# The limits of conjecture



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I saw this show up on facebook:

Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project » Defenders Urges USFWS to Ban Importation of Live Frogs That May Have Chytrid

Which, as a frog keeper, concerns me a little bit, especially after there has already been an effort to declare amphibians injurious wildlife if they haven't been tested for chytrid.

As a scientist, I have to keep an open mind about issues as new data is presented, so I decided to go directly to the source: an article titled "Multiple emergences of genetically diverse amphibian- infecting chytrids include a globalized hypervirulent recombinant lineage" by Farrer et al, published in November 2011 in the PNAS.

Here is the link to the paper, for those interested:

http://www.eurekalert.org/jrnls/pnas_pdfs/pnas.201111915.pdf

I guess to begin with a few things concern me. First off, the popular science article highlights that 16 of 20 samples were the same strain. It does not say that 9 of the 16 come from Europe, namely 1 from England, 2 from France, and 6 from Spain with 4 of the Spanish samples coming from the same spot). Of the remaining 7, the highly virulent strain of chytrid has been found in 2 US sites (Colorado and California), 2 Montserrat sites, 1 Canadian site, 1 Panamanian site, and 1 Australian site. No samples from all of Asia, South America, or the majority of Africa (their only samples were from South Africa and Mallorca). I am a little concerned about how relatively few sites were used to make a global conclusion.

But, I think that this paper got into a prestigious journal like PNAS because it found new strains of the disease in Switzerland and South Africa.

Several times in the paper, the authors blame amphibian trade for the spread of the disease, and that point seems to hinge on one key fact: that they found a new strain of chytrid in South Africa and in Mallorca. They cite a paper (which admittedly, I have not looked up yet), that hypothesizes that some captive Mallorcan Midwife Toads contracted the disease from some captive Xenopus gilli that were also at the facility, and then the toads were reintroduced to Mallorca, thus introducing the disease. The authors somehow blame this introduction on amphibian trade, a train of thought I don't follow, since if the X. gilli were brought in from the pet trade, that is still somewhat moot since it was poor biosecurity practices for the reintroduction program that resulted in introduction to the disease.

They make this conclusion in their discussion: "Here, we found that there is amuch greater diversity of Bd than was previously recognized, and that multiple lineages are being vectored between continents by the trade of amphibians." But in reading through their paper, this all seems like conjecture to me. This highly virulent strain of chytrid is found on the continents that tend to be net importers of amphibians, but, and I think this is a very big point, these continents are also comprised of people who are most likely to travel around the world as tourists, potentially going into contaminated areas, and tracking the disease to new areas.

I think they're really grasping at straws with their conclusions, at least putting blame on amphibian trade when a far more parsimonious answer to me is to blame people traveling to and from infected areas. I mean, I don't know of any highly sought after amphibians from Montserrat that would potentially bring chytrid to the island. I do agree with their final word that better biosecurity practices need to happen, but I think that the blame on amphibian trade is largely conjecture at this point.

And it concerns me that DoW may be basing their argument on science that is conjecture and has not been explicitly tested.

Am I the only one seeing the issues with this paper?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

I completely agree. I have yet to see really any solid evidence supporting claims that the amphibian trade is playing any form of major role in the spread of Chytrid. It seems like DOW is wanting what humans seem to do often when it comes to preventative measures. Attack an industry that doesn't affect them (although we should definitely be thought of as helping to genetically secure certain species), and they are going to far with it. Banning all importing? too much. 

However, I would be all for importers needing to prove their shipment of animals is chytrid free before they can be brought in to the country. I would even be fine with having to get my animals tested and certified Bd free before I could ship across state lines. But of course banning it completely is easier for them, and congress isn't going to care if a few thousand people can't have their slimy, gross animals right?

On another note, how long can Bd survive on someones clothing or boots? How much is tourism really affecting this?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

thedude said:


> I completely agree. I have yet to see really any solid evidence supporting claims that the amphibian trade is playing any form of major role in the spread of Chytrid.


Personally, I would be surprised if amphibian trade wasn't playing a role, but my argument has always been that the degree of responsibility is not known. I don't think that it is having as large of impact as is being claimed. I think tourism and food industries likely are stronger vectors than pet trade.



> However, I would be all for importers needing to prove their shipment of animals is chytrid free before they can be brought in to the country. I would even be fine with having to get my animals tested and certified Bd free before I could ship across state lines. But of course banning it completely is easier for them, and congress isn't going to care if a few thousand people can't have their slimy, gross animals right?


I think that this was what the USFWS item had proposed. Essentially, in order to move amphibians around, you had to prove they were chytrid free. I think I would have an issue with mandatory screening (for a variety of reason, but from a purely logistical stance, USFWS wouldn't be able to handle the load), but there are methods to encourage biosecurity that would encourage voluntary participation in the program, which I think would go over much better.



> On another note, how long can Bd survive on someones clothing or boots? How much is tourism really affecting this?


Good question. I am not sure how long the spores can remain viable, but generally fungal spores can keep for some time, if in the right conditions (like on the mud of someone's boot). I'm not sure that it is known. They don't know how long it would remain viable in the environment after it kills off the amphibians. So much about chytrid is unknown. But perhaps someone has a better answer.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> Personally, I would be surprised if amphibian trade wasn't playing a role, but my argument has always been that the degree of responsibility is not known. I don't think that it is having as large of impact as is being claimed. I think tourism and food industries likely are stronger vectors than pet trade.


Ya that's what I meant. Even if it is having an affect on the spread of Bd it is minimal, especially when compared to tourism and food industry like you said. Another big one being the fishing industry. Apparently some invasive species are vectors as well. Out here, Bullfrogs aren't as effected by Bd as most amphibians, but they are huge carriers of it. Since young males move around so much (territory, etc.) they could transfer it long distances in a few years probably. Makes me wonder if chytrid could travel up from California this way easily.




MonarchzMan said:


> I think that this was what the USFWS item had proposed. Essentially, in order to move amphibians around, you had to prove they were chytrid free. I think I would have an issue with mandatory screening (for a variety of reason, but from a purely logistical stance, USFWS wouldn't be able to handle the load), but there are methods to encourage biosecurity that would encourage voluntary participation in the program, which I think would go over much better.


That's true, they can't handle most of their jobs now due to budget cuts. Although I suppose it could be handled by several different branches (USF&W, USDA, EPA) but then you run the risk of mistakes. Such as?




MonarchzMan said:


> Good question. I am not sure how long the spores can remain viable, but generally fungal spores can keep for some time, if in the right conditions (like on the mud of someone's boot). I'm not sure that it is known. They don't know how long it would remain viable in the environment after it kills off the amphibians. So much about chytrid is unknown. But perhaps someone has a better answer.


I'm sure most things like that would be cleaned before plane travel. But you have a good point, most people could move across states without washing their boots or wet clothing. When I have a chance, I'll see if I can find something about it's longevity.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Working backwards... 



thedude said:


> Makes me wonder if chytrid could travel up from California this way easily.


Already there see for example http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00853/wdfw00853.pdf 



thedude said:


> I'm sure most things like that would be cleaned before plane travel. But you have a good point, most people could move across states without washing their boots or wet clothing. When I have a chance, I'll see if I can find something about it's longevity.


Survival of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Water: Quarantine and Disease Control Implications
http://www.herpetologica.es/attachments/article/138/Walkeretal07.pdf

earlier paper on trade 
The relationship between the emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the international trade in amphibians and introduced amphibian species 10.1016/j.fbr.2007.02.002 : Fungal Biology Reviews | ScienceDirect.com
http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio/bio335/lectures/lectures_assets/reading_global_emergence.pdf



Some prior papers on the different genetic strains 

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2005/68/d068p047.pdf
Proteomic and phenotypic profiling of the amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis shows that genotype is linked to virulence - FISHER - 2009 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

thedude said:


> But of course banning it completely is easier for them, and congress isn't going to care if a few thousand people can't have their slimy, gross animals right?


Pet trade is only a small sector compared to the frogleg trade. That is a high dollar industry since the US is a major importer. 

Ed


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Ed said:


> Pet trade is only a small sector compared to the frogleg trade. That is a high dollar industry since the US is a major importer.
> 
> Ed


Ya I was saying they would consider it easy to stop the trade in amphibians as pets. I'm sure amphibian parts would be left alone because of what you said.


Thank you for the links, I have some reading to do apparently...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> I guess to begin with a few things concern me. First off, the popular science article highlights that 16 of 20 samples were the same strain. It does not say that 9 of the 16 come from Europe, namely 1 from England, 2 from France, and 6 from Spain with 4 of the Spanish samples coming from the same spot). Of the remaining 7, the highly virulent strain of chytrid has been found in 2 US sites (Colorado and California), 2 Montserrat sites, 1 Canadian site, 1 Panamanian site, and 1 Australian site. No samples from all of Asia, South America, or the majority of Africa (their only samples were from South Africa and Mallorca). I am a little concerned about how relatively few sites were used to make a global conclusion.


This is but the latest in a series of papers in which genetic analysis is pointing towards the same strain being widespread and of the greatest pathenogenicity. I cited a few in my first post in this thread. 



MonarchzMan said:


> hypothesizes that some captive Mallorcan Midwife Toads contracted the disease from some captive Xenopus gilli that were also at the facility, and then the toads were reintroduced to Mallorca, thus introducing the disease.


I think I read the original in which they backtracked and demonstrated that it did originate animals that were repatriated but if I remember correctly, the animals that the introduction occured before the global issue of Bd was understood (many people forget that it was first described relatively recently (1999!) yet can be shown to occur in preserved animals for decades prior to that point (before 1960!) and before good methods for testing were widely known. 



MonarchzMan said:


> They make this conclusion in their discussion: "Here, we found that there is amuch greater diversity of Bd than was previously recognized, and that multiple lineages are being vectored between continents by the trade of amphibians." But in reading through their paper, this all seems like conjecture to me. This highly virulent strain of chytrid is found on the continents that tend to be net importers of amphibians, but, and I think this is a very big point, these continents are also comprised of people who are most likely to travel around the world as tourists, potentially going into contaminated areas, and tracking the disease to new areas.


The fungus and it's spores are highly intolerant to many cleaning agents, heat, exposure on the skin or even drying so anthropogenic is restricted to conditions in which the fungus remains cool, moist and not exposed to various disinfectants... 



MonarchzMan said:


> I think they're really grasping at straws with their conclusions, at least putting blame on amphibian trade when a far more parsimonious answer to me is to blame people traveling to and from infected areas. I mean, I don't know of any highly sought after amphibians from Montserrat that would potentially bring chytrid to the island. I do agree with their final word that better biosecurity practices need to happen, but I think that the blame on amphibian trade is largely conjecture at this point.


The paper doesn't propose to disentangle the methods of introduction to all locations where it has shown up so expecting that as part of thier answer isn't really appropriate. We can readily extrapolate from what we know about the distribution of the fungus and the zoospores' ability to survive in water and come up with a viable theory that it's distribution could also be due to the live fish trade (see http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_2/Issue_1/Green_Dodd_2007.pdf and the reference above on the zoospore viability in my first post)... but this also doesn't mean that in most areas that it doesn't come from the amphibian trade. 



MonarchzMan said:


> it concerns me that DoW may be basing their argument on science that is conjecture and has not been explicitly tested.


The DOW is spinning the paper for their own program and they keep explicity mentioning the live amphibian trade when the paper doesn't seperate the live from the food trade... It is well established that the food trade is also a major player in this whole issue... however as for explicit testing we have to also consider whether or not it is appropriate to wait for explicit studies that conclusively demonstrate the issue or take some actions to prevent further transmission and the risk of greater pathenogenicity to evolve from the geneotypes being able to combine and share DNA. The preponderent body of evidence is emerging that indicates that 
1) the fungus probably emerged due to anthropogenic actions
2) the spread is in part due to antrhopogenic actions
3) the strains with the greatest pathenogenicity are endemic to many regions and are severely impacting amphibian fauna
4) zoospores can persist outside of the amphibian host... 

So to some extent what is the tipping point where action needs to be taken? 
Personally, I'm much more concerned about the emergence of ranaviruses in multi-taxa infections on a global scale.... 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> So to some extent what is the tipping point where action needs to be taken?
> Personally, I'm much more concerned about the emergence of ranaviruses in multi-taxa infections on a global scale....
> 
> Some comments,
> ...


I agree that the big question is what is the tipping point. And I also do think that something needs to be done about it, but I am not sure that what DOW will really be all that effective. It is like the python ban. It really is not going to do much at all to combat pythons in Florida. I don't think an import of live amphibians ban would even slow the spread of chytrid. There are numerous other vectors out there that are known contributors that have much bigger impacts.

So I don't understand why the pressure has been put on the trade of live amphibians. Is it just because it's the easiest target? Or are there PETA people pushing it? Or is it, among the parties involved, live amphibian trade is least organized to push an effective campaign against the legislation?


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

From our hobby's perspective 10 times more Chytrid has been imported from Europe than South & Central America, as hobbyists with a real incentive to keep healthy uninfected stock we should be the least of the governments worries.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> I agree that the big question is what is the tipping point. And I also do think that something needs to be done about it, but I am not sure that what DOW will really be all that effective. It is like the python ban. It really is not going to do much at all to combat pythons in Florida. I don't think an import of live amphibians ban would even slow the spread of chytrid. There are numerous other vectors out there that are known contributors that have much bigger impacts.


Let me play devil's advocate here.. your implying that the strain that is globally distributed is the worst possible strain that could have emerged from the combining of the DNA from the strains.. yet we don't know which two strains combined as of yet nor do we know that a combination with another strain (or a combination of two or more other strains that have a low lethality) wouldn't result in a strain of even greater lethality.. 
As an analogy, let us consider ebola in humans.. Ebola Reston has a low ability to be infectious in humans (it did cause seroconversion) but can be transmitted via air born particulates while Ebola Sudan has a mortality of around 50 %.. yet you wouldn't want to see Ebola Reston aquire the mortaliy rate of Ebola sudan (or Ebola Zaire (90% mortality rate), while still being able to be infectious through airborn particulates... 

So to sum it up... where do we put the tipping point? Do we ignore the potential of alternate of potentially greater lethality emerging from further combinations of the fungi or do we take some action? When do we put the stability of the ecosystem before the desire for more frogs in the tanks? 

Taking of the Devil's advocate hat for the moment... 

One of the potential greatest contributors to chytrid movement and infection of ecosystems is probably due to aquaculture since they are typically outdoors, water is flow through and into the local waterways and if they are breeding amphibians they are generally species tolerant of chytrid infection (Xenopus, Bullfrogs..) or if sensitive (Hymenochirus ssp) kept in warm water systems not conducive to mortality events by chytrid but fully capable of carrying fruiting chytrid which can then release zoospores into waterways when enclosure water is discarded into the local sewage systems (many sewage systems are combined with rainwater runoff so in heavy rains, the waste water is discarded untreated allowing for release of active zoospores) or dumped into a yard potentially exposing amphibians to novel strains. 

Now we know that at the hobbyist and institutional levels, this can be prevented by simply using a sump to catch waste water and disinfect it with bleach before discarding but what would be required for larger importers to be able to meet those conditions? 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

markpulawski said:


> From our hobby's perspective 10 times more Chytrid has been imported from Europe than South & Central America, as hobbyists with a real incentive to keep healthy uninfected stock we should be the least of the governments worries.


The hobbyists who want to keep uninfected stock are probably a small portion of the amphibian hobbyists who are keeping dwarf aquatic frogs (Hymenochirus ssp) or imported newts in thier tanks... (or wild caught green treefrogs or other small wild caught hylids). We are the actual minority...... 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> So to sum it up... where do we put the tipping point? Do we ignore the potential of alternate of potentially greater lethality emerging from further combinations of the fungi or do we take some action? When do we put the stability of the ecosystem before the desire for more frogs in the tanks?


I totally agree that something needs to be done. There is no doubt about that. The status quo clearly is not working with regard to chytrid.

So I look at it in a "most bang for the buck" sort of stance. What action can be take to prevent the spread of chytrid or mixing of strains with the greatest deal of success. It is possible that limiting amphibian trade will have some effect, but I would equate that to damming the Mississippi with a stick.

I think that there are bigger culprits out there that could be targeted that would have a greater effect, which have been mentioned already. It would seem to me, for example, less logistically problematic to force aquaculture facilities to enact biosecurity policies with regard to chytrid (from a numbers standpoint, there are far fewer aquaculture facilities than amphibian keepers, and therefore should be easier to inspect and enforce).

I do think, as well, that there has not, as of yet, been a good unified campaign to educate people that they could, for example, be spreading chytrid by tossing out old water. Education is going to be key to reversing the spread of chytrid, from proper biosecurity of home tanks to proper biosecurity of personal items taken through potentially chytrid infected places.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Ed said:


> The hobbyists who want to keep uninfected stock are probably a small portion of the amphibian hobbyists who are keeping dwarf aquatic frogs (Hymenochirus ssp) or imported newts in thier tanks... (or wild caught green treefrogs or other small wild caught hylids). We are the actual minority......
> 
> Ed


That is why I said I'd be fine with us needing to have certified Chytrid free frogs. Most of the wild caught frogs that come in are either going to pet shops or sellers like the ones on Kingsnake. And most of those will probably die pretty quickly anyway. Getting the smaller shipments of frogs this hobby depends on would be easier to certify and bring in. Even if we are bringing in thousands of auratus every year, that is still minimal compared to other species. And in my opinion that number could drop anyway, and then we can supply more CB auratus to the hobby.

I guess my bottom line is, I don't see the pet industry as the largest threat, and I feel those other threats should be much more regulated. However, if some form of import ban was going to be in place I would be fine with it, as long as there were some sort of system that allowed companies like Understory to bring in responsibly harvested frogs. At least that way the responsible hobbyists could still have their frogs, help preserve captive populations of certain species, as well as keep the pet industry from harming wild populations of frogs (over harvesting).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Devil's advocate hat back on... 



MonarchzMan said:


> So I look at it in a "most bang for the buck" sort of stance. What action can be take to prevent the spread of chytrid or mixing of strains with the greatest deal of success. It is possible that limiting amphibian trade will have some effect, but I would equate that to damming the Mississippi with a stick.


If the transport of chytrid from novel locations doesn't occur then it would prevent mixing of species and the risk of more pathenogenic strains. Since those strains are geographically located, then limiting movement of amphibians into and out of those regions would impact not only the distribution of the strains of chytrid but thier opportunity to exchange genetic information. 



MonarchzMan said:


> I think that there are bigger culprits out there that could be targeted that would have a greater effect, which have been mentioned already. It would seem to me, for example, less logistically problematic to force aquaculture facilities to enact biosecurity policies with regard to chytrid (from a numbers standpoint, there are far fewer aquaculture facilities than amphibian keepers, and therefore should be easier to inspect and enforce).


While aquaculture is probably the largest vector, it doesn't mean that the pet trade is also not culpable in the potential risk... all because it is a smaller volume when compared to the food trade, it doesn't mean that in and of itself it is an insignificant risk... 




MonarchzMan said:


> I do think, as well, that there has not, as of yet, been a good unified campaign to educate people that they could, for example, be spreading chytrid by tossing out old water. Education is going to be key to reversing the spread of chytrid, from proper biosecurity of home tanks to proper biosecurity of personal items taken through potentially chytrid infected places.


Let us hypothesize for a moment that this forum is an accurate representative of the amphibian pet trade... I have been beating the drum in multiple threads on waste water (and waste materials) for years now and while many people routinely disinfect or quarantine thier plants, what subset do you think actually disinfects their waste water? Aquaculture facilities can be inspected to ensure that they are doing the best practices but what method do you use to get compliance from memebers of the hobby? 

Advocate Hat off... 

I think the both of you will find this interesting. http://salvemossapos.com/kerry_kriger/pdfs/Garner-2009-Reply-to-Kriger.pdf


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Devil's advocate hat back on... 



thedude said:


> Getting the smaller shipments of frogs this hobby depends on would be easier to certify and bring in.


Why does this or any other hobby require small shipments of frogs? The methodology to sustain the genetics of the captive populations is readily available and the genetics could be sustained for at least one to 200 years.. 



thedude said:


> I guess my bottom line is, I don't see the pet industry as the largest threat, and I feel those other threats should be much more regulated.


See my comments to JP above.. There is a significant distinction between being the largest threat and no threat at all.. The live frog pet trade is a threat and while smaller than the threat posed by aquaculture, it is incorrect at best to imply that since aquaculture is so large a threat that the pet trade is little to no threat.. Consider that some of the most desirable frogs for the pet trade are those that are from hard to reach or collect areas in which novel (unexposed to other strains) strains of chytrid are more likely to be found, and then can comingle at the exporter, importer, distributor, and hobbyist locations..raising the risk of a new genetic combination emerging from that exposure... This is a different scenario than the aquaculture which are typically located close to human centers where labor and transport of the products are to be located. In those areas, exposure to the globably distributed strain is already come and gone and the risk of a novel form being able to combine with the high lethality strain is low.... 

Advocate hat off.. 

Ed


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

Let's be brutally honest here.....we as a hobby aren't organized or funded enough to do crap. The govenment is going to take whatever antiquated advice it gets and throw millions of dollars at it regardless of what the actual impact is on the environment or hobbyists. It's gonna proptect whatever is the biggest money making (read tax paying) sector is. That's the way it works. Look what they just did with the big constrictors.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Let's be brutally honest here.....we as a hobby aren't organized or funded enough to do crap. The govenment is going to take whatever antiquated advice it gets and throw millions of dollars at it regardless of what the actual impact is on the environment or hobbyists. It's gonna proptect whatever is the biggest money making (read tax paying) sector is. That's the way it works. Look what they just did with the big constrictors.


Just to clarify a few points here.. First off, the information is not antiquated... it is emerging and there are some significant trends where there is a preponderence of evidence... That right off the bat distinguishes it from the python issue. 
Secondly, what happened with the large constrictors was not controlled at all by who ever has the largest money making sector.. as an example, please name the money makers that benefited from the invasive rulings for those snakes? 

There is a lot of hype on both sides of the invasive rulings for burmese, rock pythons and anacondas and as a result I suggest avoiding the poison koolaid that is being wildly splashed about on both sides... 

Ed


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

Ed said:


> Just to clarify a few points here.. First off, the information is not antiquated... it is emerging and there are some significant trends where there is a preponderence of evidence... That right off the bat distinguishes it from the python issue.
> Secondly, what happened with the large constrictors was not controlled at all by who ever has the largest money making sector.. as an example, please name the money makers that benefited from the invasive rulings for those snakes?
> 
> There is a lot of hype on both sides of the invasive rulings for burmese, rock pythons and anacondas and as a result I suggest avoiding the poison koolaid that is being wildly splashed about on both sides...
> ...


Ed I like that you're always the voice of reason. So why not ban large constrictors in just Florida? Why should someone in say Wyoming have to suffer because some idiots in Florida released their snakes into the wild and now they're eating alligators. Don't get me wrong I consider those and many other animals ie crocodillians, pirhanas, etc. as animals that some people keep just because they get big and they like to see them eat things. I don't think most people should have access to them. Just like people shouldn't keep tigers in apartments. But it's happened before and it will happen again. I understand the fear of chytrid and how this differs from the constrictor issues. But c'mon when has the government ever done anything right when it comes to an issue like this? Are they going to seek out the opinions of hobbyists and pet store owners? No they are not. The government has it's head stuck up it's ass. It's much easier to just slap down a total importation ban than it is to actually take steps to control the spread of Bd. I guess since were coming up on an election Obama can say he did two things in his four years in office, banned large constrictors and saved the world from Bd.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> If the transport of chytrid from novel locations doesn't occur then it would prevent mixing of species and the risk of more pathenogenic strains. Since those strains are geographically located, then limiting movement of amphibians into and out of those regions would impact not only the distribution of the strains of chytrid but thier opportunity to exchange genetic information.


It is true, but I still contend that there are other vectors not currently being addressed that are more worrisome. I agree that the collection of frogs does have the potential to move novel strains to new areas, but I think there are other, more likely and more common methods of transport that should be addressed first. 



> While aquaculture is probably the largest vector, it doesn't mean that the pet trade is also not culpable in the potential risk... all because it is a smaller volume when compared to the food trade, it doesn't mean that in and of itself it is an insignificant risk...


I agree that the hobby shouldn't be written off as being insignificant. But, that said, how much effect is targeting the hobby, and only the hobby, on limiting the dispersal of chytrid? I have yet to see pushes for biosecurity against chytrid in those other larger vectors. 



> Let us hypothesize for a moment that this forum is an accurate representative of the amphibian pet trade... I have been beating the drum in multiple threads on waste water (and waste materials) for years now and while many people routinely disinfect or quarantine thier plants, what subset do you think actually disinfects their waste water? Aquaculture facilities can be inspected to ensure that they are doing the best practices but what method do you use to get compliance from memebers of the hobby?


It's true. I think that the effects of proper biosecurity is something not grasped by most in the hobby. It is very much an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality that most people have. People need to see more direct effects of improper biosecurity practices. How to do that, I don't know...



> Advocate Hat off...
> 
> I think the both of you will find this interesting. http://salvemossapos.com/kerry_kriger/pdfs/Garner-2009-Reply-to-Kriger.pdf


Yep, already have seen that one.



Rusty_Shackleford said:


> I guess since were coming up on an election Obama can say he did two things in his four years in office, banned large constrictors and saved the world from Bd.


This is not a red vs. blue issue. There are people on both sides that are for and against the proposed legislation for Bd as well as for the python ban. Please don't make this a political issue. It is not. It is a scientific issue, let's keep it to that.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Ed I like that you're always the voice of reason. So why not ban large constrictors in just Florida?
> Why should someone in say Wyoming have to suffer because some idiots in Florida released their snakes into the wild and now they're eating alligators.


The reason is because a govermental agency (South Florida Water Management District) petitioned for a review and potential listing as an invasive species by USF&W and the media got ahold of it making it a political hot button issue that garnered wide support from the general public (and large campaign funding by some AR organizations). This was further exacerbated by the idiot in Ohio, who turned loose his exotics putting the greater community at risk. This is why it is significantly different than the chytrid issue since unlike the python issue we have more than a decade of documentation by researchers in multiple countries documenting the issues with chytrid and the risks to amphibian species (and ecological communites). 
The python issue is further complicated by the fact that Florida set a season in which people can harvest pythons (and requiring a license to do so) which coincides with the time of year in which the pythons are likely to not be as active... Why not allow year round harvest? It is clear that politics have become firmly entrenched in the management of the invasive population with respect to within the state.). 



Rusty_Shackleford said:


> But c'mon when has the government ever done anything right when it comes to an issue like this? Are they going to seek out the opinions of hobbyists and pet store owners? No they are not. The government has it's head stuck up it's ass. It's much easier to just slap down a total importation ban than it is to actually take steps to control the spread of Bd. I guess since were coming up on an election Obama can say he did two things in his four years in office, banned large constrictors and saved the world from Bd.


The problem with this position is that it totally ignores the fact that all of the responses by the goverment are after the problem occurs.. and has to be dealt with by spending tax payer's dollars. Rarely does the goverment get to prevent an issue since that would require vetting and approving each individual species.. as some examples of this sort of thing we can look back to the whole monkey pox issue with the importation of Gambesian Pouched Rats (and not housing them suitable by allowing them to mix with prarie dogs which then became infected resulting in monkey pox outbreaks in pet owners (which is a big scare as it appears like small pox initially)). Or we can look at the release of African giant land snails into Florida or the release of edible brown snail.. or the importation of ticks infected with heart water disease on wild collected Bell's hinge back and sulcatas or foot and mouth disease in wild collected hedge hogs... this list is extremely large... 

Accusing the current administration is partisian politics getting in the way (remember the poisoned kool-aid I mentioned?) since there is a long history of this in many admistrations and doesn't help with the discussion. 
We see legislation and bans on animals when it is clear that the hobby (or industry) isn't taking the appropriate precautions and the various hobbies were able to fly under the radar for a long time but the impact and cost of those who aren't responsible results in a huge cost for the rest of us, not only in the terms of restrictions but where tax payer dollars are spent.. for example the release of Indian Walking sticks into California has resulted in millions of dollars of damage to crops and millions spent in trying to control it.. 
People need to pay attention to both the large and small in these issues... and not drink the poison kool-aid. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Again with the hat.. 




MonarchzMan said:


> It is true, but I still contend that there are other vectors not currently being addressed that are more worrisome. I agree that the collection of frogs does have the potential to move novel strains to new areas, but I think there are other, more likely and more common methods of transport that should be addressed first.


What you are saying is that until other potential vectors that you want addressed are addressed; no vectors should be addressed.... how does that benefit amphibian conservation or reduce the risk to wild populations and ecosystems? 



MonarchzMan said:


> I agree that the hobby shouldn't be written off as being insignificant. But, that said, how much effect is targeting the hobby, and only the hobby, on limiting the dispersal of chytrid? I have yet to see pushes for biosecurity against chytrid in those other larger vectors.


I think you are paying too much attention to one part of the message put out by DOW, they are focusing on both live and frozen frogs but are using live frog phrasing to hook more people in on the topic. Keep in mind that this appears to conflict slightly with your first paragraph. 



MonarchzMan said:


> It's true. I think that the effects of proper biosecurity is something not grasped by most in the hobby. It is very much an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality that most people have. People need to see more direct effects of improper biosecurity practices. How to do that, I don't know...


I fail to see what would be a greater direct effect than a ban on the import and interstate travel or sales of amphibians.... That is exactly the bullet in the gun aimed at the entire amphibian trade.. 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> What you are saying is that until other potential vectors that you want addressed are addressed; no vectors should be addressed.... how does that benefit amphibian conservation or reduce the risk to wild populations and ecosystems?


No, I don't really think I am saying that. I'm just saying that the vectors have been identified that are more important when it comes to limiting the transmission of chytrid, and they should be targeted. Chytrid is a big problem, there is absolutely no disagreement with that. If we want to do something to affect its dispersal, then it has to be something big. I have no doubt that the hobby contributes, but like I said, I think a ban on import is small potatoes. 



> I fail to see what would be a greater direct effect than a ban on the import and interstate travel or sales of amphibians.... That is exactly the bullet in the gun aimed at the entire amphibian trade..


I agree that that is a pretty huge effect, but I don't know that people realize that it is a possibility. That said, if I may take your hat for a moment, let's say that everyone in the hobby started practicing proper biosecurity tomorrow, do you really think that would have any effect on the legislation being proposed? I mean, even with a pretty big push by python keepers showing that they actually are responsible keepers of their snakes, the python ban still went through...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> No, I don't really think I am saying that. I'm just saying that the vectors have been identified that are more important when it comes to limiting the transmission of chytrid, and they should be targeted. Chytrid is a big problem, there is absolutely no disagreement with that. If we want to do something to affect its dispersal, then it has to be something big. I have no doubt that the hobby contributes, but like I said, I think a ban on import is small potatoes.


Lets go back to this again.. I'm not seeing how a ban on live frogs only impacts the hobby... See for example the numbers here Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) | Mendeley.... it will also directly impact the food trade.. The hobby is a small portion of it, but to continue to imply the hobby is the main portion of the trade that would be impacted by a ban on live frogs is misleading... 




MonarchzMan said:


> I agree that that is a pretty huge effect, but I don't know that people realize that it is a possibility. That said, if I may take your hat for a moment, let's say that everyone in the hobby started practicing proper biosecurity tomorrow, do you really think that would have any effect on the legislation being proposed? I mean, even with a pretty big push by python keepers showing that they actually are responsible keepers of their snakes, the python ban still went through...


At least if the majority voluntarily complied it would give leverage to the argument that we are not the risk... which we cannot say at this time. 

Keep in mind if hobbyists began safety practices back when it became clear that there was a risk to amphibians with the same zeal that they use to try and sterilize everything going into the tank (and have done so for decades..), the hobby would be able with a clear conscience point to it not being an issue... and it would give the lobbyists representing the hobby (PIJAC for example) huge leverage.... however there was little interest and now we are seeing the downside of that lack of interest.... 

Ed


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

First I want to clarify that I'm on your side guys. I know the Bd problem is emerging as a bigger and bigger problem every day. I don't want it to spread any further than it has. My point was that given a chance, the government will f this up. 
I don't want any importations of frogs banned, I don't want interstate commerce prohibited. I would be willing to pay higher prices for imported frogs if there were some sort of Bd free certificate attached to them. If that were the best solution. I don't think the hobby is the cause of this problem, but most certainly will be a victim of the problem. Maybe it will come down to all of us being having to be certified chytrid free? 

Ed, you mentioned something in an earlier post about disinfecting water. How do you disinfect water? Boil it? That would kill any water borne Bd right?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> How do you disinfect water? Boil it? That would kill any water borne Bd right?


Adding an appropriate amount of bleach (based on the amount of water you are disinfecting) is all it takes.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

It would be great if we could put together a position paper that expresses the concerns and needs regarding Chytrid in the dart frog community. 

Given that some risk to native species is not NO risk, perhaps we could recommend common sense approaches that would lead to reduction in the potential transmission of Chytrid from our frogs to wild populations.

If the paper is something the majority of us can agree to, why wouldn't it be actually advantageous to have it codified as proper regulations for the hobby?

Take care, Richard.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> First I want to clarify that I'm on your side guys. I know the Bd problem is emerging as a bigger and bigger problem every day. I don't want it to spread any further than it has. My point was that given a chance, the government will f this up.
> I don't want any importations of frogs banned, I don't want interstate commerce prohibited. I would be willing to pay higher prices for imported frogs if there were some sort of Bd free certificate attached to them. If that were the best solution. I don't think the hobby is the cause of this problem, but most certainly will be a victim of the problem. Maybe it will come down to all of us being having to be certified chytrid free?
> 
> Ed, you mentioned something in an earlier post about disinfecting water. How do you disinfect water? Boil it? That would kill any water borne Bd right?


Hi Rusty,

Ron has the information right for the disinfection of the water. 

I didn't think you weren't on our side but I felt I had to address your post because you were passing around some of what I was referring to as the poisoned kool-aid.. We have a lot of liberties in our ability to aquire and keep a lot of animals because the govermental regulations are reactionary as opposed to proactively preventive. If you want to look at some cases where it is proactive we can consider the case of Australia where you can't own the vast majority of animals we consider commonplace (like corn snakes) and are regulated as to what native species can be owned... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Woodsman said:


> It would be great if we could put together a position paper that expresses the concerns and needs regarding Chytrid in the dart frog community.
> 
> Given that some risk to native species is not NO risk, perhaps we could recommend common sense approaches that would lead to reduction in the potential transmission of Chytrid from our frogs to wild populations.
> 
> ...


It is incrediably simple... and boils down to two things.. 

1) Bleach all water before discarding down the drain or elsewhere.. 
2) and double bag all solids before disposing of in the appropriate trash waste stream... do not compost them or dump the solids out in the yard. 

this isn't novel and has been put out there many times.. 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Ed said:


> It is incrediably simple... and boils down to two things..
> 
> 1) Bleach all water before discarding down the drain or elsewhere..
> 2) and double bag all solids before disposing of in the appropriate trash waste stream... do not compost them or dump the solids out in the yard.
> ...


And in all my time on this board, every time it's been put out there, it's been met with complete silence.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

skylsdale said:


> And in all my time on this board, every time it's been put out there, it's been met with complete silence.



That's it? Why has there been such reluctance? That's about the easiest thing I've ever heard of. I can't see any reason why we as a hobby shouldn't have 100% compliance with this. 

So say for example I drain the excess water from the false bottom of one of my vivs. I pour bleach in that water to kill the Db before pouring the water down the drain right? Soooo simple. 

More of us probably jump through more hoops to get safe water for our frogs (RO systems, bottled water etc). It would take a whole 30 seconds to ensure the waste water is Bd free. 

Thank you very much gentleman. I've learned something new today.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

What a great discussion! I'm really pleased to see such a long and indepth discussion on this sensitive topic that is rational and fact-based.

Like others, I'm convinced by the science that amphibian trade poses a risk to wild amphibians and that the pet trade has some culpability in that risk. But I also have questions about the DOW approaches. 

But a few things to throw my 2-cents into an already excellent discussion. I think we should be more conservative about using the word "ban". That is a very loaded word and I think being used to broadly here. None of the proposals I have seen call for banning amphibians in ANY trade sector. But they do propose to ban importation of chytrid. That is a VERY different thing and I think if we were talking about proposals to ban chytrid, the conversation would be different. As far as I have seen, most amphibians would still be welcome but the chytrid they carry would not. So I think if we are going to use the word "ban", we need to use it very narrowly.

Also, I want to point out that DOW is not just focusing on the pet trade. See their Amphibians in Crisis site:

Amphibians in Crisis - Defenders of Wildlife

or see specifically their page on the frog leg trade:

Frog Leg Trade Decimates Species and Causes Ecological Chaos - Defenders of Wildlife

Also, DOW is circulating a letter among scientists addressed to CITES parties which focuses only on the frog leg trade. TWI has been asked to sign the letter and we are discussing it. I only mention it to show that the DOW effort is not just focused on the pet industry.

I'm not endorsing DOW but do commend their efforts to raise awareness of this issue. As I said, I do have questions about some of the proposed solutions and feel like there is work to be done to get the approach right. But I also agree with others that something needs to be done.

Finally, I think the wastewater treatment issue is one that deserves a lot more attention but I don't think it will solve the problem by any stretch. But this awareness and promotion of safe practices would be a perfect role for PIJAC. But personally, I have been dissapointed by their response to the chytrid issue. Their Bd free campaign could be a lot stronger if you ask me: Bd-Free 'Phibs Campaign | Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council.

But I think we are making real progress. If we can agree that we don't want commercial amphibian trade to jeopardize wild amphibian populations or the health of our own captives, then we are in a good place for rationally discussing the risks and proposing solutions to mitigate those risks. It seems like we may be at that point.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Very well said Brent. Thanks for pointing these things out.

As I've already said I would be all for putting restrictions on amphibian importation to help keep Chytrid from spreading even further.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Ed said:


> Hi Rusty,
> 
> If you want to look at some cases where it is proactive we can consider the case of Australia where you can't own the vast majority of animals we consider commonplace (like corn snakes) and are regulated as to what native species can be owned...
> 
> Ed


Dont get me started on this. Its off topic in regards to the chytrid issue. I will say that the first time I attended a reptile expo in the US I was absolutely blown away. The sheer availability of animals is stupendous. $25 for a boa constrictor and no license... Oh, and we can't own dart frogs in Australia either. But there are morphs of Aussie natives available in Australia that US breeders would give their left nut's for. Back to chytrid, we apologise for the interruption.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

thedude said:


> Very well said Brent. Thanks for pointing these things out.
> 
> As I've already said I would be all for putting restrictions on amphibian importation to help keep Chytrid from spreading even further.


How would restriction affect the already rampant trade in illegal wildlife, and could smugglers bringing in chytrid make it worse since there is no way to trace outbreaks or knowing where it came from? Just throwing that out there, I dont know enough on the matter to have an opinion.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

jacobi said:


> How would restriction affect the already rampant trade in illegal wildlife, and could smugglers bringing in chytrid make it worse since there is no way to trace outbreaks or knowing where it came from? Just throwing that out there, I dont know enough on the matter to have an opinion.


Generally, I think with the U.S., we're pretty good at limiting how many illegal amphibians get into our borders. I have no doubt that it does happen, but I feel as though it is a greater issue in Europe than it is in the U.S. But I would be interested in hearing others' opinions on that.

One point that I would like to mention in regards to Brent's comments is that it is true that the ban would be on chytrid, but it could be viewed as a ban on amphibian import as well. Getting certified chytrid free is all well and good, but it would not be something that could be be a once and done. Because people often add new frogs to collections, chytrid testing would have to happen after every addition. As well as that, because of the nature of transport of the disease on non-hosts (i.e., us), even if people keep a closed collection, it would still require periodic testing (given the nature of the disease, probably every 3-6 months?). And depending on requirements, keepers would likely have to test all of their frogs, which for those with tons of frogs, would be nothing short of a headache. All of those requirements would be as effective as a ban for a number of people.

And maybe that is a good thing, maybe it isn't. That's a whole other debate.

I think, for example, if I may take example from another hobby of mine, we could view chytrid somewhat like pullorum in poultry. For those who don't know, pullorum is a pretty devastating disease to chicken, and a while ago, it was decided to control it, I believe by the USDA to protect commercial businesses. Businesses need to test their stock (admittedly, I do not know if it is all of the stock or a representative sample) periodically (I believe it's once a year) to certify that their stock is free from pullorum. Now, in order to show poultry, exhibitors need to test all of their animals that they intend to show. Again, animals that are to be shown need to be tested every year. But, animals that are shown one year and not the next few, then they do not need to be tested. This testing is done by certified (I believe through the USDA) testers. And any positives for pullorum would have to be reported to the government agency and the entire flock would be euthanized. Most breeders that I know get certified to do their own birds. All of this has pretty effectively kept pullorum under control.

I think that a similar model could be used for chytrid, but there are a few key differences that would need to be addressed. First, testing for pullorum is not compulsory for the average chicken keeper unless that person wants to show birds. Second, chytrid can be passed from non-hosts effectively. Pullorum is not viable on non-hosts and only transfers from direct transmission. Finally, pullorum testing takes all of five minutes to do: simply taking blood, and looking for evidence of antibodies in the blood; something that is not feasible for amphibians.

A similar system could be put in place for amphibians. But I think that there are some key hurdles that would have to be addressed before it could be effective, widespread, and not negatively impact business. I think that the biggest hurdle that needs to be addressed is the lack of ability for quick and accurate testing of chytrid. If it was as simple as taking swabs, rubbing them on paper, and looking for it to change color or not if chytrid was present, that'd be huge. Right now, I think it costs something like $8 per sample to get things analyzed for chytrid which is pretty steep for most people. I have 17 frogs, for example, and if I was required to test every six months, that'd be $272 a year I have to spend on these frogs, and that is assuming that I don't get more and they don't breed.

So, let's say some technology is developed that can detect chytrid cheaply and efficiently. The next question is what to do with it. It really would not be feasible to require all amphibian keepers to keep up to date certification of animals. USFWS simply does not have the capabilities to do that. I personally would target sales. Anyone selling amphibians would have to demonstrate that their animals are chytrid free. Businesses commercial or otherwise would have to get certification periodically. It could just be like pullorum where USFWS could be a certification agency and anyone could be certified as a chytrid tester. Now, it could also be applied to Joe Schmoe selling frogs on DB or at a frogger meeting.

This, of course, is assuming that retailers are a more important vector than consumers, but I am not sure if there are data on that. And it is a very important distinction to make in order to have effective policy. And it also would not get the people who have closed populations that could be exposed to chytrid through the owners going through the environment.

But I think that it all comes down to being able to detect the disease cheaply and efficiently. Otherwise, it will be difficult to convince people to come on board, and it would largely be an effective ban on amphibian trade. Retailers are not going to want to spend thousands of dollars each year just to make sure their animals are chytrid free and neither are consumers. And I think that without a somewhat voluntary system like what is done with pullorum, I don't think USFWS would have the man power or money to manage the trade as well as everything else. I think a model after pullorum is the only way to effectively pursue it.

And I do think it is important to note that such regulation for pullorum has not negatively hindered poultry commerce. But, also important to note, is that pullorum has largely been eliminated, whereas chytrid is pretty widespread.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> As well as that, because of the nature of transport of the disease on non-hosts (i.e., us), even if people keep a closed collection, it would still require periodic testing (given the nature of the disease, probably every 3-6 months?). And depending on requirements, keepers would likely have to test all of their frogs, which for those with tons of frogs, would be nothing short of a headache. All of those requirements would be as effective as a ban for a number of people.


Given the communicability of chytrid from one frog to another frog, a sample from each enclosure (as opposed to each frog) is going to demonstrate whether it is present in an enclosure or not. 

As for the time frame, there really isn't anything that supports that frequency as opposed to once a year (or even less). As more collections get tested and certified clean, the risk of a collection turning up positive is reduced. Keep in mind that under the proposed rule from the DOW petition, no positive animals would be able to be imported.. so even new frogs shouldn't carry the pathogen. At that point the greatest risk of chytrid is actually going to come from the local enviroment (using plants, feeders or other materials that can be contaminated).. but then the issue becomes, if it is widespread and endemic in the country already, why worry about the strain in North America as opposed to the other strains around the globe.. 



MonarchzMan said:


> I Businesses need to test their stock (admittedly, I do not know if it is all of the stock or a representative sample)


Representative sample based on the number of birds in a flock. 



MonarchzMan said:


> But, animals that are shown one year and not the next few, then they do not need to be tested.


Because the risk of exposure is reduced (no new birds) but ignores the fact that if you have wild birds getting into your coop, the wild birds can act as reservoir for those species/strains of Salmonella. Pullorum isn't the greatest example as one of the big risks is the fact that it is vertically transmitted from the hen resulting in an endemic infection (which is why the recommendation is to depopulate) which can't be resolved. 



MonarchzMan said:


> I think that a similar model could be used for chytrid, but there are a few key differences that would need to be addressed. First, testing for pullorum is not compulsory for the average chicken keeper unless that person wants to show birds.


The proposed rule on chytrid wouldn't require testing unless you were going to engage in interstate shipment so there is not a requirement for testing as long as you remain in state. 



MonarchzMan said:


> Pullorum is not viable on non-hosts and only transfers from direct transmission. Finally, pullorum testing takes all of five minutes to do: simply taking blood, and looking for evidence of antibodies in the blood; something that is not feasible for amphibians.


Actually it can also be passed by by inhalation of small infectious particles (See for example JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie). It is also transmitted via flies and potentially contaminated material on people's shoes or clothes. 



MonarchzMan said:


> But I think that it all comes down to being able to detect the disease cheaply and efficiently.


The fact that you can test a representative sample from a batch of animals and have an excellant chance of being able to document whether or not it is present significantly reduces the cost. In addition, since it isn't vertically transmitted, testing the adult frogs should elimate the potential for it to be present in a collection so recertification can occur much less frequently. As a further note, if testing is required before shipping, then frogs aquired through interestate shipments would be a lesser risk than those aquired in-state. 



MonarchzMan said:


> I don't think USFWS would have the man power or money to manage the trade as well as everything else. I think a model after pullorum is the only way to effectively pursue it.


I'm not sure why people are assuming that the testing would fall under USF&W jurisdiction. USF&W would be responsible for enforcing interstate or import without testing under the Lacy Act but there is nothing to indicate that they would handle the certification.. there are already agencies established that handle those issues such as the USDA (which inspects and permits people and institutions who engage in interstate traffic of exotics (such certifying sugar glider breeders). 


Ed


----------

