# List of the legal status of dart frogs species in the US



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

With the thread related to conservation that just popped up, I thought that I would make a list of the known species of frog in the hobby. Darts are classified as legal or illegal by if there have been known survivors from legal imports.

D. = Dendrobates P. = Pyllobates

D. amazonicus: Legal

D. auratus: Legal

D. azureus: Legal

D. castaneoticus: Illegal (but present in numbers)

D. fantasticus: Legal

D. galactontus: Legal

D. histronicus: Illegal

D. imitator: Legal

D. intermedius: Legal

D. lamasi: Legal

D. lehmanni: Illegal

D. leucomelas: Legal

D. mysteriosus: Illegal

D. pumilio: Legal (some morphs Illegal)

D. quinquevittaus: Legal

D. reticulatus: Legal

D. tinctorius: Legal

D. ventrimaculatus: Legal

D. vanzolinni: Illegal

D. variabils: Legal

P. bicolor: Legal

P. terribilis: Legal

I'll add more later. If I've misfiled any, feel free to let me know.


----------



## bradadams (Jun 3, 2004)

Interesting thread. From what I understand histronicus were legally imported at one time. Possibly lehmanni as well.


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

They probably were. There was a lot of importation of many different dart species back in the early 90s. But from what I understand, none of those frogs left offspring to the present day. If you see someone advertising D. mysteriosus or D. histronicus, the odds are probably better than 100 to 1 that they're smuggled.


----------



## VTHokie (Jun 28, 2005)

Thanks i was actually wondering about that.


----------



## dmatychuk (Apr 20, 2005)

I believe that D. Histrionicus has and is being breed successfully by individuals who have had their stock for years when they were legally imported. In the last two weeks I have personally spoken to three individuals who breed them and made that claim and these individuals have sold at shows and on dendroboard in the past.

I have heard the same claims about D. Lehmanni as well though I have not personally spoken to anyone.

In addition black jungle says that they own both of these species and he would be a fool if these were smuggled in and then post them on his site, both hobbyists and the fish and wildlife would frown on this. check the following link. 

http://www.blackjungle.com/Merchant2/me ... y_Code=OFC

I hope you are wrong because the white footed Histrionicus is the number one frog I am looking for.


----------



## dmatychuk (Apr 20, 2005)

Good post but it might be better to put the species in one of three categories if you want to split hairs and not make assumptions on what breeders can do.

-Legal now
-Legal in the past(which are legal if you have any of these descendants)
-Legal(Imports from Germany)
-Illegal always


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Legal status*

Histrionicus were inported legally by the 1000's in the mid to late 90's and there have been a few legal importations of Lehmanni. The Histo's were only exported from Ecuador (as far as I know) and most in the hobby now are from Colombia.
Some morphs of Pumilio are legal and some are not??? I know the answere to the question but how would that be enforcible?
Mark


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

> D. vanzolinni: Illegal


This one is actually up for debate. I think it is legal to import from Germany with papers demonstrating 3rd generation of off spring.
Dave


----------



## dmatychuk (Apr 20, 2005)

then we need to add Legal(from Germany)


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Legal Frogs*

Maybe one of our European friends can verify but i was told there is no paperwork for Vanzolini in Europe, I have also heard this from some here in the states. No legal Vanzolini, kind of like the Mysteriousis but a little lower profile.
Mark


----------



## geckguy (Mar 8, 2004)

I believe that is the situation Mark, no legal vanzolini have been exported


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2005)

*vanzolinii*

hallo
there shall now legal in GERMANY
loke ad dis url 
http://www.dendrobatenforum.de/cgi-bin/ ... e__Tausche
affected adults being placed by breeder, now hi sell the ofspring
like the or not legal than shal not being offer on the internet
gr mast (sorry for rong,bat Englisch)


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2005)

geckguy said:


> I believe that is the situation Mark, no legal vanzolini have been exported


An illegal shipment of vanzolini was confiscated by the German custom offices last year. The frogs were given to a few well experienced frogbreeders, in this way they became legal . They're allowed to sell the offspring ,in this way these animals are also legal .
Sincerely
Ben


----------



## geckguy (Mar 8, 2004)

They may be legal in Germany, but I have a feeling that if I tried to bring them in they would be seized. Seems like similar situtation to mysteriosus in your country.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2005)

geckguy said:


> They may be legal in Germany, but I have a feeling that if I tried to bring them in they would be seized. Seems like similar situtation to mysteriosus in your country.


As far as I know their are at the moment no legal mysteriosus in Europe (but I don't kwon every breeder) . Last year there was an ad for cb mysteriosus at the German forum and she offered 'legal papers'.
sincerely
Ben 
(from Belgium)


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

Arklier said:


> D. pumilio: Legal (some morphs Illegal)


Hmmm.... so which ones are illegal?

-J


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

andersonii85 said:


> Arklier said:
> 
> 
> > D. pumilio: Legal (some morphs Illegal)
> ...


I'm farily certain CITES, ESA, and the Lacey Act dont' work below the species level. Same goes for large projects like the global amphibian project. I'm 99% certain that they aren't tracked this way by the CITES database and almost certain the same thing goes for the USFWS database. For a while things were pretty loose with species brought in as dendrobates spp. This problem ties into the other post about tracking lines where to really to know what is laundered, legit, etc., you need some sort of database and protocol about providing import papers, certification, etc. I can call my frogs Joe Shmoe line all day, but unless Joe Shmoe is tracking all the progeny of his frogs' offspring, nobody will be the wiser. Similarly, just because tincs are legal, doesn't mean your tincs were aquired legally. There is also the added confusion of some morphs being imported under a parent species later to be reclassified as their own species. I believe this was the case with the castis that came in for research.

--Marcos


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

> They may be legal in Germany, but I have a feeling that if I tried to bring them in they would be seized.


On D. vanzolinii. I spoke to a US Dept F&G warden friend of mine. She told me that yes, the German Vanzolinii are legal (at least in California) as long as they are imported with CITES paperwork with proof of generation production minimum to the 3rd generation. At least, that's what she said. She also works for a state agency and not the Feds, so while it may be okay in California, nationally I think they are okay too. So unless CITES has recently changed their mind or the country of origin has requested a drop in legal status they seem ok. I do not recall when the last meeting for CITES was, I think it was recent though, but it didn't look like much has changed as far as frogs were concerned. We'll know for sure when someone makes an attempt to import them.
Dave


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "There is also the added confusion of some morphs being imported under a parent species later to be reclassified as their own species. I believe this was the case with the castis that came in for research. "


Not to my understanding. And this is still a moot point as before the castinoticus came into the USA, Brazil changed how it handled the export of its wildlife with all animals (and their progeny) remaining the property of Brazil. So even if they were imported under one species and then reclassified (which is not my understanding), all of the castinoticus in the private sector would still all be illegal. 

Ed


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

Ed said:


> Not to my understanding. And this is still a moot point as before the castinoticus came into the USA, Brazil changed how it handled the export of its wildlife with all animals (and their progeny) remaining the property of Brazil. So even if they were imported under one species and then reclassified (which is not my understanding), all of the castinoticus in the private sector would still all be illegal.


Ed,

I wish I knew the whole story. I am not looking to figure out a way to legitimize castaneoticus in the hobby but pointing out the regulatory difficulties in tracking these issues especially since many databases don't even track below the species level let alone track when certain countries changed their rules. In addition, record keeping can be haphazard (see The Hoover, Craig. The U.S. Role in the International Live Reptile Trade 1998 and Schlaepfer, Martin. et al. Challenges in Evaluating the Impact of the Trade in Amphibians and Reptiles on Wild Populations 2005).

From what I understand castaneoticus was split from quinquevittatus in 1990 (Caldwell and Myers 1990). However all the CITES data from 1974-2004 shows only quinquevittatus being traded with not a single instance of castaneoticus. Of those transactions directly out of Brazil into the US a total of 15 quinquevittatus are recorded as imported to the US. In addition, 53 animals labeled "Dendrobates spp." where exported from Brazil to the US between 1996-1998, 48 for research and 5 that were confiscated (don't know where).

To make things more confusing the CITES database says that castaneoticus have been listed since 1987 which seems improbable if they weren't identified as a species until 1990. Since their inclusion date is the exact same as the that of quinquevittatus, I think CITES made the decision to make the inclusion retroactive to the inclusion date of quinquevittatus.

Also, I haven't read the Lacey Act in enough detail lately to know how something like Brazil's decision to change an animals status is grandfathered. In my experience anectdotal data like the warden's account about vanzolinii can be unreliable. There are a lot of misconceptions among enforcement officers and they can often be wrong or misinformed. I certainly think that somebody at USFWS knows the answer, but I like to see those sort of things on letter head.

It is an interesting question about how to proceed with those animals that were illegal all along or became illegal after a rule change, Red List status change, etc. In the case of castaneoticus, I agree about them being illegal to own, import, etc. as the rules stand today, although I would say that it isn't moot to thoroughly examine and document why species are legal or illegal as the original poster suggested.

Finally, I think figuring out the legal status will be a relatively simple exercise, it is what we do with that knowledge as a hobby that presents the interesting, challenging questions.

$0.02,

Marcos


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Marcos,

This will be a long post, appliciable sections of Lacy act are listed below. In the 70s and 80s importers often just labled the shipments as dendrobates spp and as long as the quotas and permits were correct then the frogs were allowed into the USA. Now this is generally not the case... 
The frogs in this case were legally brought into the country and illegally disseminated in violation of the agreement and Brazilian law so that is why the Lacy act is appliciable to each and every castinoticus in the trade. 
I didn't think you were trying to make that argument but as I said the point is moot because of the Brazilian Laws...


snip "LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981 
16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378, November 16, 1981, as amended 1984 and 1988. 
Overview. This Act replaces the Black Bass Act of 1926 and most of the original Lacey Act. The Lacey Act Amendments make it unlawful to import, export, transport, buy or sell fish, wildlife and plants taken or possessed in violation of federal, state or tribal law. Interstate or foreign commerce in fish and wildlife taken or possessed in violation of foreign law also is illegal. The Act requires that packages containing fish or wildlife be plainly marked. Enforcement measures include civil and criminal penalties, cancellation of hunting and fishing licenses, and forfeiture. 

Selected Definitions. Fish or wildlife: an alive or dead wild animal, including a wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate or other invertebrate, and including any part, product, egg or offspring. Import: land on, bring into, or introduce into any place subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Plant or plants: a wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds and other parts (but not common food crops) indigenous to a state and either listed on an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or under a state conservation statute. Secretary: Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce, according to program responsibilities; Secretary of Agriculture for provisions on the import or export of plants. Taken: captured, killed or collected. Transport: move, convey, carry or ship by any means, or deliver or receive for these purposes. § 3371. 

Prohibitions on Activities. The Act makes it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a federal law, treaty, regulation or Indian tribal law. It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation. The Act also makes it illegal to possess within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation, foreign law or Indian tribal law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation. 

Additionally, the Act establishes marking requirements, making it illegal to import, export or transport in interstate commerce a container or package containing fish or wildlife unless the container or package is plainly marked, labeled or tagged in accordance with regulations issued under the Act." unsnip


snip "The Act also establishes false labeling offenses. It is illegal to make or submit a false record, account, label or false identification of any fish, wildlife or plant that has been or will be (1) imported, exported, transported, sold, purchased or received from a foreign country, or (2) transported in interstate or foreign commerce. § 3372. 

Penalties. The Act provides significant civil and criminal penalties for violations. Criminal penalties, especially fines, are also described in the summary of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. 

For anyone convicted of a criminal violation, the Secretary may suspend, modify or cancel a federal hunting or fishing license, permit or stamp, or any license or permit authorizing import or export of fish, wildlife or plants. Fish, wildlife or plants used in a way that violates the Act, and vessels, vehicles, aircraft and other equipment used in the illegal activity, are subject to forfeiture to the U.S. §§ 3373-3374. 

Enforcement. The Act and its regulations must be enforced by the Secretary, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Secretary of the Treasury, each of whom may enter into enforcement agreements with other federal or state agencies or Indian tribes. Persons enforcing the Act may carry firearms, make certain warrantless arrests, serve subpoenas and warrants, detain and inspect vessels and containers upon entry and departure from the U.S., and require the production of documents and permits. The Act authorizes rewards for information leading to an arrest, conviction, fine or forfeiture and expenses for the temporary care of seized fish, wildlife or plants. The Act also authorizes the issuance of regulations. §§ 3375-3376. endsnip" 

As they are listed as a endangered species in Brazil the ESA may be appliciable and require a permit to transport across state borders for which a permit would not be granted as all of the progeny originated from illegal parents (see http://www.animallaw.info/administrativ ... _21_23.htm)


Ed


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the snippet. I appreciate you saving me a visit to the GPO website. Just wondering if anybody had heard of Lacy Act enforcement actions on animals that weren't being shipped across state lines &/or of enforcement by anybody but USFWS. Brent asked that a while back, and I don't think anybody had a solid answer. At least from my read of the Act you are in violation no matter what, but what I have read is that nobody really enforces the Lacy Act until animals are being sold or shipped. It's like the rule about selling turtles with a carapace of less than 4". After about 5 minutes on Kingsnake or anywhere else pets are sold online you can find tons of vendors openly advertising these turtles.

It's kind of funny but even without the Lacy Act CITES should be enforceable under Section VI of the Constitution as a signed treaty. However, I think there are 100ds of examples that this broad protection doesn't work without some other enforcement mechanism.

Another weird question that has crossed my mind, but I haven't really researched is what the status is of animals coming from non CITES countries especially for animals that are protected by CITES in neighboring countries. A good example is Tanzania. If I remember correctly, it isn't a signatory to CITES, but is a huge wildlife exporter. So, I don't know what happens in these cases. I think the information still goes into the USFWS database but is largely transparent to CITES unless they get the information through the signatory country receiving the animals.

Marcos


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Marcos,
What I have seen is that it is typically USF&W working in conjunction with another group, be it local, state, customs, and/or postal enforcement officers. 

There are loop holes in the 4 inch turtle rule that make it basically unenforceable (for example it is permissiable to sell chelonians with a shell length of less than 4 inches to other breeders (breeders are not defined) or for exhibition purposes (again not really defined). Basically as long as you agree that you are not purchasing them for a pet then it is legal on the federal level however the states often have laws that make the importation impossible. For example, in Pennsylvania it is illegal to import any chelonian into the state unless it has undergone seven consecutive fecal checks for salmonella and all fecals are negative as certified by the state of origin's state vet...

With respect to the non-CITES countries, this is one of the major methods of laundering animals into the pet trade. For example, Indonesia was exporting thousands of Fly-River Turtles into the USA even though they are not found in Indonesia. They were being smuggled into Indonesia from New Guinea, when USF&W noticed the discrepency, there were some seizure, refusal to clear shipments and fines and the practice stopped. Often if there is a clear case of laundering it continues until USF&W catchs on or is notified. But even with CITES countries there are shipments that are not tracked for example, shipping animals from French Guiana to France does not require any paperwork other than what the French goverment may require internally.....

Ed


----------

