines, like Understory, as I move ahead. I second a sticky post on the beginners forum on legality issues, it would serve a great service to those just starting out in the hobby. It can also help explain why so many are concerned with lineage purity- we're not just elitists.
Remember: these frogs thrive in tropical leaf litter, not in a quagmire.


----------



## oldlady25715

MrBiggs said:


> I propose that all galacts, re-read that, ALL galacts, be immediately put down. As has been discussed thoroughly, there exists no practical way to accommodate the return of all of those animals to Brazil. There aren't zoos that are going to take them. The only way to stop breaking the law is to immediately cease ownership of said animals.


That’s rediculous!


----------



## S2G

This is not meant to throw anyone under the bus, but maybe a discussion on legality of tumucumaque tincs in Europe. Discussion starts after the pic from #14

https://www.dendroboard.com/forum/plants/348354-mosses.html#post3045368


----------



## cam1941

The thing everyone really needs to remember is that all of these animals are amazing. 



When D. tinctorius "azureus" were first seen by hobbyists they were the most amazing rare beauties anyone has ever seen. Now that they are so common people are FORGETTING how amazing they truly still are. 



Those tumucumaque tincs are truly beautiful but they are only slightly different than azureus. Once they are commonly bred everyone will tire of them too.


People need to stop being spoiled brats chasing every new and RARE (four letter word) animal. You are only destroying the natural world so you can be amused for a short time. Be happy with what you have before its gone.


----------



## S2G

cam1941 said:


> The thing people really need to remember is that all of these animals are amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> When D. tinctorius "azureus" were first seen by hobbyists they were the most amazing rare beauties anyone has ever seen. Now that they are so common people are FORGETTING how amazing they truly still are.
> 
> 
> 
> Those tumucumaque tincs are truly beautiful but they are only slightly different than azureus. Once they are commonly bred everyone will tire of them too.
> 
> 
> People need to stop being spoiled brats chasing every new and RARE (four letter word) animal. You are only destroying the natural world so you can be amused for a short time. Be happy with what you have before its gone.
> 
> 
> Rant over...


I wasn't trying to run someone down. His country states they're legal so I was hoping to have a constructive convo on the subject (not like I run the thread or anything though).

I do admire the passion.

Shoot if everything but one tank had to go my azureus would stay....that includes fish


----------



## JimO

A very prominent online retailer was featuring blue galacts as "coming soon" a couple of weeks ago. They have since removed it from the site.


----------



## cam1941

I know it may seem that I was judging one person specifically but it really isn't my intention. 



My intention is to remind us ALL (as a hobby) that we are all guilty of this to some extent; even with animals that are legal worldwide. Its a mentality that can quickly spin out of control. 



I hope everyone hears this message...


Edit: It starts with the concept that "Luecs are BEGINNER frogs"










S2G said:


> I wasn't trying to run someone down. His country states they're legal so I was hoping to have a constructive convo on the subject (not like I run the thread or anything though).
> 
> I do admire the passion.
> 
> Shoot if everything but one tank had to go my azureus would stay....that includes fish


----------



## joe23reptiles

iirc azureus have a weird background aswell. but noone remembers that cuz were so used to them. here in germany they arent rare. they arent expensive. just the breeder where i got mine from has produced over 100 of them this year (i know that because i got animal 105,106 and 107). they arent expensive either. azureus are around 30 bucks here and i paid 180 for the trio. so its not about needing to have the newset and the rare. there are quite a few other frogs in germany and the netherlands which would qualify as that and fetch absurd prices but tumucumaques arent one of them.

but im not here to argue. i know its a sensetive topic in the us but if ud go to hamm or search german reptile/amphibian sales websites or visit german online stores or fb groups ud see that these are really common over here and are traded officially.

just look at bens jungle (the biggest dendro shop in germany - compareable to joshs frogs in the us). he has them listed on his website. im sure he wouldnt risk his business stupidly like this if hed think theyre illegal to sell in germany).


as far as ripping them out of nature goes- from my research there was one shipment of 26 animals in 2009 which entered the netherlands. from there they were distributed in other european countries and since 2012 these were for sale. im not aware of any other shipment and with them being normal tincs i doubt it would be financially worth the risk to smuggle them these days with thousands of babies being produced in germany alone each year.

the same goes for most other technically illegal frogs like blue galacs, moonlight galacs, mystics etc



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Socratic Monologue

MrBiggs said:


> 3) There really, really, REALLY, needs to be a sticky list of illegal species in either the beginner forum or this one.


I haven't read the entire current thread, so I'm not sure if this reference came up yet; I presume it hasn't. Here's a ~15 year old list and some mostly not-very-documented comments about it:

https://www.dendroboard.com/forum/g...-list-legal-status-dart-frogs-species-us.html

Is someone who is qualified to do so willing to update this list? I realize that is a big request, but maybe there's a simple way to do so that I can't even imagine. Perhaps a short list of species with no known legal imports, and another list of species that have only one or two known legal imports that are not widespread (e.g. _R. vanzolinii_)?


----------



## joe23reptiles

Socratic Monologue said:


> I haven't read the entire current thread, so I'm not sure if this reference came up yet; I presume it hasn't. Here's a ~15 year old list and some mostly not-very-documented comments about it:
> 
> https://www.dendroboard.com/forum/g...-list-legal-status-dart-frogs-species-us.html
> 
> Is someone who is qualified to do so willing to update this list? I realize that is a big request, but maybe there's a simple way to do so that I can't even imagine. Perhaps a short list of species with no known legal imports, and another list of species that have only one or two known legal imports that are not widespread (e.g. _R. vanzolinii_)?


i find it quite funny that everyone considers azureus legal. probably because theyve been in the hobby forever and are so common that no one remembers but according to the biologist who discovered and described them first their origin is also not legal.

the same is true for probably hundrets of different species. people even in the us own red and orange galacs and its ok- but the blues are a problem.

idk- i honestly find it quite hypocritical tbh.











oh- this was written in 2010

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> i find it quite funny that everyone considers azureus legal. probably because theyve been in the hobby forever and are so common that no one remembers but according to the biologist who discovered and described them first their origin is also not legal.
> 
> the same is true for probably hundrets of different species. people even in the us own red and orange galacs and its ok- but the blues are a problem.
> 
> idk- i honestly find it quite hypocritical tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh- this was written in 2010
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


Your getting a little cocky. Try reading through the thread first specifically ed's info from the source itself.

Azureus is a bad example in this regard. Most azureus are NAIB. Mine are watley x nabors.Now non tesoro terribs, galacts, etc have a shady past.

Galacts are illegal period for the same reason your tincs are.

It's really hard for people to grasp that no matter what paperwork you have unless they were legally imported (which requires the country of origin to have export papers) then they're illegal period. Your country turns a blind eye to it but make no mistake about it you bought illegal animals....after being told about their legality no less. If their not legal on the front end they can't be legal on the back end. It's really that simple


----------



## carola1155

I think people are also forgetting that different countries have different laws and they enforce their laws differently. What may be considered legal or at least not enforced in one country, can be very much illegal/enforced in another.

In the US, the Lacey Act is clearly written (and as far as I understand- the case law backs it up) that all offspring of originally illegal animals are considered illegal as well. That is what generally differentiates the US from elsewhere. No matter what other countries say about them, they are still considered illegal here.

Also, Azureus=/=Tumucumaque. In the US- there have been legal transfers of frogs to hobbyists from legal importations. Sure- there have possibly been other illegal imports that have been mixed in (just like probably literally any other animal/plant/insect/etc). This without a doubt muddies the water a bit, but you can't draw the line and say "no, these are all illegal" like you can with 'tumucumaque'.


----------



## joe23reptiles

has nothing to do with being cocky. ive read most of this thread and took my conclusions from it.

i just feel its a bit hypocritical to paint people who own blue galacts or tumucumaques as shady people with low morals while probably most of them have once smuggled dendros sitting in gals tanks next to them.

u are one of the few who was really respectful about it but geez- how some people talk in this thread is just astonishing.


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> has nothing to do with being cocky. ive read most of this thread and took my conclusions from it.
> 
> i just feel its a bit hypocritical to paint people who own blue galacts or tumucumaques as shady people with low morals while probably most of them have once smuggled dendros sitting in gals tanks next to them.
> 
> u are one of the few who was really respectful about it but geez- how some people talk in this thread is just astonishing.


Your conclusion is that it's okay to own the offspring of smuggled frogs.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## carola1155

joe23reptiles said:


> the same is true for probably hundrets of different species. people even in the us own red and orange galacs and its ok- but the blues are a problem.
> 
> idk- i honestly find it quite hypocritical tbh.


Yes- it is hypocritical... but the problem is that we can't take back what has been done. Does that mean we should just continue to let it happen? No, we shouldn't. So, people are trying to start drawing a line somewhere. 

Morphs that have been in the hobby since the 90s? There's not much you can do about them. Morphs that were only just discovered and have been clearly smuggled? Yes- we should raise a stink about it and hope to deter people from doing it again. 

I've posted this before but I'll post it again. This is from my conversation with Marinus Hoogmoed about these frogs (with his permission to post):


> I only can confirm that what is stated in document E-AC28-Inf-341 is still valid. Breeding stock of Adelphobates galactonotus never has been exported legally from Brazil. The only legal exports of this species from Brazil concern a few preserved museum specimens.
> 
> As to the export of 50 blue A. galactonotus from the Nertherlands being "legal" because of the documentation, is a misunderstanding. Breeding stock of blue A. galactonotus was illegally exported from Brazil in early 2013 (I informed Brazilian authorities of this, but they were not able to solve the case, although they apparently made some inquiries), just after publicatin of an article by me and TCS Avila-Pires reporting on this blue morph. The specimens now announced on Facebook may indeed have been bred in the Netherlands (descendants of the 2013 illegally exported specimens), but because the original breeding stock of these blue specimens (and the stock for all other A. galactonotus) has been exported illegally from Brazil, the specimens now being discussed/offered for sale in the USA according to CITES rules are illegal. I know that the Dutch Cites authorities have decided (years ago) to consider all specimens bred in captivity (numerous specimens, which were very difficult (costly) to confiscate and take care of, thus just avoiding problems ) as "legal" (being fully aware of the real situation), thus violating CITES rules. The same is true for Germany. Thy accepted a "fait accompli", and the CITES Secretariat let it be.


The document he referred to can be found here: http://www.amphibians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E-AC28-Inf-341.pdf


----------



## joe23reptiles

MrBiggs said:


> Your conclusion is that it's okay to own the offspring of smuggled frogs.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


i personally feel that once uve established a good captive breeding pool and that everything is monitored by authorities, that it is ok to own and breed once smuggled animals. yes. iirc this was how the americans got tens of thousands of frogs in from europe before the lacey act. it had to be 3 generations away from wildcaught specimens. once this was proven it was ok to import them. at least thats what bernd pieper (a german dartfrog pioneer who bred them for more than 40 years) told me. btw- it still happens in the us. research the story of the leucistic hognose snakes. they were confiscated from one breeder, got into a zoo. the zoo auctioned them of and shortly after u could buy lucy hogs for 7500 bucks and now theyre all over the world. 

we might come from different mindsets here and thats ok. but to paint people in a shady light while probably having different shady animals right next to you got a bit on my nerves


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> i personally feel that once uve established a good captive breeding pool and that everything is monitored by authorities, that it is ok to own and breed once smuggled animals. yes. iirc this was how the americans got tens of thousands of frogs in from europe before the lacey act. it had to be 3 generations away from wildcaught specimens. once this was proven it was ok to import them. at least thats what bernd pieper (a german dartfrog pioneer who bred them for more than 40 years) told me. btw- it still happens in the us. research the story of the leucistic hognose snakes. they were confiscated from one breeder, got into a zoo. the zoo auctioned them of and shortly after u could buy lucy hogs for 7500 bucks and now theyre all over the world.
> 
> we might come from different mindsets here and thats ok. but to paint people in a shady light while probably having different shady animals right next to you got a bit on my nerves


As long as you admit to being totally okay with smuggling, that's fine, at least you're honest about it.

Because that's what your position really is. It's approval of smuggling. You would likely disagree, but that's illogical. You've benefitted directly from smuggling, and the policy you are advocating incentivizes smuggling. After all, as long as you can get away with the initial smuggling, in a couple of years you are 'legal' and scot free.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## joe23reptiles

honest question- hopefully honest answers. if the us would have the laws the netherlands and germany have- and u go to a Show and see hundrets of blue galacts, mystics, tumucus, koi's etc there- ud not buy them?

i dont know how many blue galacts were first caught but from my reasearch i was able to find out that under 30 tumucumaque were imported. i think the exact number was 24 (some say 12) were exported.

so 24/12 frogs were stolen. they were the building block of what u see today. 

how big of an impact does this have on the population?

i mean u talk like they were destroying everything over there just for us to be able to look at nice frogs.

i personally see tincs espacially as huge success in the herpetological hobby. theyre so easy to breed that theyre super cheap. since theyre super cheap ongoing smuggling of the same color doesnt happen all to often cuz it isnt financially attractive.


----------



## carola1155

MrBiggs said:


> As long as you admit to being totally okay with smuggling, that's fine, at least you're honest about it.
> 
> Because that's what your position really is. It's approval of smuggling. You would likely disagree, but that's illogical. You've benefitted directly from smuggling, and the policy you are advocating incentivizes smuggling. After all, as long as you can get away with the initial smuggling, in a couple of years you are 'legal' and scot free.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


A lot of the hobby has benefited from this. However, we have reached a point where we need to stop. It's a sticky situation- but we also have to try to be _pragmatic_ about it. We can't just expect people to go and cull their animals and extirpate them from the hobby. That won't work. That is why we are trying to find a spot to draw the line.

People may disagree with where the line is being drawn, and that's fine- but until someone proposes a better and more pragmatic solution that doesn't involve continuing to incentivize smuggling, this is where we are.


----------



## carola1155

joe23reptiles said:


> honest question- hopefully honest answers. if the us would have the laws the netherlands and germany have- and u go to a Show and see hundrets of blue galacts, mystics, tumucus, koi's etc there- ud not buy them?
> 
> i dont know how many blue galacts were first caught but from my reasearch i was able to find out that under 30 tumucumaque were imported. i think the exact number was 24 (some say 12) were exported.
> 
> so 24/12 frogs were stolen. they were the building block of what u see today.
> 
> how big of an impact does this have on the population?
> 
> i mean u talk like they were destroying everything over there just for us to be able to look at nice frogs.
> 
> i personally see tincs espacially as huge success in the herpetological hobby. theyre so easy to breed that theyre super cheap. since theyre super cheap ongoing smuggling of the same color doesnt happen all to often cuz it isnt financially attractive.


There were WC tumucumaque's being offered in the US quite regularly through shady dealers not too long ago. It's a much bigger impact than those 24/12.

In the case of the blue galactonotus, the local population was actually stressed quite a bit and there were initial concerns that it would collapse. Fortunately, this has turned out to not be the case.


----------



## S2G

carola1155 said:


> Yes- it is hypocritical... but the problem is that we can't take back what has been done. Does that mean we should just continue to let it happen? No, we shouldn't. So, people are trying to start drawing a line somewhere.
> 
> Morphs that have been in the hobby since the 90s? There's not much you can do about them. Morphs that were only just discovered and have been clearly smuggled? Yes- we should raise a stink about it and hope to deter people from doing it again.
> 
> I've posted this before but I'll post it again. This is from my conversation with Marinus Hoogmoed about these frogs (with his permission to post):
> 
> 
> The document he referred to can be found here: http://www.amphibians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E-AC28-Inf-341.pdf


Thats what I was looking for. I must of overlooked it. Well that settles that.


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> honest question- hopefully honest answers. if the us would have the laws the netherlands and germany have- and u go to a Show and see hundrets of blue galacts, mystics, tumucus, koi's etc there- ud not buy them?
> 
> i dont know how many blue galacts were first caught but from my reasearch i was able to find out that under 30 tumucumaque were imported. i think the exact number was 24 (some say 12) were exported.
> 
> so 24/12 frogs were stolen. they were the building block of what u see today.
> 
> how big of an impact does this have on the population?
> 
> i mean u talk like they were destroying everything over there just for us to be able to look at nice frogs.
> 
> i personally see tincs espacially as huge success in the herpetological hobby. theyre so easy to breed that theyre super cheap. since theyre super cheap ongoing smuggling of the same color doesnt happen all to often cuz it isnt financially attractive.



Well i don't really know the true impact environmentally, but I know how they got here. Smuggling of animals is a very gritty dirty business just like most smuggling operations.

Right now they're so new it doesnt sit right with me. I sold a car a month ago the guy overpaid me by $100. I debated keeping it, but instead called him to come get his $100. I wanted that $100 but I didn't want to get it like that. These new smuggled frogs fall in that realm with me.

I see your point. Now if yrs passed and they got to point of where the Terribs I currently own are I might contemplate it (hypocrite). However, as it stands right now I feel these are a gateway to more smuggled frogs if they just get swept under the rug. Which I also feel hurts the hobby as a whole. 

Now to each their own, but this is morally where I stand on it. I can't do anything about past wrongs, but we can try to stop future ones.


----------



## joe23reptiles

i get that. i also think it has lots to do with the way u get frogs. if uve to pay absurd prices to some fishy underground dealer and need to be totally quite u own these frogs cuz otherwise ur house would get raided and ud have to fear severe punishment its something totally different than when u go to joshs frogs and buy animals with papers and can post them on fb etc


in the end no one will stop this. it will always happen.

its just the question how u handle the situation. do u do it like the us with the lacey act which fuels the business of smugglers and makes shady people rich or do u turn a blind eye in the first place but then monitor the breedings and the trade like europe does.


its the same with weed. u can be against it. u could go to jail for it- but people still smoke it. or u could legalise it and monitor it.

u dont want to know how many messages i got about these and if i could do / know of shipments to the us.


----------



## Dane

joe23reptiles said:


> honest question- hopefully honest answers. if the us would have the laws the netherlands and germany have- and u go to a Show and see hundrets of blue galacts, mystics, tumucus, koi's etc there- ud not buy them?


Honest answer: No, I wouldn't buy them. I would boycott the individual(s) selling them, as I have with several US "breeders", and I would discourage anyone from purchasing them. I would think that this thread makes it very clear what a strong stance many of us here in the states take regrding that kind of behavior.


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> honest question- hopefully honest answers. if the us would have the laws the netherlands and germany have- and u go to a Show and see hundrets of blue galacts, mystics, tumucus, koi's etc there- ud not buy them?


Absolutely not. I also refuse to own galacts of all colors. And when I found out about the history of Terribs, I got rid of those until there were legal options.

I'm anti smuggling. 



joe23reptiles said:


> i mean u talk like they were destroying everything over there just for us to be able to look at nice frogs.


Not destroying everything, just actively encouraging smuggling.



joe23reptiles said:


> i personally see tincs espacially as huge success in the herpetological hobby. theyre so easy to breed that theyre super cheap. since theyre super cheap ongoing smuggling of the same color doesnt happen all to often cuz it isnt financially attractive.


You don't have evidence to support that claim.


Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## joe23reptiles

MrBiggs said:


> You don't have evidence to support that claim.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


maybe not scientific evidence but i work at one of germanies biggest reptile importeurs. i can assure u that there in no commercial level import of wildcaught dartfrogs. id know that. there arent too many competitors in germany and we know most of them. 

im not saying theres no traffic at all. of course there is. but if ud see the numbers of ballpythons/ boas/ turtles etc compared to dart frogs ud understand what i mean.


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> maybe not scientific evidence but i work at one of germanies biggest reptile importeurs. i can assure u that there in no commercial level import of wildcaught dartfrogs. id know that. there arent too many competitors in germany and we know most of them.
> 
> im not saying theres no traffic at all. of course there is. but if ud see the numbers of ballpythons/ boas/ turtles etc compared to dart frogs ud understand what i mean.


I think that's a hopelessly naive position. Just because you work with an importer doesn't mean you know the extent of the black market.

Supporting smugglers isn't okay.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> maybe not scientific evidence but i work at one of germanies biggest reptile importeurs. i can assure u that there in no commercial level import of wildcaught dartfrogs. id know that. there arent too many competitors in germany and we know most of them.
> 
> im not saying theres no traffic at all. of course there is. but if ud see the numbers of ballpythons/ boas/ turtles etc compared to dart frogs ud understand what i mean.


Wrong is wrong though right? If I go to your house slap you once. Then go to your neighbors slap them 5 times. Does that make it make me slapping you less wrong in comparison?


----------



## MrBiggs

S2G said:


> Wrong is wrong though right? If I go to your house slap you once. Then go to your neighbors slap them 5 times. Does that make it make me slapping you less wrong in comparison?


Sounds perfectly reasonable if you're looking for a justification for slapping.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## joe23reptiles

MrBiggs said:


> I think that's a hopelessly naive position. Just because you work with an importer doesn't mean you know the extent of the black market.
> 
> Supporting smugglers isn't okay.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


why would u risk smuggling animals which u can buy legaly for 20 bucks?

i could understand when u smuggle stuff thats worth something.

like bringing in tumucumaque or kois into the us. that would make u money.

but smuggling azureus into germany? no. i dont see that happening. call me naive but it wouldnt make sense.

and my argument was about common morphs being smuggled into germany. not about uncommon new ones where the money is at


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> i get that. i also think it has lots to do with the way u get frogs. if uve to pay absurd prices to some fishy underground dealer and need to be totally quite u own these frogs cuz otherwise ur house would get raided and ud have to fear severe punishment its something totally different than when u go to joshs frogs and buy animals with papers and can post them on fb etc
> 
> 
> in the end no one will stop this. it will always happen.
> 
> its just the question how u handle the situation. do u do it like the us with the lacey act which fuels the business of smugglers and makes shady people rich or do u turn a blind eye in the first place but then monitor the breedings and the trade like europe does.
> 
> 
> its the same with weed. u can be against it. u could go to jail for it- but people still smoke it. or u could legalise it and monitor it.
> 
> u dont want to know how many messages i got about these and if i could do / know of shipments to the us.


Illegal is illegal. That's what's wrong with the world now. If everyone enforced their laws instead of turning a blind eye we would all be in better shape.

My job for instance. If I see a problem I take measures to stop it and prevent it from happening again. It would be asinine to just bandaid and monitor a problem. 

If you have illegal items that's the way it should be. Hid in your house and a soul can't find out for risk of legal problems. 

Anyone caught selling tumu's should be hit with a heavy fine and anyone caught smuggling should be imprisoned imo. There's negative consequences for negative actions. That goes for galacts as well red, yellow, blue, etc.


----------



## joe23reptiles

S2G said:


> Illegal is illegal. That's what's wrong with the world now. If everyone enforced their laws instead of turning a blind eye we would all be in better shape.
> 
> My job for instance. If I see a problem I take measures to stop it and prevent it from happening again. It would be asinine to just bandaid and monitor a problem.
> 
> If you have illegal items that's the way it should be. Hid in your house and a soul can't find out for risk of legal problems.
> 
> Anyone caught selling tumu's should be hit with a heavy fine and anyone caught smuggling should be imprisoned imo. There's negative consequences for negative actions. That goes for galacts as well red, yellow, blue, etc.


admirable position but sadly far from reality.

u cant change it. no way. so uve options to deal with it.

either go strictly by the book and try to catch everyone which in turn creates a lucrative black market with lots of cash in it

or u first turn a blind eye and then monitor the open market with legalised offspring generations.


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> admirable position but sadly far from reality.
> 
> u cant change it. no way. so uve options to deal with it.
> 
> either go strictly by the book and try to catch everyone which in turn creates a lucrative black market with lots of cash in it
> 
> or u first turn a blind eye and then monitor the open market with legalised offspring generations.


Far less people dabbling in the black market than walking around a rep show then parading their animals around online etc. Black market involves far more risk.

You can change about anything with enough effort. Bad habits are almost impossible to change overnight but you take small steps everyday eventually you'll get out of the habit. 

If I hit you with a $50-$100 fine per frog next time you went to the show would you buy them or risk the next step up in penalties?


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> why would u risk smuggling animals which u can buy legaly for 20 bucks?
> 
> i could understand when u smuggle stuff thats worth something.
> 
> like bringing in tumucumaque or kois into the us. that would make u money.
> 
> but smuggling azureus into germany? no. i dont see that happening. call me naive but it wouldnt make sense.
> 
> and my argument was about common morphs being smuggled into germany. not about uncommon new ones where the money is at


Because WC is more valuable to many than F12. How naive are you?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> admirable position but sadly far from reality.
> 
> u cant change it. no way. so uve options to deal with it.


Definitely difficult to change with so many people who support smuggling. 



Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## joe23reptiles

MrBiggs said:


> Because WC is more valuable to many than F12. How naive are you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


to many? are u sure? this might be the case for a certain percentage of hardcore hobbyists.

but not for the masses. the large masses doesnt care where they frogs come from. the vast majority doesnt even do research where their new frogs came from. how long theyre in captivity.

the vast majority walks into a petco or reptile Show and buy the animals for the cheapest price they can find


----------



## joe23reptiles

S2G said:


> Far less people dabbling in the black market than walking around a rep show then parading their animals around online etc. Black market involves far more risk.
> 
> You can change about anything with enough effort. Bad habits are almost impossible to change overnight but you take small steps everyday eventually you'll get out of the habit.
> 
> If I hit you with a $50-$100 fine per frog next time you went to the show would you buy them or risk the next step up in penalties?


if i really wanted it, id then probably not going to a show where i could get the penalty but rather meet in private and keep a close circle who know i own them.

it is what it is. itll never change. prohibition showed it. weed showed it, guns show it.


i personally prefer the way germany is handling the situation (not because im a german myself - trust me- ive enough issues with this goverment), but because i think its a more realistic way to handle the situation.

ur country does it by the book. but does this stop the illegal traffic? no. it makes shady people a lot of money and therefore probably has a bigger impact on nature because smuggler get a lucrative field to work in. 


if u get 500 or more per frog its worth the risk. if u get 10 per frog probably not really


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> if i really wanted it, id then probably not going to a show where i could get the penalty but rather meet in private and keep a close circle who know i own them.
> 
> it is what it is. itll never change. prohibition showed it. weed showed it, guns show it.
> 
> 
> i personally prefer the way germany is handling the situation (not because im a german myself - trust me- ive enough issues with this goverment), but because i think its a more realistic way to handle the situation.
> 
> ur country does it by the book. but does this stop the illegal traffic? no. it makes shady people a lot of money and therefore probably has a bigger impact on nature because smuggler get a lucrative field to work in.
> 
> 
> if u get 500 or more per frog its worth the risk. if u get 10 per frog probably not really



Everyone will have differ views on how to handle thing .....But do you really think those first 12 or whatever smuggled in someone's under pants went for $10? They paid big money for them and people like you gave them a return on investment + profit. That's what I think your missing. You still have the illegal trade but now your creating a demand. Why do you think we have so many with a shady past to begin with?

If I was selling a good and I paid off my initial investment relatively quick then started banking profit guess what? I going to ask for the next latest commodity to make money. 

You can own them in your country so that's your perogative. That doesn't make it ethical though.


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> to many? are u sure? this might be the case for a certain percentage of hardcore hobbyists.
> 
> but not for the masses. the large masses doesnt care where they frogs come from. the vast majority doesnt even do research where their new frogs came from. how long theyre in captivity.
> 
> the vast majority walks into a petco or reptile Show and buy the animals for the cheapest price they can find


Those smuggling wild caughts etc aren't going to the masses there going to serious hobbyist willing to pay the $$ for them.

What's easier to hide a tumu tinc or a wc azureus/auratus/ fill in the blank?


----------



## joe23reptiles

S2G said:


> Everyone will have differ views on how to handle thing .....But do you really think those first 12 or whatever smuggled in someone's under pants went for $10? They paid big money for them and people like you gave them a return on investment + profit. That's what I think your missing. You still have the illegal trade but now your creating a demand. Why do you think we have so many with a shady past to begin with?
> 
> If I was selling a good and I paid off my initial investment relatively quick then started banking profit guess what? I going to ask for the next latest commodity to make money.
> 
> You can own them in your country so that's your perogative. That doesn't make it ethical though.


true. im not missing that though. thats clear. back then the tumucumaque (from what i heard) went for 500 to 750 each. i know that. and i know they were smuggled and because they look awesome and many people want them the price was high.


but this is always going to happen. so whats better? breed them, make offspring official, create breeding books governed by authorities, produce so many that the demand gets met and the price comes to a normal level

or

keep them hidden, never produce many cuz only a small circle can know u have them with shady smugglers in the background who bring in wc after wc to fill the demand while making good money



im not argueing the fact that smuggling (espacilly continued smuggling) is bad and that the wrong people benifit from it. im arguing that its NEVER going to stop. as long as there is easy money to be made, there will be smuggling.

its the 3rd biggest black market in the world after drugs and weapons. billions get illegally made and its not going to stop.

i personally think that going back to the old rule that if proven theyre 3rd generation captive ure allowed to export them is more benificial to the enviroment than todays laws. just my gut felling tho


----------



## Encyclia

What worries me about this line of reasoning is that you are actually encouraging smuggling with this rule. Yes, in the long run, you MIGHT be taking the pressure off of the already-smuggled species/morphs (there is no guarantee of this), but you are encouraging folks to move to other species/morphs to cash in on the $500-$750 part of the market yet again. Also, as I think carola pointed out, the removal of blue galacs from the wild had a serious impact on their population that could have caused their eventual extinction. Some of the populations of these frogs can't afford to lose even a relatively small number of individuals without becoming unstable. 

Mark



joe23reptiles said:


> true. im not missing that though. thats clear. back then the tumucumaque (from what i heard) went for 500 to 750 each. i know that. and i know they were smuggled and because they look awesome and many people want them the price was high.
> 
> 
> but this is always going to happen. so whats better? breed them, make offspring official, create breeding books governed by authorities, produce so many that the demand gets met and the price comes to a normal level
> 
> or
> 
> keep them hidden, never produce many cuz only a small circle can know u have them with shady smugglers in the background who bring in wc after wc to fill the demand while making good money
> 
> 
> 
> im not argueing the fact that smuggling (espacilly continued smuggling) is bad and that the wrong people benifit from it. im arguing that its NEVER going to stop. as long as there is easy money to be made, there will be smuggling.
> 
> its the 3rd biggest black market in the world after drugs and weapons. billions get illegally made and its not going to stop.
> 
> i personally think that going back to the old rule that if proven theyre 3rd generation captive ure allowed to export them is more benificial to the enviroment than todays laws. just my gut felling tho


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> to many? are u sure? this might be the case for a certain percentage of hardcore hobbyists.
> 
> but not for the masses. the large masses doesnt care where they frogs come from. the vast majority doesnt even do research where their new frogs came from. how long theyre in captivity.


Yes, I'm sure. And the difference between our positions is that I have actual scientific evidence to back it up. Or rather, Ed did when he posted it in this very thread months and months ago. Here's the quote:


Ed said:


> Ah, yes because the demand for ball pythons from the "ranches" has decreased due to reduced demand....
> 
> Or how its worked for green tree pythons Lyons, Jessica A., and Daniel JD Natusch. "Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: illegal harvest, population declines and a means of regulating the trade of green pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia." Biological Conservation 144.12 (2011): 3073-3081.
> 
> How about an economic analysis that goes through to show that unless a lot of specific factors are met, all you do is increase demand for wild caught animals (consider the value the hobby puts on frogs that are close to the wild populations...
> 
> Damania, Richard, and Erwin H. Bulte. "The economics of wildlife farming and endangered species conservation." Ecological economics 62.3 (2007): 461-472.
> 
> How about this analysis showing captive breeding can increase demand??? Drury, Rebecca. "Reducing urban demand for wild animals in Vietnam: examining the potential of wildlife farming as a conservation tool." Conservation Letters 2.6 (2009): 263-270.
> 
> There is a large and abundant body of literature on the whole captive breeding reduces demand that shows it to be not the things you are attempting to claim. Your continually overlooking the argument that okay one person got a cb frog and that should be one less taken from the wild but if that person generates more people who want that frog, you've now doubled, tripled, or much higher demand for that frog. In this day and age of the internet and sites like Facebook, you could increase demand a hundred fold or more since you now have a global audience of demand... Your totally over simplifying the argument in favor of allowing he hobby to keep them..
> 
> Ed





joe23reptiles said:


> im not argueing the fact that smuggling (espacilly continued smuggling) is bad


Except, of course, that you are actively arguing that smuggling is good. More than that, your actions are saying very loudly that you love smuggling and would like it to not only continue, but blossom. When you incentivize a path to legality, criminals see daylight in front of them. Immediate profits, plus long term stability. That's what you're saying.



joe23reptiles said:


> and that the wrong people benifit from it.


Namely, you. You benefit from it.



joe23reptiles said:


> i personally think that going back to the old rule that if proven theyre 3rd generation captive ure allowed to export them is more benificial to the enviroment than todays laws. just my gut felling tho


Which incentivizes smuggling. Which you're for. We've got it.


----------



## joe23reptiles

Encyclia said:


> What worries me about this line of reasoning is that you are actually encouraging smuggling with this rule. Yes, in the long run, you MIGHT be taking the pressure off of the already-smuggled species/morphs (there is no guarantee of this), but you are encouraging folks to move to other species/morphs to cash in on the $500-$750 part of the market yet again. Also, as I think carola pointed out, the removal of blue galacs from the wild had a serious impact on their population that could have caused their eventual extinction. Some of the populations of these frogs can't afford to lose even a relatively small number of individuals without becoming unstable.
> 
> Mark


i dont think the price would still be this high if hundrets or thousands would have been imported.

im not encouraging smuggling tho. i just say its always going to be there. so whats the better way to handle this?


the best way would be that all countries themself establish captive breeding operations and then sell off those captive hatched babies for reasonable prices.

this would take lots of pressure away from nature and the countries/ people themself would profit of it.

of course ud then still have ur smugglers for the few elitist who want wc azureus but it would still take lots of pressure of nature and smuggling would go down a bit.

but since this isnt happening in all countries weve to livecwith the way it is right now


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> im not encouraging smuggling tho. i just say its always going to be there. so whats the better way to handle this?


Of course you are. Without smuggling, you wouldn't have your frogs. The act of owning them supports smuggling. 




> the best way would be that all countries themself establish captive breeding operations and then sell off those captive hatched babies for reasonable prices.


I think the instant execution of smugglers would be better.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> true. im not missing that though. thats clear. back then the tumucumaque (from what i heard) went for 500 to 750 each. i know that. and i know they were smuggled and because they look awesome and many people want them the price was high.
> 
> 
> but this is always going to happen. so whats better? breed them, make offspring official, create breeding books governed by authorities, produce so many that the demand gets met and the price comes to a normal level
> 
> or
> 
> keep them hidden, never produce many cuz only a small circle can know u have them with shady smugglers in the background who bring in wc after wc to fill the demand while making good money
> 
> 
> 
> im not argueing the fact that smuggling (espacilly continued smuggling) is bad and that the wrong people benifit from it. im arguing that its NEVER going to stop. as long as there is easy money to be made, there will be smuggling.
> 
> its the 3rd biggest black market in the world after drugs and weapons. billions get illegally made and its not going to stop.
> 
> i personally think that going back to the old rule that if proven theyre 3rd generation captive ure allowed to export them is more benificial to the enviroment than todays laws. just my gut felling tho


It's easy money there, because there's no real punishment. Which is why everything goes through Europe. Loop holes galore.

There tumu's and blue galacts in the US just much much smaller numbers and you risk severe punishment if caught with them. 

Which sounds like easy money to you? Getting through europe and making one generation in then getting paperwork? Or hiding them with only a small circle and the risk of someone blowing a whistle on you? There's more of a demand over there, because you can actually breed them once you get to cb or whatever. 

Heres the thing the lacey act isn't really fully enforced. If they would step that up and crack down on people with these I doubt the juice would be worth the squeeze for the vast majority of even the secret society of froggers


----------



## S2G

using that logic. What's the stance on human trafficking? You can't stop it so just monitor it and essentially leave those people to their fate? Or do you want to do something to prevent it?


----------



## Encyclia

I didn't mean to imply that you personally would encourage smuggling, just that the policy you are advocating would.



joe23reptiles said:


> i dont think the price would still be this high if hundrets or thousands would have been imported.
> 
> im not encouraging smuggling tho. i just say its always going to be there. so whats the better way to handle this?
> 
> 
> the best way would be that all countries themself establish captive breeding operations and then sell off those captive hatched babies for reasonable prices.
> 
> this would take lots of pressure away from nature and the countries/ people themself would profit of it.
> 
> of course ud then still have ur smugglers for the few elitist who want wc azureus but it would still take lots of pressure of nature and smuggling would go down a bit.
> 
> but since this isnt happening in all countries weve to livecwith the way it is right now


----------



## MrBiggs

S2G said:


> using that logic. What's the stance on human trafficking? You can't stop it so just monitor it and essentially leave those people to their fate? Or do you want to do something to prevent it?


Offspring of people who are trafficked are totally legal to own and sell. Duh. It's the easiest way, since you're not going to stop it...

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## joe23reptiles

moneywise it probably equals out.

when only a few people own them and they keep it in close circles itll probably fetch a high price. u could probably buy ten or more of the same frogs here in germany.

but what do u think- were do wc smuggled tumucus/ blue galacts go now? do u think people continue to catch them to ship them to germany/ netherlands where they probably get 30bucks per frog or to the us where they can probably get a few hundret bucks for it? 


but i guess we continue to go in circles here. i guess we can agree to disagree here


----------



## MrBiggs

joe23reptiles said:


> moneywise it probably equals out.
> 
> when only a few people own them and they keep it in close circles itll probably fetch a high price. u could probably buy ten or more of the same frogs here in germany.
> 
> but what do u think- were do wc smuggled tumucus/ blue galacts go now? do u think people continue to catch them to ship them to germany/ netherlands where they probably get 30bucks per frog or to the us where they can probably get a few hundret bucks for it?
> 
> 
> but i guess we continue to go in circles here. i guess we can agree to disagree here


Again. WC is viewed as valuable. So yes, they still do. Did you read the scientific studies I requoted for you? Seems like you didn't. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## markpulawski

MrBiggs said:


> Of course you are. Without smuggling, you wouldn't have your frogs. The act of owning them supports smuggling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the instant execution of smugglers would be better.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


Instant execution....I would be hard pressed to find a more ridiculous statement on this board


----------



## MrBiggs

markpulawski said:


> Instant execution....I would be hard pressed to find a more ridiculous statement on this board


I'm pretty hardcore about property rights, lol.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## S2G

MrBiggs said:


> Of course you are. Without smuggling, you wouldn't have your frogs. The act of owning them supports smuggling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the instant execution of smugglers would be better.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


Well that would certainly get their attention. 

Anyone caught owning said animal shall be forced to urinate waste deep in water filled with candiru


----------



## S2G

joe23reptiles said:


> moneywise it probably equals out.
> 
> when only a few people own them and they keep it in close circles itll probably fetch a high price. u could probably buy ten or more of the same frogs here in germany.
> 
> but what do u think- were do wc smuggled tumucus/ blue galacts go now? do u think people continue to catch them to ship them to germany/ netherlands where they probably get 30bucks per frog or to the us where they can probably get a few hundret bucks for it?
> 
> 
> but i guess we continue to go in circles here. i guess we can agree to disagree here


 We're just running or mouths at this point. Until everyone cracks down on this kind of stuff it's going to continue to happen.

You have one view others have theirs. Carola posted the who what where why earlier. That explained everything whether people agree or not


----------



## S2G

Bold about asking and bold about where you can get them.


----------



## varanoid

Thoughts on this article?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/poison-dart-frogs-breeding-colombia-wildlife/

I'm pretty disappointed in Nat Geo for whom they chose to speak about conservation and against smuggling.


----------



## MasterOogway

Taron is the only one in that article I'd object to after giving it a brief skim. Tesoros is like a beacon of good ideas in the hobby right now, and Kevin Hoff has been nothing but pleasant and knowledgeable to me the couple of times I've messaged him. Taron was only very briefly mentioned in that article though, on the whole, I'd say not bad? I honestly think they included him to present a 'neutral' face of representing both sides. But again, I only skimmed.


----------



## Woodswalker

Varanoid was not talking about all the people quoted. I think we can all agree on the one to whom we object. 

That's disappointing to me, too. Given his history, it makes it all too easy to demonize hobbyists when they can point to him as an example of someone who talks a good game when the spotlight is on him, yet in reality, he and his practices are shady, to say the least. It's peculiar to me that he, of all people, was chosen to be in the article. There are other businesses in the hobby that are much more prominent than his, and his reputation is not that difficult to discover. I hope that he isn't somehow used to represent the average hobbyist.


----------



## Spaff

I mentioned this in the other post, but it's also pertinent to the discussion here:

This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm assuming the interviews from that article occurred during Frog Day this year. Kevin, Taron, and Alex were all vendors, and many of the statements from the article were made during Frog Day or at the hotel that weekend (Kevin told Ivan about him producing the 40 lehmanni and ~80 being attributed to his pair there, and this was the first time Ivan had heard of it.). My assumption is that the author picked three vendors to interview or they were all available to talk at the hotel before/after the event. I doubt she sought out the people she interviewed.


----------



## MrBiggs

Spaff said:


> I mentioned this in the other post, but it's also pertinent to the discussion here:
> 
> This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm assuming the interviews from that article occurred during Frog Day this year. Kevin, Taron, and Alex were all vendors, and many of the statements from the article were made during Frog Day or at the hotel that weekend (Kevin told Ivan about him producing the 40 lehmanni and ~80 being attributed to his pair there, and this was the first time Ivan had heard of it.). My assumption is that the author picked three vendors to interview or they were all available to talk at the hotel before/after the event. I doubt she sought out the people she interviewed.


That sounds like journalism in today's world, I'll bet you're exactly correct.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## varanoid

TarantulaGuy said:


> Taron is the only one in that article I'd object to after giving it a brief skim. Tesoros is like a beacon of good ideas in the hobby right now, and Kevin Hoff has been nothing but pleasant and knowledgeable to me the couple of times I've messaged him. Taron was only very briefly mentioned in that article though, on the whole, I'd say not bad? I honestly think they included him to present a 'neutral' face of representing both sides. But again, I only skimmed.


I meant to only reference him.



Woodswalker said:


> Varanoid was not talking about all the people quoted. I think we can all agree on the one to whom we object.
> 
> That's disappointing to me, too. Given his history, it makes it all too easy to demonize hobbyists when they can point to him as an example of someone who talks a good game when the spotlight is on him, yet in reality, he and his practices are shady, to say the least. It's peculiar to me that he, of all people, was chosen to be in the article. There are other businesses in the hobby that are much more prominent than his, and his reputation is not that difficult to discover. I hope that he isn't somehow used to represent the average hobbyist.


Peculiar to me too. Someone said in another thread that they suspected the interviews took place at Frog Day since all the people that were interviewed were in attendance. It was a matter of convenience for the interviewer who clearly didn't do her homework on the people there. Otherwise he would not have been interviewed. Once again it sucks because it was an article on conservation that was supposed to highlight Tesoros, and instead discredited itself by quoting a person guilty of what we are trying to prevent in the first place.


----------



## thedude

So any news on this?

I've heard from a couple sources now that "this person" (do I really have to be cryptic about this POS?) is trying to bring in more blue galacts, as well as silverstonei, and mysteriosus....

Personally I think the hobby should stand together and petition USDF&W to block any of those animals from coming in, especially from the POS.


----------



## Dane

thedude said:


> So any news on this?
> 
> I've heard from a couple sources now that "this person" (do I really have to be cryptic about this POS?) is trying to bring in more blue galacts, as well as silverstonei, and mysteriosus....
> 
> Personally I think the hobby should stand together and petition USDF&W to block any of those animals from coming in, especially from the POS.


Keeping his name out of it may help in making it difficult for those interested in owning said species from contacting him. If what you say is true, then I agree that it might be time for another hornets nest to be dropped on his head via email & petition to USFWS.


----------



## a hill

I haven't been on the forum in a while, so I just caught up on this epic of a thread!

I wanted to make a few notes although I'm a bit late to the party. 

First off I think the average hobbyist is pretty unaware of just how many illegal frogs and furthermore animals are in the black market pet trade in the USA and this is a good thing. Its great to see the authorities coming in hard here, but anyone who has been around this hobby for long enough knows of people who are keeping "D. Xyz" and also people who legitimately do have OLD lines of frogs. It is also very easy to know the difference. In some respects, Galacts and things do not matter that are already commonly here, although their origins are not the best. 

Not mentioned, is that dart frogs would be used as "filler" items on fish exports relatively commonly going way back. This is how many "illegal" old lines are said to have arrived, although the understanding is that most of these have now died out. 

If anyone is still wondering how long Ed has been trying to inform people about these laws, you might like this link https://www.caudata.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-38284.html He really is an amazing aid and champion of the hobbies.

Hopefully the rumored future import will fail as well. I just wonder about the frogs no one knows about that are coming in undetected. 

-Andrew


----------



## SoloSK71

*We can’t get away*

I started collecting isopods as well as they are attractive and useful.

Imagine my surprise when I found this, which one of my suppliers said he was buying from. https://www.isopod.com/about

Solo


----------



## DPfarr

They are usually right next to one another at shows.


----------



## Socratic Monologue

*Re: We can’t get away*



SoloSK71 said:


> I started collecting isopods as well as they are attractive and useful.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I found this, which one of my suppliers said he was buying from. https://www.isopod.com/about
> 
> Solo


Yeah, he's going to be at NARBC Tinley Park; I'm glad I do research on vendors before heading out to the show.


----------



## SoloSK71

*Re: We can’t get away*



Socratic Monologue said:


> Yeah, he's going to be at NARBC Tinley Park; I'm glad I do research on vendors before heading out to the show.


I am glad I had some examples from this board to ask people I bought from who they got their supply from. And the self control to say no when I found out.

Solo


----------



## carola1155

*Re: We can’t get away*



SoloSK71 said:


> the self control to say no when I found out.


Sadly, that seems to be a rare trait in this hobby...


----------



## austin

Question here around the legality of A. galactonotus, the species not the various localities. When I read the first two posts I clearly find a sentence that states there was a recorded export of frogs to the US from Brazil for scientific purposes (115 individuals), so they have legally entered the US, no?



Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrBiggs

austin said:


> Question here around the legality of A. galactonotus, the species not the various localities. When I read the first two posts I clearly find a sentence that states there was a recorded export of frogs to the US from Brazil for scientific purposes (115 individuals), so they have legally entered the US, no?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Scientific purposes does not allow for commercial trade. 

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## austin

I understand that, but they were legally imported so does that put them on a list of species with the agencies that are here legally? Has this complicated the would be confiscation of other subsequent imports? 



Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## hypostatic

austin said:


> I understand that, but they were legally imported so does that put them on a list of species with the agencies that are here legally? Has this complicated the would be confiscation of other subsequent imports?


under current laws, there would be no legal imports of this species


----------



## bsr8129

So its been about 2 years since this first came up, and in this long thread there was "talks" of investigation and something is going to be done about this. any thing ever come from that? And guessing since there hasnt been any busts, or maybe i missed it, it would assume that blue glacs are here and they have been breeding for 2 years so there are potentially hundreds out there now?


----------



## Tijl

I think I have seen about 3-4hundred blue galactonotus offspring the last 2 years. Easy breeder ive been told.


----------



## Dane

bsr8129 said:


> So its been about 2 years since this first came up, and in this long thread there was "talks" of investigation and something is going to be done about this. any thing ever come from that? And guessing since there hasnt been any busts, or maybe i missed it, it would assume that blue glacs are here and they have been breeding for 2 years so there are potentially hundreds out there now?


It can take a while for an investigation to actually go to court, and it wouldn't surprise me if the importer will still face charges. Yes, there could be dozens or hundreds of offspring out there in the US, but we all know who they came from, how they got into the states, and the stance of their country of origin on them being here. For most, that's enough reason to avoid them.


----------



## carola1155

According to USFWS... There is still an active investigation.


----------



## orchidsnfrogs

There are apparently a handful of hobbyists / breeders who just got a shipment of tinctorious tumucumaque over on FB and MeWe in December 2019 / January 2020. 

Ed’s and others’ research on the relevant CITES and Lacey Act regs - and the fact that there are now viable in situ breeding facilities like WikiriSelva and Tesoro’s - have made the situation clear to me and I won’t be buying anything from the guy in Nevada who bought the tumucumaque ever and there is at least one person in Canada. 

Thanks, Dendroboard!


----------



## Ed

For those who closed their eyes, note the frogs paper work for alleged "legality" was not above the laws of the US, specifically the Lacey Act or the proof of the CITIES alert.



Rare Splash-backed Poison Frogs are Anything But ‘Blue’ as They Fly Home to Brazil


----------



## Sarahg

Woodswalker said:


> So, for those of us who do not use Facebook, has there been a recent offering of these frogs for sale in the US, thereby prompting this post?


I have seen a couple post fairly recently


----------



## Woodswalker

Sarahg said:


> I have seen a couple post fairly recently


That comment of mine is over three years old.


----------



## Scott

But she's saying recent posts. Likely more posts now than three years ago.


----------



## ParrotAlex

Yeah, I actually noticed one fairly-major seller of frogs with a blue galact froglet available the other day- very little information about where they got the animal from, but if I understand the laws correctly, it should be illegal regardless of where they got it.


----------



## Socratic Monologue

ParrotAlex said:


> if I understand the laws correctly, it should be illegal regardless of where they got it.


Yes, that is true regarding US laws.


----------



## Woodswalker

Scott said:


> But she's saying recent posts. Likely more posts now than three years ago.


That's all well and good to mention that there are still more people offering these frogs. I just see no reason to quote me. 

I should add that I saw a group of these being offered in Ohio via Craigslist several months ago. I can only shake my head when I see things like this.


----------



## MasterOogway

Saw some pop up at a local herp show here in Oregon a few months back, immediately stopped shopping the booth.


----------



## Socratic Monologue

I used to peruse CL's pet listings. Nightmarish stuff of all sorts. Had to stop looking.

It is worth mentioning that a little bit of speaking up can change at least some of the opportunities for sales of these animals. One of the large online herp classifieds sites does not accept ads for a couple of these recently more popular illegal morphs since the situation was explained to them, and another such site has posters who routinely call out illegal ads of all sorts (which doesn't end the sales, but makes things a lot harder, though ultimately just pushes them elsewhere and helps FB win their race to the bottom). A local expo near me has a red flag alert in place on a vendor who was seen selling illegal morphs at another expo. 

I don't know how to organize CL's flagger mobs, but they do work to get ads pulled; someone with connections to these people might be able to do some good there. Expo organizers are pretty sensitive to public pressure, or even the smell of it -- they might productively be notified if one of their vendors is selling illegal animals, though they'd need to be spoon-fed the information regarding the laws and especially the specifics of the morph in question.


----------



## Apoplast

Warning: Hot take coming. If you are emotionally invested in this topic, feel free to skip this post and not get all up in arms.

So, the legality of this blue glac morph is pretty clear. Brazil says they are illegal, and so via international, signed agreements, they are _illegal_. That was easy. 

But morally.... I feel it gets more complex.

Now, I am not going to defend the individuals who managed to have these for sale shortly after they were discovered. That seems pretty bad for the survival of this morph in the wild. And for anyone that doesn't understand the value of preservation of wild populations, please, please volunteer at a zoo or conservation organization near you. It _will_ be eye opening.

However, Brazil's total ban on exports of... Well most things, is going to fuel the black market. It's nearly dares people to steal. And so they do. Perhaps a better model can be found in what the Australian government did with the Wollemi pine. They knew there would be demand, so they propagated and found ways to get the material out in ways that benefited conservation of the species itself. Imagine a process like that for darts!

Mexico has decided all of its endemic cacti are illegally exported after 197-something. Yet, they do nothing to preserve them in habitat. Indeed, some species are only in existence because they were illegally exported. And no one does anything about this anyhow. It's a paper tiger.

My second point has to do with the prospect of these frogs being exported for research. Sure, right now, only dead ones, which is a whole other issue researchers have with Brazil's policies (that could fill another thread, so uncharacteristically, I won't go down that garden path). But presuming these are released to zoos or researchers, and they reproduce, what happens to the progeny? At some point they will get out. Their presence is of no loss to the wild population (some arguments could be made for the captive bred individuals offered currently, or indeed all captive bred individuals offered) and they would otherwise have to be destroyed. 

I've seen this happen, though, in plants. Brazil has the same policies with plants, and is hated for the same reasons there. But a couple years ago now, Kew Gardens in England, which has the largest collection of rare plant species in the world, let a species of plant go extinct. How? They wouldn't share material with other gardens or universities for fear it would get out and not be legitimate in their policy (could be a law if you want to translate it that way). But that is a global loss. 

So I pose the question: How much does the origin of material matter if it no longer impacts the survival of the wild population? Is legality the benchmark of morality?* When should wild collection stop? When does illegal collection stop being an issue (e.g. how many generations in)? 

There have been a number of pedantic arguments made in this thread. I would challenge people to ask deeper questions about the species we keep. And more importantly, really ponder the implications of our actions.

*I am in no way, shape, or form, arguing for people to break the law - even unjust laws. I would argue for political action to change laws if you do not agree with them. I'm personally, pathetically law abiding. I don't even speed. I did get a parking ticket once, but I still argue, I was on the line on the and not over it! Plus, it was snowy when I parked and I couldn't even see the lines, so I still think I did well. 🤪


----------



## Socratic Monologue

There is a lot to respond to in the arguments as you pose them. I'll respond to what seems to be the central point: whether possession of specimens of a smuggled species that no longer affects the survival of the wild population of that species is morally troubling.

The way you've set it up here is through examples: Kew had a species of plant, let it go extinct for fear of violating law; a zoo has a species that reproduces and might release some offspring. The implication of the examples is that good (from that species' POV) could be done by releasing these specimens into public hands. 

You're using the examples to poke at Utilitarian intuitions (harm to the species vs. benefit to the species) over the short to medium term. We're supposed to (and any reasonable Utilitarian considering short and medium term benefits to the species in question would) think that it is morally acceptable to release the specimens into public hands.

But simple Utilitarianism isn't useful in any interesting cases, since the calculus isn't that simple. Here's an example to illustrate, which like your Kew example has the virtue of actually having happened: it is the early days of herp keeping, and there are no Australian geckos in the hobby outside Australia. A few geckos make their way to the US trade, having been released by a zoo breeding program. I breed them, and sell the offspring, and everyone says "Wow, those AU geckos are cool. I wonder if I could get a species and breed them. I'd pay a lot for a pair" Soon, you come across some other species of AU gecko at the herp show in Hamm. The seller tells you they were confiscated by German customs and sent to a zoo, where they bred and the offspring were released. "Great," you say. "No harm to wild populations, as these are already in captivity." But what is missed here is that the reason specimens of this second species were smuggled at all was because everyone said "I wonder if I could get an AU species and breed them? I'd pay a lot for a pair." What is also missed is that the entire parade of AU geckos (oh, and skinks and other dragon species and other dirty brown lizards that are only desired because they are rare in the US) now in the trade was made possible by the first pair that was thought morally permissible to possess.

If it weren't for (a) the existence of the prior species in the trade, and (b) the belief that if specimens of a species can be traded with no harm to wild specimens of that species, then possessing them is morally acceptable, and (c) human desire for new species to possess, then no AU geckos would be smuggled. If one allows that there is at least one protected species/population that exists that would be negatively affected by smuggling of the sort that would be reasonably predicted given what we know about smuggling patterns, then it follows that possessing a smuggled species even when no (further) harm to wild populations of that species will follow from one's possession of it is morally problematic. 

Setting up the situation in which we look at some individual cases (the ones you laid out) makes it look permissible, but we can't see the forest for the trees when we look at specific cases (which is both the strength and weakness of moral thought experiments). That's another reason simple Utilitarianism falls short -- morality just isn't a collection of specific cases. In the situation at hand, it turns out that the whole package is morally problematic, since one part of it is and all the parts are connected.

I'm tempted to evaluate a Virtue reading of the moral situation as it is set up here, but it wouldn't map onto real cases since virtually no one who keeps the species is doing it for the right sort of reasons a virtue account requires -- rather, these animals are kept for money, fame, and to attempt to satisfy an insatiable collecting drive.

Considering a rights-based morality won't get us too far, since even if we assume that some country has a legitimate claim on some other country's wildlife being kept from extinction (defending against the worries of modern imperialism is no small ethical task, and species assurance populations probably won't rate too highly in the moral calculus), it won't follow that this claim extends to trading this wildlife for profit on Facebook. 

So, morally it does get more complex -- right before it gets simple again.


----------



## Apoplast

I missed you, @Socratic Monologue ! All fair points you raise. However, I am going to push back. Mostly because this is way fun for me!

Your argument is still in the short to medium term, and it presupposes that breeding in the -fill in country of interest- is the catalyst to desire and that production will not meet demand. I would argue that it is true, but may not be true indefinitely. In the long-term it may well. I could drop further examples of real situations on you, but I think you are correct to move this discussion generally to the hypothetical, given we are discussing the moral implications of keeping organisms in our care when clearly the best benefit to the species is a viable wild population. 

I can name several species of reptile I would like to have, but they are not available. Now, were I a different person, my independent realization of their desirability would be motive enough to seek them in whatever way I could. But, I do agree that the realization that availability in some form will be a motivator for more people to seek this desired organism. Regardless of the origin of this desire, once Pandora's box has been opened, it exists whether from zoo releases or from individual discovery of the species existence. 

So, recognizing there is desire, that demand can either imperil the wild populations via illegal smuggling, or it can be met by captive breeding, thus reducing the thread of human desire on the wild populations. If there is a total ban, it follows that any satiation of the desire is illegal. And thus with all supply outside the law, there is little reason to seek legal means of acquisition. Therefore, any acquisition could imperil the species. If everyone agreed "hands-off", great. But that's not the world we live in.

Now, if you take the approach of Germany or The Netherlands, and say captive bred individuals are no longer illegal, there becomes incentive to seek legal sources. Sure, if the demand far outstrips supply, that may not be incentive enough. But the aim would be to rectify that situation. And as people seek captive bred sources, the threat to the wild population disappears. 

In terms of your rights based argument, I would say that if we take stance that we (here I mean the grand "we" and not specifically you and I, or people on this forum, etc.) do not have the right to possess a species because its survival is more important, shouldn't it then follow that we do not have the right to imperil the species via development and habitat destruction? Yet, that is not the logic followed by the home country here. In the case that motivated this discussion, they are inconsistent in this regard. So, what is their motivation? I'll leave that for folks to ponder.


----------



## Encyclia

Great discussion, Guys. I can't even vaguely keep up with your fancy words and arguments and such. It's not in my skill set to argue logically like this. 

However, it seems like there comes a point where market penetration no longer encourages further depletion of populations in the wild. Green and black Auratus, for example, seem to be so prevalent in the hobby that prices have fallen to the point where smuggling isn't worth it. Doesn't that protect Green and Black Auratus in the wild? (That's not rhetorical - I want to make sure that line of reasoning is sound.) 

Also, we have some great examples of companies legitimately providing access to species/morphs of frogs. I am thinking of Understory Enterprises, Tesoros, etc. What do we know about the status of the the species/morphs that they work with? Are the large obligates that Tesoros works with still be smuggled? To the same degree? Has there been any change in the health of the populations that these companies work with because of the need to harvest a starter population for the breeding program? Has there been any decrease in habitat destruction due to Tesoros/UE/whoever now having a "commercial" interest in preserving the populations of the frogs they work with? Vanzolini are an especially interesting example because smuggled versions of them were available before the legit ones from UE became available. Any impact on the wild populations there?

These are just a few thoughts I had while reading the posts above.

Mark


----------



## Fahad

@Encyclia ...all I know is that Ivan said they had reached a stage where they were able to re-introduce populations of O. lehmanni to their natural range for the first time ... this was in an exchange maybe ... 2 years ago? I've lost track of time since The Plague started. 

I don't know if smuggling was impacted due to Tesoros activities, but it seems conservation activities have been able to benefit at any rate.

In a discussion with Mark Pepper of UE not long ago, he remarked that habitat degradation continues in Peru due to the growth of cities, even for protected habitats that find themselves surrounded or at least adjacent to urban sprawl.

The current environmental crisis is a multi-dimensional problem that can't be solved with any one approach, but I think most or all of us on this board know this.

"First, do no harm" may be most applicable in this regard.


----------



## Ed

The benefit of captive breeding as a conservation tool by the hobby is pretty much a big fat zero but it is constantly used as a justification to get some animal generally rare in the hobby. 
The hobby doesn't manage genetic diversity nor does it work in a way that the risk of novel pathogens or parasites are prevented from being established in the hobby population and finally it has never driven down demand. See my posts here Wild Caught vs Captive Bred and Conservation Efforts

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Fahad said:


> @Encyclia ...all I know is that Ivan said they had reached a stage where they were able to re-introduce populations of O. lehmanni to their natural range for the first time ... this was in an exchange maybe ... 2 years ago? I've lost track of time since The Plague started.
> 
> I don't know if smuggling was impacted due to Tesoros activities, but it seems conservation activities have been able to benefit at any rate.
> 
> In a discussion with Mark Pepper of UE not long ago, he remarked that habitat degradation continues in Peru due to the growth of cities, even for protected habitats that find themselves surrounded or at least adjacent to urban sprawl.
> 
> The current environmental crisis is a multi-dimensional problem that can't be solved with any one approach, but I think most or all of us on this board know this.
> 
> "First, do no harm" may be most applicable in this regard.


With respect to dendrobatids many species thrive in disturbed habitats and outside of the disturbed sites a much lower population is often recorded, example like pumilio or auratus being found in high numbers in dumps, trash heaps... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Fahad

Ed said:


> With respect to dendrobatids many species thrive in disturbed habitats and outside of the disturbed sites a much lower population is often recorded, example like pumilio or auratus being found in high numbers in dumps, trash heaps...
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


The specific conversation with Mark was about a patch of protected forest becoming drier over time as unprotected areas around it were cleared for urban development (if I recall correctly); I recently read a paper @Socratic Monologue linked to that indicated even some distinct populations within a species appear to be more resilient about colonizing disturbed habitat than others, but loss of wet forest is obviously a broader and more far-reaching problem. Regarding specific frogs, I've heard accounts of pumilio dealing with this a lot better than others.


----------



## Apoplast

Ed said:


> The benefit of captive breeding as a conservation tool by the hobby is pretty much a big fat zero but it is constantly used as a justification to get some animal generally rare in the hobby.
> The hobby doesn't manage genetic diversity nor does it work in a way that the risk of novel pathogens or parasites are prevented from being established in the hobby population


For context, I did thoroughly read through your posts #19 and #31 on the thread you linked. Thanks for linking those!

I completely agree that the benefit to conservation, particularly to reintroduction, from captive cultivation of any species is overall, negligible. There are of course many cases to point to where species persist only because of captive kept specimens, but not matter how many cases can be pointed to, it misses the critical point that they are all desperate situations. No one in conservation wants to get to the point where this is necessary. It is the reserve of last resort. Even having to draw from zoo populations is sub-optimal. My first research project worked with genetically rescuing a wild population of critically endangered primates in Brazil by using individuals from American zoos. It was a challanging process and a situation born out of desperation alone. _In situ_ conservation is always better. Full stop.



Ed said:


> and finally it has never driven down demand. See my posts here Wild Caught vs Captive Bred and Conservation Efforts


While that may be true (and I'd be curious to get hard numbers on that assertion), it misses a critical factor. To conclusively say that captive breeding has no impact on the demand for wild collected specimens, we'd need to demonstrate the opposite process as you described is true as well - that cessation of captive breeding availability does not increase demand for wild collected individuals. If background demand is going up over time for frogs, or plants, or fish, or... Whatever. Then captive breeding could be supplying a significant portion of the demand, but the signal of wild collection might still go up if demand is increasing at a higher rate. In many ways, I'm thankful we don't have that data, but without it, we can't conclusively pinpoint the impact of captive breeding on demand for wild caught individuals. So to suggest it is useless, or even unimportant, seems at best an overreach and at worst potentially reckless. 



Fahad said:


> I recently read a paper @Socratic Monologue linked to that indicated even some distinct populations within a species appear to be more resilient about colonizing disturbed habitat than others


Do either of you have the link? Title? DOI? That sounds like a pattern ripe for study of evolutionary selection to survive in anthropocentric habitats! Unless, that was already the study in the paper. But I'd still love to read it.


----------



## Fahad

Apoplast said:


> Do either of you have the link? Title? DOI? That sounds like a pattern ripe for study of evolutionary selection to survive in anthropocentric habitats! Unless, that was already the study in the paper. But I'd still love to read it.


Link:

Population parameters of the Golden Poison Frog, Phyllobates terribilis (Myers et al ., 1978) (Dendrobatidae), in a location of Buenaventura, Valle del Cauca, Colombia

Further study needed of course. This was a 72 hour survey on P. terribilis.


----------



## Socratic Monologue

Apoplast said:


> If background demand is going up over time for frogs, or plants, or fish, or... Whatever.


Exotic animals (I can't speak to plants, but I have my suspicions given the craziness surrounding aroids lately) aren't subject to common sense patterns of supply and demand, since they're luxury goods. There isn't a "background demand" like there is for flour and pork chops. The demand is created by, among other things, captive breeding of other species/morphs. 

We don't have to "conclusively pinpoint the impact" in order to make judgements here -- that sets the bar unattainably high. Because of the fact that these patterns aren't simply occurring within one species in a vacuum, no such pinpointing can be possible. We'd have to stop all captive breeding of all herp species, wait for the psychological effects of past practices to fade from memory, and then start gathering data on collection and possession. That's absurd, of course, but that's the limits of empirical study when we try to pick out anything by itself and find it hitched to everything else.

Ed's point about "justification" (in the negative sense, which I assume is how it was intended) is spot on, in my understanding of keeper psychology.


----------



## Fahad

Socratic Monologue said:


> Ed's point about "justification" (in the negative sense, which I assume is how it was intended) is spot on, in my understanding of keeper psychology.


I couldn't agree more. Every time I see the 'community' -- such as it is -- up in arms about impending legislation, I can't help but think "Well what did you expect?" ... there's still a lot wrong with herpetoculture in the broader context, not least the lack of self-policing and ethics coupled with often inaccurate or delusional mindsets.


----------



## Ed

Apoplast said:


> I completely agree that the benefit to conservation, particularly to reintroduction, from captive cultivation of any species is overall, negligible. There are of course many cases to point to where species persist only because of captive kept specimens, but not matter how many cases can be pointed to, it misses the critical point that they are all desperate situations. No one in conservation wants to get to the point where this is necessary. It is the reserve of last resort. Even having to draw from zoo populations is sub-optimal. My first research project worked with genetically rescuing a wild population of critically endangered primates in Brazil by using individuals from American zoos. It was a challanging process and a situation born out of desperation alone. _In situ_ conservation is always better. Full stop.


I have to point out that the above paragraph implies that the hobby population and populations of animals managed by zoos for reintroduction/release are somehow equivalent, this is not the case.... as zoos attempt to minimize genetic loss in the populations, mitigate adaptation to captivity and a host of other factors that just are not found in the hobby. As for the primate project, I'm guessing it was golden lion tamarins and my wife spent time down in Brazil with one of the major players during the 90s in the program. The hobby when given access to the potential to manage the genetic diversity of the hobby has repeatedly shown itself to have no interest in it despite it being free of charge and using the same databases as the Zoological Community (ZIMs) and has repeatedly pushed the idea that inbreeding is harmless to dendrobatids.... 



Apoplast said:


> While that may be true (and I'd be curious to get hard numbers on that assertion), it misses a critical factor. To conclusively say that captive breeding has no impact on the demand for wild collected specimens, we'd need to demonstrate the opposite process as you described is true as well - that cessation of captive breeding availability does not increase demand for wild collected individuals. If background demand is going up over time for frogs, or plants, or fish, or... Whatever. Then captive breeding could be supplying a significant portion of the demand, but the signal of wild collection might still go up if demand is increasing at a higher rate. In many ways, I'm thankful we don't have that data, but without it, we can't conclusively pinpoint the impact of captive breeding on demand for wild caught individuals. So to suggest it is useless, or even unimportant, seems at best an overreach and at worst potentially reckless.


Anecdotally we can look at historical availability of dendrobatid frogs in the hobby, the populations crash once a species or population color variant becomes widely available or when newer species that derive a higher status become available as occurred with the massive imports of pumilio in the early to 2000 to 2010, and the more recent importations of the large obligates the crash and divestment of pumilio color variations for once common variants having nearly vanished. . 
There are papers indicating that indicate that as long as a species/animal is perceived to be rare that the demand for wild caught animals will continue. I can't remember which citation exactly but the model was that until the price of a wild caught animal was greater than the cost of a captive bred animal, the demand for wild caught specimens will continue (we can anecdotally see this via the demand for animals that are closer in generations to the wild population despite the common perception that inbreeding is harmless in frogs). Consider red eye treefrogs and ball pythons, the demand for wild caught animals has remained steady pre-pandemic. (See CITES Trade Database, example the US imported 72122 ball pythons in 2018) an argument can be readily made that ball pythons are one of the most heavily captive bred reptiles in the world yet demand for wild caught over time remains in astonishingly high. 

As for the papers see the following examples 

Chen, Frederick. "Poachers and snobs: demand for rarity and the effects of antipoaching policies." _Conservation Letters_ 9.1 (2016): 65-69. 
Courchamp, Franck, et al. "Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect." _PLoS biology_ 4.12 (2006): e415. 
Verma, Maitri. "Modeling the effect of rarity value on the exploitation of a wildlife species subjected to the Allee effect." _Natural Resource Modeling_ 29.3 (2016): 470-494.
Krishna, Vijesh V., et al. "Wildlife trade and consumer preference for species rarity: an examination of caged-bird markets in Sumatra." _Environment and Development Economics_ 24.4 (2019): 339-360. 
Angulo, Elena, and Franck Courchamp. "Rare species are valued big time." _PloS one_ 4.4 (2009): e5215. 
and Lyons, Jessica A., and Daniel JD Natusch. "Effects of consumer preferences for rarity on the harvest of wild populations within a species." _Ecological Economics_ 93 (2013): 278-283. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Socratic Monologue said:


> Exotic animals (I can't speak to plants, but I have my suspicions given the craziness surrounding aroids lately) aren't subject to common sense patterns of supply and demand, since they're luxury goods. There isn't a "background demand" like there is for flour and pork chops. The demand is created by, among other things, captive breeding of other species/morphs.


This is a common trait among pretty much all wildlife trafficking legal and illegal, the greater the perceived rarity the greater the demand for the organism in question. See some of the above referenced papers. Think about what gives a person in a hobby "status" involving exotic pets to peers in the same hobby, the primary source of status is based on the number of species that are perceived to be rare or difficult to keep in an individual's collection, you do not get the same recognition for breeding a D. tinctorius "azureus" (the inclusion of the color varient is not to indicate subspecies but distinct populations of the frog hence the quotes) as a D. tinctorius "tumucumaque" aka "peacock" versus the status of a large obligate like O. lehmanni and this is before we get into the ability to make money from these 'rarer" organisms.




Socratic Monologue said:


> Ed's point about "justification" (in the negative sense, which I assume is how it was intended) is spot on, in my understanding of keeper psychology.


It was in the negative sense, pretty much anytime someone starts arguing about how the hobby is saving an animal, it is nothing more than an attempt to justify owning it. One of the factors most overlooked by the hobbyists that try and make those arguments is that unless there is some attempt to preserve the ecosystem that the organism in question inhabits, it has nothing to do with conservation. As a very hyperbolic analogy, it is like claiming that breeding a kingsnake to a cornsnake and then crossing the next generation to a Florida pine snake is a conservation method for preserving the three different species.

On a side note, I have to shake my head anytime someone makes the argument about Kew letting a plant go extinct instead of distributing it to the hobby as the hobby is directly responsible for the loss of some plants in Kew's collection see for example 'Priceless' African water lily stolen from London's Kew Gardens - CNN
The high-stakes world of rare-plant theft - BBC News

Some comments

Ed
edited for clarity


----------



## Socratic Monologue

Ed said:


> the model was that until the price of a wild caught animal was greater than the cost of a captive bred animal, the demand for wild caught specimens will continue


I'm not even sure the price issue is the whole story (not that you really implied it to be). For frogs, sales of wild caught tincs and auratus continue at wholesale prices of ~$30, which is higher than many hobbyists are selling quantity lots for. For reptile examples that I myself breed, _Coleonyx mitratus_, a species for which overall demand is pretty low, is available WC for a higher price than CB often sell (and I've seen these WC specimens; they look like hell). WC _Hemitheconyx caudicinctus _retail for $50-100 (depending on the seller's pricing structure), the same price range as CB. 

For these sorts of species, one problem is that it simply isn't possible to produce CB animals that cheaply, and so the "breeding to replace WC" model simply cannot work unless crickets are free and labor is $5/hr. 

Anecdotally, the cost to many keepers of WC BJ pumilio lately is higher than CB, given losses and vet bills. I suppose the WC/CB cost model (even if it did apply here) depends on perceived cost rather than actual cost, though. 

The ball python example is interesting, since CB normals can't be given away free, often, though imports continue. They're sometimes frozen and sold as feeders for ophiophagous species for a couple bucks a piece. WC normals are wholesaling for $30 each this week (which translates to about $75 retail, though often more); the few normal CB available currently at retail are $35-40.


----------



## Ed

Socratic Monologue said:


> I'm not even sure the price issue is the whole story (not that you really implied it to be). For frogs, sales of wild caught tincs and auratus continue at wholesale prices of ~$30, which is higher than many hobbyists are selling quantity lots for. For reptile examples that I myself breed, _Coleonyx mitratus_, a species for which overall demand is pretty low, is available WC for a higher price than CB often sell (and I've seen these WC specimens; they look like hell). WC _Hemitheconyx caudicinctus _retail for $50-100 (depending on the seller's pricing structure), the same price range as CB.


This is where you get into the mix of confounding issues for perceived rarity values, as one example, people often place a greater value on animals that are closer to the wild population genetically. This is where you get into the misuse of the filial generation numbering by the hobby with animals described as F1 from the wild etc. On a quick check it still is occurring see for example (11) What does F1, F2, etc mean? | Dendroboard (The whole issue ignores the problem if say a frog that is hypothetically 6 generations removed from the wild but is bred to a frog that is 2 generations from the wild.) Frogs of the same population that are more recently collected from the wild have more value than the same population that has been captive bred (yet this flies in the face of the argument that frogs are resistant or unaffected by inbreeding). 

Coleonyx is an underappreciated genus...

I'm not trying to make the case that this is an absolute case for all animals but it is common enough that there are multiple papers on it in the peer reviewed literature, obviously the cofounding factors (like perceived rarity) will come into play. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Apoplast

Wow, so much to respond to here! Took me a few times of me sitting down to get what I would like written, not to mention the time took to read through the sources provided by @Ed (BTW, thanks for those!). And, now I have to run because I have kids barfing!



Ed said:


> As for the primate project, I'm guessing it was golden lion tamarins and my wife spent time down in Brazil with one of the major players during the 90s in the program.


It was! Cool! Who did she work with?! 



Ed said:


> I have to point out that the above paragraph implies that the hobby population and populations of animals managed by zoos for reintroduction/release are somehow equivalent


I in no way did so. This is why I said "even having to draw from zoo populations". I agree hobbyists are the worst at managing genetics. I've been saying so repeatedly here. We are in full agreement about that. 



Ed said:


> There are papers indicating that indicate that as long as a species/animal is perceived to be rare that the demand for wild caught animals will continue.


Thanks again for including the list of papers! I'll admit to skimming through them and not sitting down to chew on everything in depth. However, I do have some thoughts on the Anthropogenic Allee Effect (AAE) and the "snob" effect (that one was a really interesting paper!). They were as a group interesting papers, and I do not dispute that people and their desire for wildlife products can be, and are, a direct threat to species survival, particularly as species become rare. That said, outside of the bird paper I don't believe they considered captive breeding's impacts at all. Indeed the models were largely focused on examples like ivory and rhino horn - species for which domestic supply is not feasible given the life histories of the species involved. Indeed the bird paper did suggest captive breeding could be an influence as with the snob effect higher supply leads to decreased demand. That argument/model works in both directions. This suggests captive breeding can be of value. 

Now, the snake paper (and @Socratic Monologue 's experiences) suggested that wild caught animals may well be seen as rarer or more valuable, negating some of the benefit from captive breeding. And that could be true broadly. These examples also give credence to the idea that seeing people have exotic will increase demand. It follows, those who are true believers should likely abandon ownership as a means to reduce demand, likely even beyond their own consumption. (And yes, like before with my standard of evidence argument, SM as you correctly identified, I am taking this out to an extreme to make a point.) 

However, and here I am about to make a heretical suggestion, there might be another process that could assist in using the snob effect against the system. How do you create rarity independent of wild populations? Hybrid morphs could be bred to be quite rare, unusual, and to satisfy the whims of peoples faddish desires. I know how this is going to land here. But if captive populations are of no conservation value (and I think we've established here they really aren't), then some of claims of those who respond in the most apoplectic terms to the idea of hybrid frogs, fall away. Certainly, line breeding and hybridization has helped reduce interest and demand for certain clades of orchids, and some types of fish. It could in concept work for darts too. The papers Ed linked also suggest that if hybrids could create a set of rarity demand, then those fiery sermons against hybrids are fueling the snob demand on rare wild-caught populations. Food for thought.

I don't know if these things will aid conservation. But it does seem changing the perception that fuels demand is important. Supported by Ed's papers. Typically my stance is that I think these discussions are of value for their own sake. Perhaps, if demand is an important factor in conservation, of which we are al guilty, that does mean it makes a difference having these conversations here in some very small way. 



Fahad said:


> Every time I see the 'community' -- such as it is


I'm not sure where that was aimed, but I do believe it is worth remembering the difference between a community, where people may reasonably disagree, and a cult, where they may not.


----------



## Fahad

Apoplast said:


> I'm not sure where that was aimed, but I do believe it is worth remembering the difference between a community, where people may reasonably disagree, and a cult, where they may not.


Where I was going with that is in my more cynical view of commercial herpetoculture I see this reification of a very disparate series of sub-groups that have some overlap but often don't share much in common and appear generally disorganized.

It's not that I hate everything and I've seen general improvements over about 3 decades, but I feel a lot of cognitive dissonance when hobbyists begin defending their disparate activities -- sometimes with the justifications Ed touched on or with misplaced ideas about what people may reasonably be permitted to keep in their homes, because the hobby doesn't begin and end in the home, it has far reaching consequences. It's a complex set of issues that I've been turning over in my mind since returning to frog keeping after years ... with no cut and dry answers.


----------



## Socratic Monologue

Apoplast said:


> Hybrid morphs could be bred to be quite rare, unusual, and to satisfy the whims of peoples faddish desires.


Nope. Their existence and pervasiveness in captive collections do in fact, and to a large degree, create desire for "pure" "wild" lineages; it sure does in me, and in people I talk to. And they make the identity of all specimens, even those claimed pure to species or locale, more questionable to the degree that hybrids and crosses exist. In 20 years, try to find a captive _Pantherophis guttatus_ that hasn't been crossed with a _Pantherophis emoryi _at some point in its lineage because of one instance of satisfying "faddish desires" (that's how the scaleless gene got into corns, and since it is recessive the breeding history disappears, since a couple generations out no one tracks hets). We might as well think we're doing some good for aurochs by having dairy farms and pet mini zebu. Counterproductive idea.

Just like demand for rare (new, cool, authentic, whatever) species/morphs does not satisfy the demand (but instead creates new demands for new cool, rare, etc animals), faddish desires do not get satisfied; they get fulfilled which then in turn leads to another faddish desire directed at some other animal -- 

Real example: there are plenty of people who think that blue tongue skinks are cool (and there are selectively bred animals from crossed populations and probably crossed species, many smuggled, BTW), and people who have "been there, done that" now want shinglebacks (_T. rugosa_), much to the delight of German dealers.

I think the "satisfaction of faddish desires" model is solipsistic, in this way: it assumes that keeper A wants to scratch itch X, and so an object is provided that scratches that itch. But it ignores what that situation does to the psychology of keepers B, C and C, and also to the whole alphabet of keepers (some of whom we might call α, β, and γ, the ones in some sense outside looking in -- like us 'in the know' folks -- but still getting ideas about what desires they themselves should have).

As a sort of tangent, it may be that any idea that involves "the market" somehow doing anything but becoming a virtually uncontrollable monster is suspect, even if it may turn out to be the least worst idea. There's just so much history to suggest it.


----------



## Apoplast

No time to really reply with sick kids. Just needed to say one quick thing: 


Fahad said:


> Where I was going with that is in my more cynical view of commercial herpetoculture I see this reification of a very disparate series of sub-groups that have some overlap but often don't share much in common and appear generally disorganized.


Then it was entirely my misinterpretation, and I most sincerely apologize! I hope you can forgive my having jumped to any unsupported conclusions. Again, I am sorry about that. 

Excellent reply @Socratic Monologue! But my part of the discussion will need to be put on pause for the moment I am sorry to say.


----------



## Socratic Monologue

At the risk of further tenderizing the expired equine, I'd like to link a real world illustration of some of the points made here for future readers who might think that a lot of this is mere theoretic speculation.



Ed said:


> The benefit of captive breeding as a conservation tool by the hobby is pretty much a big fat zero but it is constantly used as a justification to get some animal generally rare in the hobby.


On attempts to justify smuggling by appealing to some worthy-sounding goal, and using the fact of past smuggling as some sort of rationalization of present bad behavior (like the sort I described here) here's a case in the news recently:









Man charged with smuggling thousands of reptiles into US from Mexico


Jose Manuel Perez, 30, was arrested last month trying to cross the border with 60 reptiles tucked into his clothes, including four Isthmian dwarf boas.




www.courthousenews.com





Quote/ 

Social media played a key role in the enterprise. Jose Perez used social media to both buy and sell the animals. He advertised his creatures with photos and videos and used mobile platforms to haggle with customers, accept payments and even at times defend himself from accusations of unethical behavior. Perez was surprisingly open about both his criminal operation and his belief that there was nothing wrong with what he was doing.

In February 2021, according to the charging document, “after a potential buyer accused [Perez] of offering wild-caught reptiles from Mexico for sale, [Perez] responded that the animals were being saved from deforestation in Mexico so the animals were doomed anyway and should be enjoyed by [Perez’s] customers.”

On an online forum devoted to Abronia lizards, Perez defended himself against those who had criticized reptile smuggling, writing that such naysayers “have no business keeping Abronia when you have something [negative] to say about smuggled animals. Doesn’t matter if yours were born in captivity. The parents more than likely were smuggled isn’t that pretty much the same. If it wasn’t for the guys that smuggled bearded dragons we wouldn’t have all these morphs and endless supply of bearded dragons.” 

/quote.


----------

