# tinctorius "Tumucumaque"



## nish07

I remember this being discovered many years ago. It's Brazil so I'd imagine no exports but has anyone heard of these things ever leaving the country and ending up in a zoo or in a collector's hands?

-Nish


----------



## whitethumb

this is the one tinc i would own in a heartbeat. from what i heard they are in a protected park and no legal exports.


----------



## hypostatic

Due to brazilian laws, if any of those frogs are outside the contry they are illegally. In fact, I believe it's also illegal for anyone to have them IN brazil.

The morph pops up on the boards every few months with someone asking about it. Here's some more pics to make your mouth water:


----------



## FroggyKnight

Why do you torture me???

John


----------



## hypostatic

Want me to dig up some nice mysteriosus pics too?


----------



## FroggyKnight

I'm not sure which is cooler, these or mysteriosus


----------



## pdjosey

That's a dream right there!


----------



## Dendro Dave

Don't let DFW see these. They'll claim they could have only been the result of orange galcts and/or lues crossed with skyblue azureus... And then probably start trying to produce copies (if they aren't at it already)


----------



## BBoyette

Looks like the back leg is messed up. (Frog on the left)


----------



## nish07

The thing that is most interesting is that while they could have been crosses between locales that produced this morph, the toes are white. They're a very interesting morph.

-Nish


----------



## Mantella71

That morph is amazing. Almost too outrageous to believe, sure those pics are not photoshopped


----------



## hypostatic

Possibly. Not much is known about the Brazilian locales/species of dart frogs. And rain forest keeps disappearing at an accelerating pace. That combined with the brazilian government's policies make it probable that we will never know much more about such frogs.


----------



## FroggyKnight

hypostatic said:


> Possibly. Not much is known about the Brazilian locales/species of dart frogs. And rain forest keeps disappearing at an accelerating pace. That combined with the brazilian government's policies make it probable that we will never know much more about such frogs.


Sad but true...


----------



## epiphytes etc.

I think one of the coolest things about this morph is the high variability in just the few individuals pictured. I do wonder, though, if these are just the most attractive.


----------



## frogparty

Wonder if this represents the oldest morph of tinctorius. So many phenotypic expressions..... I wonder if all other morphs are the result of genetic drift and population isolation due to fragmented habitat.


----------



## hypostatic

epiphytes etc. said:


> I think one of the coolest things about this morph is the high variability in just the few individuals pictured. I do wonder, though, if these are just the most attractive.


I think most tinc morphs are equally variable. In the wild anyway. I think a lot of variation is lost in captivity because people tend to like to breed together frogs that look more similar.



frogparty said:


> Wonder if this represents the oldest morph of tinctorius. So many phenotypic expressions..... I wonder if all other morphs are the result of genetic drift and population isolation due to fragmented habitat.


One of the theories that try to figure out where humans originated from uses genetic variation to try to solve this. The higher the genetic variation, the more likely that's the original area/population that others came from. I think this would be a good way to find out what the oldest morph is. And if anyone is looking for a nice research project to do in the in the middle of the Amazon, this would make a great thesis I think 

Speaking of is much known about the darts/morphs that are in the heart of the amazon?


----------



## frogparty

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The recent work involving the speciation of Oophaga ( histrionica, pumilio, granulifera, escudo, speciosa etc )demonstrates very well the speciation events arising from a common ancestor, utilizing mtDNA 

I bet if someone were to do the same thing with tincs from Suriname to Brazil etc we'd get a very interesting picture, and good proof that ( unlike claims from DFW) that different morphs arise not as results of gene flow from one population to another, but genetic drift away from a common ancestor. We may even pinpoint the likely origination of the tinctorius race of frogs


----------



## Fantastica

I feel a Costa Rica research project brewing in my brain!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## hypostatic

Heh, I'd do the research myself if I could get funding lol


----------



## frogparty

Have you read this paper? Deals with Oophaga from Costa Rica to Panama and extends south to sample Oophaga histrionica populations.


----------



## hypostatic

I've seen these two papers, one looking at pumilio morphs, and the other looking at histrionica and lehmanni, but not one with all of oophaga. Maybe you could link it? 

Pumilio
http://redfrogbluefrog.org/papers/WangShaffer2008Evolution.pdf

histrionica/lehmanni
Hybridization promotes color polymorphism in the aposematic harlequin poison frog, Oophaga histrionica - Medina - 2013 - Ecology and Evolution - Wiley Online Library


----------



## Adam

pdjosey said:


> That's a dream right there!


Wow those are to sick. I would love to get my hands on some of those.


----------



## hypostatic

So... it seems the Germans already have their hands on these guys, and they're being distributed around Europe. This guy was supposedly bred at a Spanish pet store, and the parents came from Germany:

https://fbcdn-video-l-a.akamaihd.ne..._=1426717812_792295e98025a34664ed99f217a9c337


----------



## stu&shaz

hypostatic said:


> So... it seems the Germans already have their hands on these guys, and they're being distributed around Europe. This guy was supposedly bred at a Spanish pet store, and the parents came from Germany:
> 
> https://fbcdn-video-l-a.akamaihd.ne..._=1426717812_792295e98025a34664ed99f217a9c337


Dan, I can't get the link to work is it working for others? Interesting thoughts on speciation guys,thanks for the links

Stunning frogs the one pictured in Stephan Lotters' book has had me entranced for years. We have heard rumours here in blighty that this frog has been in captivity for a while now,even very high prices have been rumoured. But this one needs to stay put until someone in Braisil can set up an organisation like Teroros or Wikiri for me at least. I know this is after the fact,but a goodly few of us on this side of the pond do care where our frogs come from,despite what again seems to be happening. I know it is stunningly beautiful and I'd love to keep like to many others would,but it has to come from a legal source and I really doubt in this case that will ever happen. Such a shame some funds for the reserve(and possibly more) on which it lives could so easily be found if only there was a legit way of doing this with Brasil's blessing.

Hey ho we can but dream.

best

Stu


----------



## FroggyKnight

Yeah, the link isn't working for me either. It's giving me a 403 error.

It would really be nice to have these guys in the hobby, but I would only buy them from legal origins. 

John


----------



## hypostatic

ok lets try this:

View My Video


----------



## nish07

That frog is a parent to captive breeding in Spain by what I think is a private collector.

-Nish


----------



## ErickG

I wonder how many were brought over. If these do, in fact, reside in a protected park then I'd say its a win for the frog.

If all that was taken were those pictured, then it's still a win for the frogs in Brazil.


----------



## daviss_36

still beautiful frogs


----------



## dendroalvaro

That frog in the video is from a frog shop in Spain. Not only that shop brought some but aswell another shop brought juveniles and was selling them. This frogs were bought in hamm where in this hamm there were some people selling them but under table. The shops in spain use the excuse that they a tintorius morph and that is legal but being or not a tinctoriusthey are from brazil wich makes them ilegal.


----------



## nish07

There are a lot of 'illegal' tincs around. A lot of them were brought in the same way. All of the terribilis brought in before Tesoros imported them are illegal. Same with Bicolor and many others.

This is where it gets tricky. Morally and legally it's wrong to take frogs from the wild. Many frogs now so plentifully bred here for the past 20 years were brought in due to some shady stuff (whether smuggled or brought in with fish or labeled as a different species). Those frogs are thriving so well that I doubt most people would ever consider going to smuggle frogs that are as common as goldfish as far as someone in wanting frogs in the hobby goes.

However, as Ed has pointed out, while auratus are some of the most common frogs around, they still get smuggled even when you can get them from a breeder in the U.S. for 30 bucks and are likely much healthier.

As an example, Take a look at large well established frog breeding small businesses and people selling frogs in the hobby. You will see many frogs of illegal origin but are just so plentiful now and came in so long ago that they're not considered an issue. On the other hand, take mysteriosus. They breed like rabbits but Peru is so strongly opposed to exporting them even Marc Pepper can't get papers for them (yet has exported just about every other frog he's tried as far as I know). In Europe those frogs sell for like 50 dollars a piece. Here, they will get your collection confiscated.

It's hard to say how the tumaq tincs will go when they get in the U.S. They will get here. They will breed like rabbits. They will be a tinctorius morph which have been imported so in the grey area of species you must know for sure where they came from. Azureus, themselves, are all of illegal origin. You likely won't have to search hard to find Azureus tincs. Is it worse or better that they are in the hobby?

First off, illegal is illegal. Illegal is for a reason and people may argue why. Brazil doesn't export frogs. Castaneoticus have been around forever but you don't see many because I believe their coloration isn't as attractive. If a population of frogs is so small that collecting them is a threat then most people would say leave them be. If the issue is clear-cutting of forest then some people would say collection is a good thing. It's Brazil's call. Still, we have tons of Azureus in the hobby and when the tumaqs get to the U.S. (however they get here) they will get here with legal papers because they are a tinc morph and they will breed like Azureus. They will 'likely' not be a big concern. Many people will buy them and they will be all over the place.

I write this because like many people I'm kind of in a conundrum thinking about them. They are amazing. They are a bulletproof species that is very easily kept. They breed very well. They will continue to be (as many frogs are that are even legally exported) smuggled in the future. Will they be smuggled less when every store in every country sells them for 50 dollars a piece as juveniles?

Ought I not buy any terribilis that doesn't come from Tesoros (people should buy from Tesoros btw it's a good thing). Ought I never buy a pair of Azureus or Brazilian yellow heads? Ought I never buy a pair of highland sirensis? I am very very much of the mind that supporting Understory, Wikiri, and Tesoros are great things. They are genuine conservation and scientific efforts to bring frogs to the hobby 'while' conserving their wild status. But if you say tumaq tincs are illegal and bad, you need to also say that many many other frogs of old origin that are everywhere sold at pet stores and on websites for the past 20 years are also bad (including the ever popular Azureus).

It's a difficult situation.

P.S. I have heard reports of clear-cutting being the issue of frog populations and I have heard issues of smuggling being issues of small specific morph populations. When the latter is the case I am very against removing them from the wild. When it's the former, it may be that the frogs will disappear from existance except in people's breeding programs.

-Nish


----------



## hypostatic

I was under the impression that Azureus was imported legally form Suriname?

The mountain range that this morph comes from (Tumucumaque) actually does go from Brazil into Suriname. So there's a slight chance that these are from Suriname -- although I've seen no mention of these being found in Suriname. My theory is that these were illegally poached in Brazil, brought over the border into Suriname, and laundered into a shipment of legal tincs, perhaps one of the recent Robertus exports, since they're occurring at about the same time.

As mentioned, many frogs in the hobby have questionable/illegal origins. I personally have mixed feelings about frogs from Brazil, being from there myself. On one hand, I feel that the purchase of this morph at the moment strongly supports illegal animal trafficking, since that's the most likely source of these frogs. I personally will not be acquiring these animals if/when they become readily available here in the US.

On the other hand, being familiar with the Brazilian gov't, I know that even though there is a law in place, the gov't actually cares little about these frogs or their habitat. Case in point, the Monte Belo Dam that the gov't is building will destroy over 370,000 acres of rainforest -- this area is home to the galactonotus, and it will also displace over 20,000 indigenous people, representing about 40 different ethnic groups. I feel it's just a matter of time until other areas become threatened, so I'm actually a bit happy that someone has their hands on their Tumucumaque tincs, in case the gov't screws this habitat up as well.


----------



## Dev30ils

hypostatic said:


> I was under the impression that Azureus was imported legally form Suriname?
> 
> 
> hypostatic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too. Tinctorius morph guide supports that.
> 
> 
> 
> hypostatic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel it's just a matter of time until other areas become threatened, so I'm actually a bit happy that someone has their hands on their Tumucumaque tincs, in case the gov't screws this habitat up as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that these frogs in private collections do nothing for the locality. If the frogs had been imported legally to a WAZA zoo, then they could be put into a managed breeding program and the locality could be saved. This morph will still be considered extinct if their habitat is lost and there are none in managed breeding programs regardless of how many there are in private collectors' hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## nish07

Sorry if I was incorrect about specific morph. I'm a bit under the weather these days and didn't do quick research that I should have. But you get the point. There are several types of frogs that have been in the hobby for 20 years that were not brought in legally, initially.

-Nish


----------



## planted-tnk-guy

In reality someone could start a population of any frog along a border and they will cross into legal territory making them pseudo legal as well to be cataloged and called native. I in no way condone this, I'm just saying I'm sure it happens as legal is a thin line when rainforest crosses borders much like any animal in reality but even more in and animal as variable as darts. Animals don't care if it's Colombia, Brazil or Belize as long as they can keep the species alive just as all living creatures have the same drive to survive. 

Some of the new frogs I often question if they are hybrids in of themselves. With logging and human activities entrenched in the jungles there is a strong possibility of frogs being spread around by many vectors now more than ever and who would know. Just some of my thoughts though. I don't know a concrete answer to anything except to save what little untouched forests we have while we can. I see the arguments for both sides of keeping them or not and it's an even split right or wrong. So many things are lost forever and I don't know if that's better than in a cage either.


----------



## nish07

nish07 said:


> Sorry if I was incorrect about specific morph. I'm a bit under the weather these days and didn't do quick research that I should have. But you get the point. There are several types of frogs that have been in the hobby for 20 years that were not brought in legally, initially.
> 
> -Nish


I meant 'illegally.' Wow I don't feel good -__-

It's an age old question I guess. It's been argued many times on the forums. At least several countries are doing conservation/breeding programs. Too bad they all don't. The land is cheap to people in the U.S. The frogs sold pay for the conservation. Why does Brazil have to cut down the amazon without care for what we might not even know is there yet is against conservation/breeding/export programs?

-Nish


----------



## stu&shaz

Nish,great post kiddo. I too argue with my self. I'm very aware that morphs could be lost in Brasil or elsewhere. When the blue galacs came here recently I stood up feeling it was a not so great a thing. At the same time I fear the dam might take them anyway. It's not really about judging folks either,I feel as guilty as the next guy. I do worry that somewhere someone might face legal implications because of this.



But essentially and simplistically my thoughts are this,what has happened in the past has happened, we can't do anything about this. I'd like us all to distance ourselves from newly smuggled frogs and move forwards. Mate if we say this is ok,then what might it be ok to smuggle next? We also have moves being made by folks whom want our hobby stopped period here,I don't want them having ammo. I worry also about the message this sends out to folks working their butts off to bring us legit sustainable frogs .

Nish, there is a premise here that we can almost hide under,that we the hobby might save a morph from extinction in the wild maybe that's true,really our track record says we won't be very good at forming a proper breeding programme,but for me it is shaky ground. 

I wouldn't say the guys whom smuggled these thought about this at all,I think they saw a ruddy big dollar sign(ok euro). This frog will be prolific(well leastways as a tinc it should be unless there is something we really don't know about) has been desired by many for years,me at least 6. I have seen rumours of a rediculous asking price that some probably will pay, for something as stunning as this. The only way we can prevent this continuing is to not give the smuggler a market,I would think. Nish I'd guess someone has made a killing on this,i'm all for biocommerce done right,but this doesn't sit well with me. 

I find this terribly difficult Nish,I keep a frog that is mentioned here never legally exported, I won't derail by going further but folks can see my views by searching,I'm not up for passing judgement on others. I just feel that this particular frog is on a reserve in Brasil and should stay there ,until such time as someone exports them like Teseros or Wkiri do. 

The next problem we face if we say this is ok,is, that ethical chance ( of biocommerce) is made void. What I mean is when a new frog is brought in it commands a premium,that premium price is now going to a smuggler. That premium price,I would imagine,is a massive part of the revenue for a newly started ethical conservation biocommerce business. Basically we kill the chance for someone to even attempt this by buying the smuggled frogs. We already know how incredibly hard this can be to set up many of us trying to do little bits for Ivan and Tesoros for example. 

It's desparate really none of us want to see another single morph/species of frogs lost from our planet,hell we have lost enough already,it makes one want to cry things are so bad. I have to have hope for them mate,that hope is with ethical sustainable trade,it's our future,we have to try to do anything we can to support this that starts with us saying no to newly smuggled frogs. 

I do utterly see you point mate,it was the point made to me by my friends with the blue galacs here and it may well happen that the bela monte dam leaves those smuggled frogs as being the only ones on the planet,god forbid that happens. But these frogs are on a reserve we can't be part of taking them.

We just have to be better than this and move forwards,we cannot undo the past,but we can say no tomorrow,to so obviously recently smuggled frogs.

Oh guys one little thing,I wonder if cities will one day recognise actual morphs rather than just the species tag,it seems this is oft used as a means of moving a specific frog,as outlined above,oh it's just a tinc


It's just beyond us actually making donations,our biggest power to evoke change is by what we spend our hard earner money on,that just can't be on frogs smuggled from a reserve. Hell the very act of stealing them could put that population in jeopardy,we have no idea how many were taken to be smuggled, what the mortality was and we never will know.

Lord this one is tricky,but I think this is both our and the frogs best chance

Thanks all for the thought provocation

Take care

Stu
PS
Nish sorry man I picked up on that and was so engrossed in trying to get the ruddy letters the right way round I forgot to say

GET WELL SOON mate


----------



## hypostatic

nish07 said:


> It's been argued many times on the forums. At least several countries are doing conservation/breeding programs. Too bad they all don't. The land is cheap to people in the U.S. The frogs sold pay for the conservation. Why does Brazil have to cut down the amazon without care for what we might not even know is there yet is against conservation/breeding/export programs?
> 
> -Nish


Conservation/breeding/export programs is something that has been discussed a lot in the past, but Brazilian laws make things... difficult to say the least. This is why you don't really see any Brazilian animals/plants for sale anywhere. One example, I was actually in Brazil recently and I visited a few orchid shops; you wouldn't believe how cheap the orchids were (even before the currency exchange). You could, in theory, buy some land, place your orchids there, let them grow themselves, and sell them in the US for a ridiculous profit margin. Both Brazilian orchid growers, and American orchid buyers are plentiful, so you'd assume that someone would have taken advantage of this -- but you really don't see it happening.


----------



## AlexMak

Look at what I found on Instagram. 
https://instagram.com/p/4RUWirBom8/


----------



## ecichlid

Woooooooooow.


----------



## whitethumb

Nice find, probably the only tinc i would work with


----------



## srrrio

whitethumb said:


> Nice find, probably the only tinc i would work with


I am tired and probably should not post .. not feeling diplomatic like Stu or Nish. Really I would rather not see these guys in the states. In a year they will be overbred in a couple more years we can buy their tads or froglets for the price of a big mac meal.
They can join their other tinctorius brothers in todays hall of unappreciated frogs. Maybe someone will line breed them to have "high pink" and they can sell thousands to pet smart.


----------



## whitethumb

srrrio said:


> I am tired and probably should not post .. not feeling diplomatic like Stu or Nish. Really I would rather not see these guys in the states. In a year they will be overbred in a couple more years we can buy their tads or froglets for the price of a big mac meal.
> They can join their other tinctorius brothers in todays hall of unappreciated frogs. Maybe someone will line breed them to have "high pink" and they can sell thousands to pet smart.


And i was quoted because i would under appreciate them or over breed them?


----------



## srrrio

whitethumb said:


> And i was quoted because i would under appreciate them or over breed them?


Neither, it was more that your statement meant to me that the only tinc worth keeping would be this tumucumaque. Yet I am sure people once said this about azureus, and each tinctorius species as they came in.


----------



## whitethumb

srrrio said:


> Neither, it was more that your statement meant to me that the only tinc worth keeping would be this tumucumaque. Yet I am sure people once said this about azureus, and each tinctorius species as they came in.


Only my statement said nothing to that effect.


----------



## Spaff

Regardless of the reasoning for keeping this species, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't legal.


----------



## Chrisc147

Oh wow. They are absolutely gorgeous.


----------



## Raul Gomez

if these were to end up in the states can it ever be proven that they were imported illegally?


----------



## carola1155

Raul Gomez said:


> if these were to end up in the states can it ever be proven that they were imported illegally?


Not being able to prove they were imported legally is the same as being able to prove they were imported illegally. There is no difference.

This really needs to be understood... *It is illegal to own these frogs.* Until Brazil changes their policies (doubtful) it will always be illegal to own these frogs. Any support and/or market for these frogs fuels smuggling and is a black eye on the hobby. It has been done in the past but with all the legal options for cool frogs we have at our disposal now, we need to draw a line and say "no more".

They are awesome frogs... But not worth it.


----------



## zerelli

I am curious, are there any species of frog in captivity today that are extinct in the wild? I know that many fish routinely kept and bred in the aquarium hobby are extinct in the wild. And no, not due to collection pressure (although I would not claim it has never happened), but habitat loss. And wanting to own the frogs has nothing whatsoever to do with Brazil having a policy on wildlife that borders on ridiculous. 




carola1155 said:


> Not being able to prove they were imported legally is the same as being able to prove they were imported illegally. There is no difference.
> 
> This really needs to be understood... *It is illegal to own these frogs.* Until Brazil changes their policies (doubtful) it will always be illegal to own these frogs. Any support and/or market for these frogs fuels smuggling and is a black eye on the hobby. It has been done in the past but with all the legal options for cool frogs we have at our disposal now, we need to draw a line and say "no more".
> 
> They are awesome frogs... But not worth it.


----------



## Raul Gomez

I completely agree. They cut down thousands and thousands of kilometers of forests but would throw a fit if someone exports 12 frogs. People own them outside of Brazil already so what would be the difference between owning this tinc to owning any other if they are captive bred? Should we wait for whatever area they are from to be cut down for paper and we can loose them all together?

I hope they become established in Europe and then are somehow legally brought over. 





zerelli said:


> I am curious, are there any species of frog in captivity today that are extinct in the wild? I know that many fish routinely kept and bred in the aquarium hobby are extinct in the wild. And no, not due to collection pressure (although I would not claim it has never happened), but habitat loss. And wanting to own the frogs has nothing whatsoever to do with Brazil having a policy on wildlife that borders on ridiculous.


----------



## Dendro Dave

Raul Gomez said:


> I completely agree. They cut down thousands and thousands of kilometers of forests but would throw a fit if someone exports 12 frogs. People own them outside of Brazil already so what would be the difference between owning this tinc to owning any other if they are captive bred? Should we wait for whatever area they are from to be cut down for paper and we can loose them all together?
> 
> I hope they become established in Europe and then are somehow legally brought over.


You make a good point about destroying the forest and then having a hissy fit about a few frogs, but the problem is they'd have to be smuggled to hit the open market. Even if the came from the EU and the US government let them in, then they'd be "grey" frogs, kinda like red galacs; where at any time their status could change and we could get a knock on the door and kiss our frogs good bye. 

The red galac ship sailed decades ago, but it is best that similar instances don't occur because it just promotes smuggling when there is a market for the frogs in The EU, and even more so if they can get them past Fish and game to bring them here, because they'll just smuggle out more to the EU to then send here, and then you also have the potential issue of people laundering their smuggled frogs by claiming they are CB from legal EU imports. 

What needs to happen is something like Tesoros, but in Brazil, or at the very least Brazil becoming more pragmatic and loosing up a bit so legally collected frogs are exported with some kinda management to make sure the practice is done ethically, and there isn't over collection. 

We all want cool new frogs to keep coming into the hobby, but sometimes even if the US gov signs off on them from the EU, the price is still to high from an ethical stand point because we know those frogs were originally smuggled.

Hopefully someday more of the EU and other froggers throughout the world (including here) will stop being so accepting of smuggled animals, (not that all of them are. I'm sure there are a ton of ethical EU/world wide froggers out there who care enough not to be ok with that kinda thing).

Now if their habitat is about to be wiped out anyways, that is an interesting ethical conundrum; one I honestly don't know which side I'd fall on. Ultimately I tend to be a pragmatist, so if they are dead anyways, might as well get them into the hobby


----------



## Jjl

Yikes, I'd better make sure I don't post about my trio...

(Just kidding, folks).


----------



## Raul Gomez

There is something else that people don't realize. Zoos outside of the states sometimes sell to private collectors so people automatically assume that animals have been smuggled when in fact they were legally collected for zoos and museums overseas and sold legally in those countries. 

I am all about conservation. But as a mentioned before how can Brazil talk to anyone about ethics when they are destroying their own jungle? 



Dendro Dave said:


> You make a good point about destroying the forest and then having a hissy fit about a few frogs, but the problem is they'd have to be smuggled to hit the open market. Even if the came from the EU and the US government let them in, then they'd be "grey" frogs, kinda like red galacs; where at any time their status could change and we could get a knock on the door and kiss our frogs good bye.
> 
> The red galac ship sailed decades ago, but it is best that similar instances don't occur because it just promotes smuggling when there is a market for the frogs in The EU, and even more so if they can get them past Fish and game to bring them here, because they'll just smuggle out more to the EU to then send here, and then you also have the potential issue of people laundering their smuggled frogs by claiming they are CB from legal EU imports.
> 
> What needs to happen is something like Tesoros, but in Brazil, or at the very least Brazil becoming more pragmatic and loosing up a bit so legally collected frogs are exported with some kinda management to make sure the practice is done ethically, and there isn't over collection.
> 
> We all want cool new frogs to keep coming into the hobby, but sometimes even if the US gov signs off on them from the EU, the price is still to high from an ethical stand point because we know those frogs were originally smuggled.
> 
> Hopefully someday more of the EU and other froggers throughout the world (including here) will stop being so accepting of smuggled animals, (not that all of them are. I'm sure there are a ton of ethical EU/world wide froggers out there who care enough not to be ok with that kinda thing).
> 
> Now if their habitat is about to be wiped out anyways, that is an interesting ethical conundrum; one I honestly don't know which side I'd fall on. Ultimately I tend to be a pragmatist, so if they are dead anyways, might as well get them into the hobby


----------



## Ed

I addressed a lot of this argument in the other thread found here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...0-tumucumaque-morph-photos-2.html#post2541922




Raul Gomez said:


> I completely agree. They cut down thousands and thousands of kilometers of forests but would throw a fit if someone exports 12 frogs. People own them outside of Brazil already so what would be the difference between owning this tinc to owning any other if they are captive bred? Should we wait for whatever area they are from to be cut down for paper and we can loose them all together?


 I have to admit that every time I see this sort of BS argument it irritates me even more. 

Anytime someone makes the claim that they should be in the pet trade because something is in a destroyed/disturbed/altered habitat it is nothing more than a shallow justification for greed. Virtually all of the demands are for charismatic species, virtually no one is making that argument for a plain species. 

In addition if your making the habitat destruction argument for Dendrobates sp. (and most dendrobatids) it indicates a lack of knowledge about the biology and behaviors of the taxa. Many dendrobatids actually do much better in disturbed habitat (including heavily disturbed habitats) as opposed to normal habitat. That is why the populations can really explode in things like trash piles ...

If your going to make the argument that captive breeding is conservation then I suggest reading http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...ive-bred-conservation-efforts.html#post576511 . 

This is also before we consider that smuggling animals versus pushing for a sustainable harvest model provides pretty close to zero incentive to preserve the ecosystem much less the animals. Smugglers pay very little for the animals and the profit is once they land in the EU, Asia, or North America from the collectors. A sustainable harvest model instead places a value on the products from that ecosystem and helps to keep relatively intact. 

So anytime someone makes the claim it should be in the pet trade because of habitat destruction we can view it as the fake gold glitter BS attempt to disguise greed as a noble endeavor it really is .... 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Raul Gomez said:


> There is something else that people don't realize. Zoos outside of the states sometimes sell to private collectors so people automatically assume that animals have been smuggled when in fact they were legally collected for zoos and museums overseas and sold legally in those countries.
> 
> I am all about conservation. But as a mentioned before how can Brazil talk to anyone about ethics when they are destroying their own jungle?


If your advocating the dispersal of frogs from smuggled origins then you really can't make the claim of being for conservation. Smuggling and the offspring of smuggled animals are actually a big negative for conservation and actually hinders any attempts for conservation. As an example, the locals are only paid a small amount of money for each frog by the smugglers who then move the animals into the end country where they can command high prices resulting in no value being placed on the ecosystem. Now in comparison if they are part of a sustainable program that results in funds going back to the locals then there is a value placed on preserving the ecosystem. 

If they were exported illegally then the country of origin can make the claim via CITES and potentially the Convention on Biological Diversity. This could easily result in the USFW deciding to enforce the other countries laws on it via the Lacey Act. There are a number of dendrobatids that were smuggled, seized and then offspring released to the pet trade that are not legal in the US (such as Excidobates mysteriosus see Dendrobates.org - Excidobates mysteriosus). 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave

Ed said:


> I addressed a lot of this argument in the other thread found here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...0-tumucumaque-morph-photos-2.html#post2541922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that every time I see this sort of BS argument it irritates me even more.
> 
> Anytime someone makes the claim that they should be in the pet trade because something is in a destroyed/disturbed/altered habitat it is nothing more than a shallow justification for greed. Virtually all of the demands are for charismatic species, virtually no one is making that argument for a plain species.
> 
> In addition if your making the habitat destruction argument for Dendrobates sp. (and most dendrobatids) it indicates a lack of knowledge about the biology and behaviors of the taxa. Many dendrobatids actually do much better in disturbed habitat (including heavily disturbed habitats) as opposed to normal habitat. That is why the populations can really explode in things like trash piles ...
> 
> If your going to make the argument that captive breeding is conservation then I suggest reading http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...ive-bred-conservation-efforts.html#post576511 .
> 
> This is also before we consider that smuggling animals versus pushing for a sustainable harvest model provides pretty close to zero incentive to preserve the ecosystem much less the animals. Smugglers pay very little for the animals and the profit is once they land in the EU, Asia, or North America from the collectors. A sustainable harvest model instead places a value on the products from that ecosystem and helps to keep relatively intact.
> 
> So anytime someone makes the claim it should be in the pet trade because of habitat destruction we can view it as the fake gold glitter BS attempt to disguise greed as a noble endeavor it really is ....
> 
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Most of the time that is probably true. I could only tolerate it if we knew the animal was going to get wiped out by like a Dam project, or some heavy mining maybe, or some other very specific circumstances...

I just wanna be clear that I'm not like "oh no someone chopped down a tree... We must get all the brightly colored frogs into the hobby ASAP!!!"

I'm more then happy to go without, if it means those frogs can continue to exist in the wild.


----------



## Ed

Dendro Dave said:


> Most of the time that is probably true. I could only tolerate it if we knew the animal was going to get wiped out by like a Dam project, or some heavy mining maybe, or some other very specific circumstances...
> 
> I just wanna be clear that I'm not like "oh no someone chopped down a tree... We must get all the brightly colored frogs into the hobby ASAP!!!"
> 
> I'm more then happy to go without, if it means those frogs can continue to exist in the wild.


One of the factors that people consistently ignore is history of habitat disturbance. For example if we look at the history of clear cutting in the Eastern US (lets use West Virginia as the example) then many of those states were literally 100% deforested yet many taxa that depended on the tree cover not only survived but recovered. This includes species that require cool/cold shaded streams and rivers to thrive. 

Lets use your example of a large dam. It takes weeks to months for a large lake to fill. So to argue that a population of a species that utilizes disturbed habitat will be extirpated is really reaching as the creation of the dam is going to create large swaths of disturbed habitat and the slow fill will enable a number of species to either emigrate or to colonize the newly disturbed habitat ... 

If people move into the area and create dumps etc then there is a good bet that these frogs will simply colonize that habitat unless the demand for smuggled animals (new blood lines etc) results in a population extinction. 

This is in no small part why I call this sort of an argument as BS. Its an appeal to emotion to excuse greed as it is restricted to charismatic species that people don't have but want. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## EricM

For what it is worth...back around year 2000 or so when the "new" morphs of tincts became available starting with alanis, patricia, etc. there were different groups of collectors and exporters competing for new morphs. One of the common strategies was to hire endemic Indians to collect frogs, and the reason for this was they were not limited by borders, they could collect in one country and bring them to another to be exported. So there was an influx of frogs in the hobby not only from Suriname but also French Guyana and Brazil. At the time there were photos of the peacock tinct around and it was said they came from an area near a mine in Brazil, too heavily guarded to collect in. Otherwise the hobby would be saturated with them today. I pretty much have been out of the loop since about 2002 with the collectors, the mine may no longer be active or someone has broken the ice to get in and get frogs. This frog would go much like matecho, big money for the first year and end up $40. And then there would be the next big thing, it will never end as long as people are involved. Even in the years when tincts did not come in from Suriname it was because the USFW blocked the shipments. CITES noticed that more frogs were shipped than the set quotas so they encouraged receiving countries to boycott acceptance of tincts. In the many shipments that I went through inspection of the legality of the different tincts never came up.

some recollections
Eric


----------



## tardis101

Ed said:


> One of the factors that people consistently ignore is history of habitat disturbance. For example if we look at the history of clear cutting in the Eastern US (lets use West Virginia as the example) then many of those states were literally 100% deforested yet many taxa that depended on the tree cover not only survived but recovered. This includes species that require cool/cold shaded streams and rivers to thrive.
> 
> Lets use your example of a large dam. It takes weeks to months for a large lake to fill. So to argue that a population of a species that utilizes disturbed habitat will be extirpated is really reaching as the creation of the dam is going to create large swaths of disturbed habitat and the slow fill will enable a number of species to either emigrate or to colonize the newly disturbed habitat ...
> 
> If people move into the area and create dumps etc then there is a good bet that these frogs will simply colonize that habitat unless the demand for smuggled animals (new blood lines etc) results in a population extinction.
> 
> This is in no small part why I call this sort of an argument as BS. Its an appeal to emotion to excuse greed as it is restricted to charismatic species that people don't have but want.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


While I'm not saying getting something into the hobby is a way to preserve it, I disagree with the statements made here. This is the classic argument presented by most developers about why they shouldn't have to mitigate the ecological damages their project causes. The vast majority of the time the individual animals simply die. In particular a disturbance event that is drawn out over time is often worse than a single event; a long term stressor may impact multiple generations, or multiple life stages, when a single event may not. 

Species that are edge tolerant or even some early successional species might survive and some may even flourish (black birds, deer, squirrels etc.), but the overall health of the ecosystem that was present before the event is often lost. Some taxa have recovered from deforestation in the US, but there are also many that have not, Indiana bat, gray bat, Mead's milkweed, are a few federally listed species that have not recovered. There are many more state listed species that have not. And many of these forests have shifted from their traditional composition to something very different. Take for example the oak/hickory forests that have shifted to beech-maple, which also alters the community structure.

At any rate, I wouldn't use it as an argument to excuse greed.


----------



## Ed

tardis101 said:


> While I'm not saying getting something into the hobby is a way to preserve it, I disagree with the statements made here. This is the classic argument presented by most developers about why they shouldn't have to mitigate the ecological damages their project causes. The vast majority of the time the individual animals simply die. In particular a disturbance event that is drawn out over time is often worse than a single event; a long term stressor may impact multiple generations, or multiple life stages, when a single event may not.


Many dendrobatids actually are adapted for multiple generational utilization of disturbed (including degraded habitat) which is an unusual case when compared to many other species and since I was speaking specifically about dendrobatids, it is an apt comparison. As a "classical" example, multiple generation of dendrobatid utilization of trash (and trash dumps) or other materials (like cacao husks) that are provided by humans. This is why people can actually create populations that are able to be sustainable harvested through the addition of tadpole deposition sites. Dendrobatids have been shown (different species choose different sized deposition sites) to successfully utilize deposition sites that range from bubble tea straws to old tires. One of the main (often the main) limiters on their population are tadpole deposition sites as all except the obligate egg eaters are known to predate on each other (to the fact that some species exclude others from using depostion sites (example auratus limit phytotemata usage size by O. granulifera). 

In short due to the investment costs, they bejave as K selected specialists but prefer/exploit R-styled environments. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## tardis101

Ed said:


> Many dendrobatids actually are adapted for multiple generational utilization of disturbed (including degraded habitat) which is an unusual case when compared to many other species and since I was speaking specifically about dendrobatids, it is an apt comparison. As a "classical" example, multiple generation of dendrobatid utilization of trash (and trash dumps) or other materials (like cacao husks) that are provided by humans. This is why people can actually create populations that are able to be sustainable harvested through the addition of tadpole deposition sites. Dendrobatids have been shown (different species choose different sized deposition sites) to successfully utilize deposition sites that range from bubble tea straws to old tires. One of the main (often the main) limiters on their population are tadpole deposition sites as all except the obligate egg eaters are known to predate on each other (to the fact that some species exclude others from using depostion sites (example auratus limit phytotemata usage size by O. granulifera).
> 
> In short due to the investment costs, they bejave as K selected specialists but prefer/exploit R-styled environments.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


The critical danger in this line of thinking is that just because they use areas of human disturbance that we're ok with that being the only thing left and the species will be fine. This is really old school conservation biology thinking and is something I frequently face with developers, who want to "create" cheaper habitat so they make a larger profit. Just because a species can use a disturbed habitat doesn't mean that as mitigation we would want a bunch of trash dumps. Regardless of whether they use them or not and regardless of whether they are sustainable or not. 

There are many amphibian species in California that are now (primarily) restricted to breeding in livestock watering ponds. That's not their native habitat, but they use them because that's all that's left. But when a project has to mitigate the loss of natural habitat we don't typically have them make a bunch of livestock water ponds. It would be cheaper for the developer if we did, and the animals would persist there, but because we don't want a future that relies on just a bunch of man made and artificial habitats, they are normally required to restore a natural landscape.

Mike


----------



## jarteta97

I don't think that Ed is condoning the destruction of habitat, but rather clearing the misconception that once a habitat has been destroyed, such as through deforestation, any and all animals in said habitat are doomed to destruction and we must export as many as we can. I think that what he indicating is that Dendrobatids are more "flexible" (pardon the elementary vocabulary) than we give them credit for, and his statement about how they behave like K specialists but prefer/exploit R-styled environments cleared that up. 

And he is correct that many will only give a damn about exporting/protecting a certain species of animal if they desire that animal, or find it to be pretty or fascinating. I think that there are dozens, even hundreds of species that may be at risk for habitat destruction, but we won't do anything about it, or care, because they don't have any ties to our interests. And let's be completely honest (it's been stated several times), no matter how much we might believe that the hobby is conservation, and somehow practical, the real conservation is being practiced by biologists and zoologists and other related scientists, not the every day hobbyist.

Yes, we do need to preserve the natural habitats of these animals, but at the same time, we shouldn't have the mindset that deforestation unconditionally and unequivocally equals extinction. Just my two cents, and I could be completely wrong about what Ed is arguing, but I hope it helped.


----------



## CMOK36

Just such cool frogs!


----------



## Ed

jarteta97 said:


> I don't think that Ed is condoning the destruction of habitat, but rather clearing the misconception that once a habitat has been destroyed, such as through deforestation, any and all animals in said habitat are doomed to destruction and we must export as many as we can.


I have to admit that if someone thinks I'm making the argument that habitat destruction is okay then they are really misconstruing my position. 
As was correctly noted, I'm debunking the argument that just because habitat (in this discussion the argument was for all of Brazil in general) destruction is occurring that the hobby is entitled to smuggle animals out of that country. 
People like to ignore inconvenient facts like much of the Central American forest was deforested in pre-Columbian times by the Aztec, Toltec and Maya yet those frogs (and many other taxa still survived somehow (see for example on the deforestation: Cook, B. I., et al. "Pre‐Columbian deforestation as an amplifier of drought in Mesoamerica." Geophysical Research Letters 39.16 (2012).).

We can even look to more modern examples of habitat destruction not being a suitable excuse to smuggle or illegally collect animals; for example between 1880 and 1920 West Virginia was almost totally deforested (before 1880 large tracts of virgin old growth forests were still present (see Lewis, Ronald L. Transforming the Appalachian countryside: Railroads, deforestation, and social change in West Virginia, 1880-1920. Univ of North Carolina Press, 1998.). Yet species that require those conditions (from shading streams to leaf litter) are still present in that state (examples hellbenders, brook trout, various plethodontids). This is why anytime someone starts to argue that x animal must be made available to hobbyists in the pet trade because habitat destruction is happening is pretty much nothing more than a BS justification for being greedy. 

As I've repeatedly noted with this discussion, these frogs are adapted to utilize disturbances and degraded habitat so the argument that habitat destruction makes it okay to smuggle these frogs is on even shakier grounds as the impact on these frogs is much less. As an example, auratus on Taboga are common in piles of human waste and refuse (see TWI's Leaf Litter, Vol 3 Issue 2). 

I think I've been pretty clear all through this argument that I'm not for smuggling animals regardless of the reason nor am I for habitat destruction and to get anything else out of that argument is absolutely misconstruing the argument. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## tardis101

I understand exactly what you're saying Ed. I get it. I'm not saying you're for habitat destruction at all. But what I am saying is that the particular school of thought being employed with respect to what a species will or won't use, in this case disturbed and also degraded habitat is often used when developers are trying to get by with cheaper mitigation. And that's the danger in suggesting that these species can use things like dumps and manage just fine; they might use them and they might persist, but they will still inevitably have lost out. Because those anthropogenic disturbed areas are not going to function the way natural lands would.

There are a number of listed species that for years folks thought things like rice lands (as a substitute for emergent marsh) and alfalfa fields (as a substitute for grasslands) worked really well for giant garter snake (fed listed) and Swainson's hawk (CA state listed). Some folks still do. So now we have large "preserves" that are made of up mostly those two crop types. There isn't anything natural about those landscapes and they don't function at the ecosystem level the way the species' native habitat functioned. So we've lost ecosystem diversity (lower richness, changes in evenness) as well as all the things that go with it (reduced plasticity, reduced resilience to other environmental factors like drought, climate change, disease, etc.). For a long while those species were done "fine" but now CA is in one of the worst droughts (if not the worse) on record and our numbers are dropping. Neither species is doing "ok" now. That hopefully is temporary until the drought subsides, but I suspect we're going to see very long lasting impacts from it. 

Typically when habitat is lost the vast majority of individuals in that area do die. Some might move, highly mobile bird species for example that do not have high site fidelity for example. I'm not sure why that paper was cited. From my quick skim of it, it doesn't tell us anything about the species that were present during the earlier deforestation. Even if the exact same species were there, we wouldn't know anything about the genetic makeup of the populations. The populations might have been different morphs for all we know. If the deforestation was as widespread as the paper theorizes, then it seems more likely to me that species recolonized from isolated habitat islands within the deforested area or came in from surrounding areas once habitat recovered, rather than persisting in vast swaths of cleared land.

Again I get what Ed is saying. I'm just cautioning the use of that particular argument.


----------



## Dendro Dave

Ed said:


> One of the factors that people consistently ignore is history of habitat disturbance. For example if we look at the history of clear cutting in the Eastern US (lets use West Virginia as the example) then many of those states were literally 100% deforested yet many taxa that depended on the tree cover not only survived but recovered. This includes species that require cool/cold shaded streams and rivers to thrive.
> 
> Lets use your example of a large dam. It takes weeks to months for a large lake to fill. So to argue that a population of a species that utilizes disturbed habitat will be extirpated is really reaching as the creation of the dam is going to create large swaths of disturbed habitat and the slow fill will enable a number of species to either emigrate or to colonize the newly disturbed habitat ...
> 
> If people move into the area and create dumps etc then there is a good bet that these frogs will simply colonize that habitat unless the demand for smuggled animals (new blood lines etc) results in a population extinction.
> 
> This is in no small part why I call this sort of an argument as BS. Its an appeal to emotion to excuse greed as it is restricted to charismatic species that people don't have but want.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


I see, I was over simplifying. I defer to the better reasoned argument


----------



## Ed

tardis101 said:


> But what I am saying is that the particular school of thought being employed with respect to what a species will or won't use, in this case disturbed and also degraded habitat is often used when developers are trying to get by with cheaper mitigation.
> And that's the danger in suggesting that these species can use things like dumps and manage just fine; they might use them and they might persist, but they will still inevitably have lost out. Because those anthropogenic disturbed areas are not going to function the way natural lands would.


There is a reason I heavily qualified it to these frogs as I'm aware of the spin that is often presented. 

The ecosystem in toto isn't the same but arguing that the frogs will still have lost out isn't necessarily a given. I understand what you are saying but your point doesn't automatically follow. Many of these frogs are a special case with respect to the habitat. As another example the populations of auratus on Hawaii are restricted to areas where humans are present because that is where they can find tadpole deposition sites. This is the primary reason they haven't had a wider dispersal on the islands. 

As a counter example, would you attempt to argue that starlings or house sparrows as species have lost out with their range expansions? What about dandelions? We know that those species have all done well in the degraded habitat as that is part of what they are adapted to exploit. 

We can even see this with some natives. As an example in the Pine Barrens of NJ, (with which I'm most familiar) the largest populations of Spiranthes orchids are associated with the cut grass on the roadways If the grass cutting schedule and height is changed significantly those populations have a significant chance of being extirpated. It is true that an undisturbed ecosystem often provides a resilience that is lacking in degraded environments but that same resilience isn't equally applied across all species in that ecosystem as those taxa that require disturbance are restricted or excluded in the stable systems. One of the cooler examples of species that require disturbance here are a number of the bog species such as curly grass fern or swamp pink. There are many examples of taxa that require disturbed habitats to thrive and many dendrobatids are of that persuasion. 

Going back to the natural range; if the behaviors are consistent with those in a non-degraded habitat , the diet supplies sources of the alkaloids (mites, some ants, millipedes, some beetles) and have a wide genetic diversity then its difficult to argue that these frogs (again I'm being very specific that this only applies to those frogs) have really lost out instead they have benefited. 



tardis101 said:


> There are a number of listed species that for years folks thought things like rice lands (as a substitute for emergent marsh) and alfalfa fields (as a substitute for grasslands) worked really well for giant garter snake (fed listed) and Swainson's hawk (CA state listed).


Those who know me well have heard my arguments about the support of pasture raised and finished cattle (no grain/soy feeds) as there are far far more species of animals that can reside/share a properly managed pasture as opposed to those monocultured fields and why we should try to avoid the conversion of properly managed pastures to monocultured fields as those birds and other taxa that utilize grasslands have taken a real hit over the years because of some of those changes. This is also without getting into the public misperceptions on how people tend to create lots of edge habitat which only benefits those species adapted to those conditions. 

I've also more than once made the arguments on encouraging habitat preservation through sustainable use of those systems. I'm not suggesting the rice fields/alfalfa model you presented, I'm referring to the fact that if a sustainable export of the frogs from those ecosystems could be setup by increasing the tadpole deposition sites and then studying the populations a harvest model could be worked out and monitoried. Actually this could be done with more than a few taxa as increasing the size of the deposition sites would also encourage their utilization by some treefrogs or other taxa (like Odonates) which could result in a sustainable harvest for the preserved insect trade. 



tardis101 said:


> Even if the exact same species were there, we wouldn't know anything about the genetic makeup of the populations. The populations might have been different morphs for all we know. If the deforestation was as widespread as the paper theorizes, then it seems more likely to me that species recolonized from isolated habitat islands within the deforested area or came in from surrounding areas once habitat recovered, rather than persisting in vast swaths of cleared land.


I was making the point about the level of clearing and that the species persisted in those areas. However it is appropriate to look at the historical land trends with or without knowing the genetics of the populations that were there at the time and then compare them to how the animals are adapted/using the land today when there is again large amounts of land clearing. As for genetic losses, we can estimate some of that due to the diversity of the genes in a population as well as how similar those genes are to other nearby populations. As an example this was done with some tinctorious populations with the result that the last contact between the tested populations was on the scale of ten thousand years ago. 


Some comments 

Ed


----------

