# Comments Against USF&WS Listing



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

I'm starting this thread to post comments here from Regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2009-0093).



> Before USFWS can require this testing, serious issues must be addressed regarding PCR. 1) Currently there is ONE commercial lab offering PCR testing. Cost is $20-30/sample and although samples can be batched (5 swabs/batch) the cost to importers is prohibitive. 2) Housing would need to be provided to maintain amphibians while awaiting test results. Facilities for this do not currently exist, cost is prohibitive and this type of housing would seriously increase the spread pathogens/parasites. 3) PCR testing is NOT accurate. I have conducted BD research since 2003 (all published). During one doctoral study I had 20 infected animals that I followed via histology. I am an expert at histological diagnosis of BD. I collected skin slough, prepared slides and viewed them daily. At the end, I took swab samples and sent them in for testing. ALL came back negative. I tried to work with the lab, troubleshooting swabs, ETOH, etc., yet after three rounds of PCR testing all with the same result, it was clear that something was very wrong with PCR. As a disease ecologist, I will say that the academic community?s labeling of PCR as the gold standard for BD testing was highly premature. Gold standards take decades of testing to ?proof? them. BD PCR testing has not been through the type of rigorous testing that true gold standards have. I have first-hand knowledge that PCR is NOT accurate for BD testing. I strongly advise USFWS that these issues must be resolved first. We need multiple labs that offer the test at low cost, to handle the sheer volume of animals that are imported. I also suggest an easier alternative to testing: assume infection and require prophylactic treatment instead. I and my colleagues recently found a treatment that is cheap and 100% effective. Cheaper than testing, but facilities would still be needed and personnel to conduct the treatments and care for animals. The in-press manuscript is attached. Please feel free to contact me. Dr. G.E. Padgett-Flohr


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Next comment:



> I am concerned this rule would jeopardize current projects which require the import of live specimens for Zoo collections for scientific research, education etc. from Mexico or other 3rd world countries where testing for Chytrid would be costly and impossible in-situ. Even if a test could be done of a wild collection of amphibians prior to import, a positive result would require A.treatment or B. release. Both of these options would be almost impossible in field collecting situations or in areas where this sort of testing or treatment option is non-existent. Release back to the wild in remote areas would be in some cases impossible due to weather, accessibility, cost etc. You can spend a week looking for 5 frogs only to find they are chytrid+ and no treatment is available and re-release is impossible because, eg. weather has changed and release would be a death sentence for the frog. I would request that any professional (AZA) or similar facility be given an exemption to this rule if the animals are lawfully imported and immediately transferred to a quarantine facility to be tested and/or treated in a professional situation that would give the imported amphibian (inherently fragile group of animals) the best chance of maintaining its health and surviving the transport etc. Thank you for the consideration.


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Next comment:



> With all appropriate respect, this legal intention is some of the biggest nonsense I have heard in my life. Chytrid is a secondary infection only causing lethality if first-in-line infections or bad/unsuitable environmental conditions have weakened an amphibian. Others like herpes viruses are way more threatening so are the Rana viruses/Ambystomatid viruses, draught, high temperatures, too little UV radiation (as proved by british scientists for tropical treefrogs etc. And Bd can easily and effectively be treated with Chloramphenicol and some other pharmaceuticals as proved by british scientists as well. This proposed rule merely is another attempt to simply abolish something which could not be suppressed by publically stating it is just unwanted. People´s rights are affected by regulations like these. They have no positive effect whatsoever and are only set up to suppress actions unwanted by certain pressure groups. All hobbyists keeping amphibians have a high interest in healthy, long living animals and do the best to act accordingly. There is clear evidence that the spreading of Bd all over the world was and is first of all caused by scientists transferring the fungus from the laboratory into the field. Will all scientific research from now on be prohibited as well? Internationally reknown herpetologist David Wake have reported complete eradication of previously abundant amphibians in Central America. The march of Bd up north is being monitored but not stoppable. Bd is present in the entire USA more or less already but the most serious threats to native amphibians are other infections e.g. the Ambytomatid Virus (perhaps identical with Rana Virus) in Ambystoma mavortium stebbinsi which is a highly endemic, protected and monitored species. The trade of tigersalamanders as a fishing bait surely is a threat to other amphibians by introducing into habitats formerly not populated, mixing up genetically separated morphs and subspecies, and moving germs.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Web Wheeler said:


> I'm starting this thread to post comments here from Regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2009-0093).


Just to correct an idea in the first post.. there are actually *4* labs in the US where testing can be done for chytrid, and three in Europe. See Chytrid Fungus « Amphibian Ark

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Next comment:



> The degree of risk from different Amphibian species ranges from near zero to dangerously high. It is unjustifyable to classify "All Live Amphibians" as presenting a significant threat. Until evidence substantiates amphibian eggs as being infected with Bd, amphibian "eggs" should be excluded from the proposal.


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

Ed said:


> Just to correct an idea in the first post.. there are actually *4* labs in the US where testing can be done for chytrid, and three in Europe. See Chytrid Fungus « Amphibian Ark


I would like to point out that when you factor in the sheer number of tests that would be required, it won't make much difference if it's 1 lab or 4 labs.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

johnc said:


> I would like to point out that when you factor in the sheer number of tests that would be required, it won't make much difference if it's 1 lab or 4 labs.


In the past the delay was often in getting enough samples to justify the costs of a run. At this time costs are starting to come down (for example one lab is running the PCR tests for $10 each as part of a study on Zoos). As for how many labs it would take will also depend on how the testing requirements are implemented. As a totally hypothetical example, people could swab and send in thier tests based on a state for a set period of time. This would reduce the load on the labs and prevent swamping the labs. There is also no indication that if this did not go through, the labs wouldn't expand to meet the increased demand, or that other labs would not get into the act based on the potential for revenue. 



Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Great, but how long would it take to "catch up" once the first 10,000 swabs are received overnite? And what happens when they start to swab soils and plants and all the other possible vectors for the spread of chytrid(crayfish, birds, etc).




Ed said:


> In the past the delay was often in getting enough samples to justify the costs of a run. At this time costs are starting to come down (for example one lab is running the PCR tests for $10 each as part of a study on Zoos). As for how many labs it would take will also depend on how the testing requirements are implemented. As a totally hypothetical example, people could swab and send in thier tests based on a state for a set period of time. This would reduce the load on the labs and prevent swamping the labs. There is also no indication that if this did not go through, the labs wouldn't expand to meet the increased demand, or that other labs would not get into the act based on the potential for revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Next comment:



> 1. What Federal, State, or tribal regulations exist to prevent the spread of chytrid fungus? At present I am not aware of any Federal, State or tribal regulations to prevent spread of the chytrid fungus. 2. Are there any known mechanisms in the United States to test for, control, or regulate movement or interstate transport of chytrid fungus? There are laboratories in the United States that are able to perform diagnostic testing for the chytrid fungus. However, additional capacity will need to be developed to accommodate increased needs for this diagnostic testing. Some adjustment may need to be made in US laboratories to comply to OIE standards. Treatment methods to control chytrid fungal infections are available for captive animals, but not for wild amphibians. Development of amphibian colonies that are specific pathogen free for the chytrid fungus both in the pet industry and zoo/display settings are possible/feasible, but will require commitments for time and expense (painful in the short term, but ultimately beneficial to all stakeholders). Guidelines for chytrid treatment, control in captive populations and development of specific pathogen free populations are available in ?Manual for Control of Infectious Diseases in Amphibian Survival Assurance Colonies and Reintroduction Programs?. This can be downloaded at no-cost from the Captive Breeding Specialist Group of the the IUCN (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group). There are no known mechanisms in place to regulate amphibian movements that I am aware of. 3. How many businesses import live amphibians or their eggs into the United States? This is not within my area of expertise. 4. How many businesses sell live amphibians or their eggs for interstate commerce?). This is not within my area of expertise. 5. What are the annual sales of these imported live amphibians and their eggs? This is not within my area of expertise. 6. What species of amphibians, fish, or other class of animal have been affected by chytrid fungus in the United States and how were they infected? Only amphibians are directly affected by the chytrid fungus. There may be indirect consequences to ecosystems created by loss of amphibians due to chytrid fungal outbreaks. Notable examples of US amphibians that have been affected by chytrid fungus in terms of populations declines include the Wyoming Toad (Anaxyrus baxteri); the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana sierra and Rana muscosa); and Rocky Mountain Boreal Toads (Anaxyrus boreas boreas). Infection with the chytrid fungus seems to be widespread in amphibians throughout the United States. How the fungus has moved through the United States is unknown, however, anthropogenic movement of amphibians seems likely. Introduced species such as the Amercian bullfrog (to Western US) or African clawed frogs often become infected with the chytrid fungus and do not display signs of illness (subclinical carriers) and therefore are ideal vectors for movement of the fungus to new locations (and sources of infection for susceptible species). 7. What are the current and potential effects to species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA that are contaminated with chytrid fungus? Several threatened and ESA listed species have declined because of the chytrid fungus notably Wyoming Toad (Anaxyrus baxteri); the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana sierra and Rana muscosa); and Rocky Mountain Boreal Toads (Anaxyrus boreas boreas). Since the fungus can infect a wide range of amphibian hosts the potential to cause harm to other threatened species is high, especially when few remnant populations exist (a major die-off due to chytrids in 1 population may be disastrous). 8. What are the potential costs of recovering threatened or endangered species affected by chytrid fungus? At this time recovery of many amphibian populations affected by the chytrid fungus will require captive propagation and development of survival assurance populations. This is because there is currently no way to mitigate the effects of infection in wild populations. Captive propagation is expensive especially in order to maintain appropriate genetic diversity and production of numbers of animals needed for reintroduction. 9. What is the likelihood that wild amphibians would be affected by the importation of live amphibians or their eggs that harbor chytrid fungus? The likelihood is unknown. It is known that chytrid fungal infections are common in imported amphibians and accepted from peer-reviewed literature that anthropogenic movement of amphibians is responsible for dispersal of the fungus to new locations. Although the fungus is already widely distributed in US amphibians it will still be of value to reduce importation or movement of additional infected amphibians. This is because there is some literature to suggest that different isolates or strains of the chytrid fungus may have different effects on different amphibian species (e.g. you cannot assume that all chytrid fungi are the same). The likelihood that wild amphibians would be affected is strongest for animals originating in the pet trade or live food trade. These animals are more likely to be released to the wild and be persistently infected/shedding organisms at a new location. Animals used in conservation programs/zoos are less likely to be released to a new location. Eggs would be low risk for movement of the fungus (eggs do not become infected), except for the potential to move water that is contaminated with the chytrid fungus. 10. What would it cost to eradicate chytrid fungus? Eradication of the fungus from the United States is probably not feasible (too many wild animals that are subclinically infected) and management strategies to reduce impacts on wild populations and prevent introduction of different chytrid strains/isolates to new locations is feasible. It is possible to eradicate infection in captive amphibian populations using testing and treatment programs. 11. Are there any potential benefits to allowing the chytrid fungus pathogen to be imported? Yes, there are some benefits under controlled circumstances. It could be of benefit to researchers to be able to import isolates of the chytrid fungus for scientific study. It is also of benefit to be able to import skin swab samples from potentially infected animals for laboratory analysis (PCR methodology for testing is not universally available abroad). Finally, for conservation programs/amphibian survival assurance populations it occasionally may be beneficial to be able to import chytrid infected animals to the United States for treatment (e.g, an emergency rescue situation). In those situations animals could be treated to clear chytrid infection with minimal risk to US amphibian populations. 12. What is the potential for the industries that conduct trade in amphibians to self-police through voluntary best practices; for example, how successful is the ``Bd-Free `Phibs Campaign'' sponsored by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council? It is too early to say. The Bd-Free Phibs campaign has been slow to get started. There will be a need for the pet industry to really get on board with aggressive testing and treatment programs as well as improved biosecurity for animal dealerships. To be effective the industry must develop specific pathogen free amphibian populations for the chytrid fungus, especially for the common species in the trade (White?s tree frog; dwarf African Clawed Frogs ect). This would be expensive at first, but ultimately to everyone?s advantage. It would allow for confidence in Bd-free populations and simplify shipment issues. Many zoos are already attempting to develop Bd-free populations (but additional regulatory ?help? may not be a bad thing). 13. What peer-reviewed methods for detecting chytrid fungus have been published? Hyatt, A.D., D.G. Boyle, V. Olsen, D.B. Boyle, L. Berger, D. Obendorf, A. Dalton, K. Kriger, M. Hero, H. Hines, R. Phillott, R. Campbell, G. Marantelli, F. Gleason and A. Colling. 2007. Diagnostic assays and sampling protocols for the detection of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 73: 175?192. Annis, S.L., F. P. Dastoor, H. Ziel, P. Daszak, and J. E. Longcore. 2004. A DNA-based assay identifies Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 40: 420?428. Goka, K. J. Yokoyama, Y. Une, T. Kuroki, K. Suzuki, M. Nakahara, A. Kobayashi, S. Inaba, T. Mizutani, and A. D. Hyatt. 2009. Amphibian chytridiomycosis in Japan: distribution, haplotypes and possible route of entry into Japan. Molecular Ecology 18:4757?4774 A review of diagnostic testing methods has recently been published as Chapter 7 in ?Manual for Control of Infectious Diseases in Amphibian Survival Assurance Colonies and Reintroduction Programs?. This can be downloaded at no-cost from the Captive Breeding Specialist Group of the the IUCN (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group). The method used to detect chytrid fungal infection will be critical to the success of any certification program or regulations for movement of amphibians. The Taqman PCR technique (Hyatt 2007 listed above) is the most sensitive method and is best suited for accurate detection of low levels of chytrid infection. The conventional PCR method (Annis et al. listed above) is not sufficiently sensitive to detect many low-level infections. The nested conventional PCR technique of Goka may be an alternative to the Taqman techniques, but has not been widely used to date in many laboratories. There are no validated testing methods for amphibian eggs. 14. Are there any other comments or information regarding the listing of live amphibians as injurious unless free of chytrid fungus? This is a very worthy proposal that will limit any further dissemination of chytrid fungi in the United States. However, proper implementation will be absolutely critical for success. Criteria for diagnostic testing should be carefully developed (e.g, regulation is much less effective if a conventional PCR technique is approved as a testing measure or to go to another extreme if laboratory testing is limited only to OIE certified laboratories of which there are very few worldwide). Development by the pet and food industry of specific pathogen-free amphibian populations for the chytrid fungus on the most commonly and widely distributed amphibians could reduce a lot of risk outright (these animals are most likely to escape or be released and pose immediate threats to wild populations). Involvement of stakeholders and disease testing experts in final proposals for regulation would be beneficial.


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Next comment:



> The wording of the addition to the Lacey Act has some serious deleterious effects on other domestic agricultural concerns. For example, farm raised catfish and tilapia are typically raised in outdoor ponds, where wild frogs are free to roam. The accidental, inadvertent inclusion of a wild tadpole in a shipment of fish, would place the farmer, shipper, and transporter all in violation of the Lacey Act; subject to fines. Accidental inclusion by wild frogs in a shipment of fish should not made a criminal act! And the cost to comply with this regulation would simply put more domestic producers at an economic disadvantage to importers of this fish.


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Next comment:



> This proposed regulation would be detrimental to the private trade among amphibian hobbyists. Private hobbyists have been responsible for many advances in amphibian husbandry, including an effective treatment for chytrid using a readily available foot spray. Private hobbyists are maintaining hundreds, if not thousands, of amphibian species in captive breeding projects and dedicating resources that zoos simply do not have. Preventing the trade between hobbyists will do nothing to stop chytrid as it has already been established throughout the United States through the release of infected African clawed frogs by scientific and medical labs and the transport of bullfrogs for the food industry. The loss of private amphibian collections would be a huge blow to conservation and alienate the people who care most about amphibians.


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

Next comment:



> This bill is a bad idea because it would be ineffective and and unfairly impact the amphibian trade while producing no obvious benefit. It would be a ineffective feel good measure that would pointlessly strangle the amphibian pet trade and nothing more. Chytrid has already been found to be present in every single state within the USA. Testing for it now is considerably to late to accomplish anything even if testing was practical, effective, and affordable. All of that is in serious doubt. Not only can chytrid be spread via live amphibians it can be spread through water being transfered from one body where it is present to another body of water where it is present, and also there is some suspicion it can be spread via waterfowl and the soles of human shoes. Obviously from the data available stopping the spread of chytrid is completely impossible. There are to many possible modes of travel and it is far to widespread already to effectively contain it. Thank you for your consideration. SRD


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

From another thread.

Bumping this thread - today is the last day for comments everyone. The deadline is 11:59 pm Eastern Time at this address:

Regulations.gov

Please make constructive comments. For example, do not make blanket statements such as "this would be bad". Instead, make specific points and please try to cite references (there are plenty of reasons and citations in the threads here and here on dendroboard. Additionally there is a thread going on Caudata.org here).

Please do make a comment. Aside from the fact that the regulations could all but eliminate our hobby, the groundswell of informed opinion is that the regulations will do little to regulate the real culprits in chytrid spread, and the number of strains and their widespread presence in the wild in the US are points of history - there is no getting that cat back in the bag.

Lastly, this is another attempt by a very small but "fashionable" lobby group (Defenders of Wildlife) to impose their viewpoint on the American public, curtailing your freedom for their agenda. Even if you support the idea of these regulations, the least you can do is check your facts prior to just signing off on it - the sad fact is that few of the pro-ban folks really have much of a clue about the situation, or are they are pushing their own agenda/reinforcing their own jobs (sadly, reading the comment by its director, this now describes Amphibian Ark, an organization for which I've been a long time donor and supporter).

PS: I have not posted my own comment yet but I will before the deadline tonight.


----------

