# USA announces focus on Smuggling



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*WASHINGTON, DC,* November 9, 2012 (ENS) – The U.S. government is taking aim at wildlife trafficking in a new, more focused manner by placing it high on the foreign policy and security agenda. Increasingly run by well-funded, heavily armed criminal syndicates, wildlife trafficking “has become more organized, more lucrative, more widespread, and more dangerous than ever before,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Thursday.
At a high-level meeting titled “Wildlife Trafficking and Conservation: A Call to Action” at the State Department, Clinton identified a new U.S. strategy for addressing the global problem of wildlife trafficking. It includes outreach to government leaders and the general public, a global system of regional wildlife enforcement networks and an intelligence assessment of the impact wildlife trafficking has on U.S. security interests.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the meeting on Wildlife Trafficking at the U.S. State Department in Washington, DC, November 8, 2012. (Photo courtesy U.S. State Dept.)​ 
“This is a global issue, and it calls, therefore, for a concerted global response,” Clinton told the foreign ambassadors and leaders from international organizations, conservation groups and the private sector.
“When I was in Africa last summer, I was quite alarmed by the level of anxiety I heard from leaders,” Clinton said. “It is one thing to be worried about the traditional poachers who come in and kill and take a few animals, a few tusks, a few horns, or other animal parts. It’s something else when you’ve got helicopters, night vision goggles, automatic weapons, which pose a threat to human life as well as wildlife.”
“Local communities are becoming terrified. Local leaders are telling their national leaders that they can lose control of large swaths of territory to these criminal gangs. Where criminal gangs can come and go at their total discretion, we know that begins to provide safe havens for other sorts of threats to people and governments,” Clinton warned.
Wildlife trafficking threatens protected and endangered species, pushing some to extinction. The illegal trade in wildlife products such as ivory, rhino horn, shark fins and turtle shell is estimated to total between US$7 billion and $10 billion annually.
Wildlife trafficking threatens security and the rule of law, undermines conservation efforts, robs local communities of their economic base, and contributes to the emergence and spread of disease.
Clinton acknowledged that the United States is the second-largest destination market for illegally trafficked wildlife in the world. “That is something we are going to address,” she promised.
Kenyan Ambassador to the United States Elkanah Odembo and Indonesian Ambassador to the United States Dr. Dino Patti Djalal outlined the critical situations their countries face from the violence of wildlife trafficking.
Foreign Minister Phandu Skelemani of Botswana spoke via videotape, and participants viewed presentations by WildAid, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
“Now, several conservation groups are here with us today, and we greatly appreciate their invaluable work,” Clinton said. “But the truth is they cannot solve this problem alone. None of us can. This is a global challenge that spans continents and crosses oceans, and we need to address it with partnerships that are as robust and far-reaching as the criminal networks we seek to dismantle.”
An elephant killed in Virunga National Park in Democratic Republic of Congo, Africa’s oldest, most diverse and most endangered national park, 2009. (Photo by gorilla.cd)​

“We need governments, civil society, businesses, scientists, and activists to come together to educate people about the harms of wildlife trafficking. We need law enforcement personnel to prevent poachers from preying on wildlife. We need trade experts to track the movement of goods and help enforce existing trade laws,” Clinton said. “We need finance experts to study and help undermine the black markets that deal in wildlife. And most importantly, perhaps, we need to reach individuals, to convince them to make the right choices about the goods they purchase.”
Next week, Clinton said she and President Barack Obama will “personally bring this message” to government leaders in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and at the East Asia Summit when they meet in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
“We are also pressing forward with efforts to protect marine life,” Clinton said. “Last week, we joined forces with New Zealand to propose the world’s largest marine protected area, the Ross Sea region of Antarctica.”
Secretary Clinton identified a four-part U.S. strategy for addressing the global problem of wildlife trafficking.
First, the United States is working with leaders from around the world to develop a global consensus on wildlife protection.
Clinton mentioned her work with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a tiger conservationist, at the APEC summit in Vladivostok “to make sure that the leaders’ statement issued there included, for the first time ever, strong language on wildlife trafficking.”
Second, the State Department is spearheading a global outreach campaign on wildlife trafficking, to launch December 4 on Wildlife Conservation Day.
Third, Secretary Clinton called for a global system of regional wildlife enforcement networks, pledging $100,000 and building on the more than $24 million that USAID has already committed to the effort over the past five years to combat wildlife trade.
Finally, Secretary Clinton said, “Trafficking relies on porous borders, corrupt officials, and strong networks of organized crime, all of which undermine our mutual security. I’m asking the intelligence community to produce an assessment of the impact of large-scale wildlife trafficking on our security interests so we can fully understand what we’re up against.”
Since the beginning of this year, 339 rhinos have been killed for their horns by poachers in South Africa, 201 in Kruger National Park. Overall, rhino poaching has increased over 3,000 percent since 2007. (Photo by Martin Harvey / Canon WWF)​ 
Secretary Clinton was joined by under secretaries for environment, Robert Hormats; global affairs, Maria Otero; and public diplomacy Tara Sonenshine, as well as USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg and senior officials from the departments of Interior and Justice and among other U.S. government agencies.
Hormats said his commitment to ending wildlife trafficking is not just professional, but personal, rooted in the year he spent in East Africa as a wildlife guide in national parks. “Profoundly moved by this experience,” Hormats called poaching “a moral outrage.”
“Our decision to organize this meeting today flows from our conviction that the nature of wildlife trafficking is changing,” he said. The urgency of the issue has intensified and has “a direct impact on the foreign policy interests of the United States.”
“New transnational criminal groups – well-funded criminal syndicates – are increasingly involved in the illicit trade,” Hormats said. “And the poachers have vastly increased weaponry. Large-scale wildlife trafficking has come to threaten the security, stability, and rule of law in countries across Africa and parts of Asia. And it also affects the security and stability of many nations.”
Steinberg made three new program announcements. First, USAID will partner with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, and the wildlife traffic monitoring organization TRAFFIC. The new initiative is titled Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment, and Priority Setting, or Wildlife TRAPS, and will focus on trans-regional trafficking.
Second, USAID will join the Global Partnership for Oceans, a World-Bank-led trilateral partnership with over 100 public, private, and civil society partners.
Third, USAID will develop a Technology Challenge on Wildlife Trafficking, engaging the best and brightest scientists and entrepreneurs to use technological solutions to combat wildlife trafficking.
Crawford Allan, director of TRAFFIC in North America, told the gathering of the “alarming” recent rise in rhino and elephant poaching to record levels in Africa, mainly to meet demand for horn and ivory in Asia.
“The unprecedented surge in wildlife crime reflects a fundamental shift in the structure and operation of the illegal wildlife trade over the past decade,” said Allan.
“Wildlife crime is seen as relatively easy money, providing high returns for relatively little risk, so it is little surprise organized criminal networks are becoming increasingly involved,” Allen said. “NGOs, such as TRAFFIC, WWF and WildAid can’t tackle such threats alone; we need governments to get involved.”
“In this regard,” he said, “TRAFFIC warmly welcomes today’s strong commitment shown by Secretary of State Clinton, clearly placing the US Government at the forefront of global efforts to deal with the growing menace from organized wildlife crime.”
Dr. Cristián Samper, president and CEO of the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society, moderated a panel at the State Department event.
“Illegal trade in wildlife, timber and fisheries is estimated to be fueling illicit economies around the world at approximately $10-15 billion annually,” said Samper. “Wildlife trafficking is among the world’s most lucrative illicit economies, second only to illegal drugs and human trafficking.
“This year alone, 30,000 African elephants will be killed for their ivory. In February of 2012 alone more than half of the elephants in one national park in northern Cameroon were slaughtered by armed militants from Chad and northern Sudan. African ecosystems are being disrupted, and tourism, a major source of national revenue, is being undercut,” said Samper, who detialing the grim statistics.
“It is estimated that 448 rhinos were poached last year in South Africa alone, and rhino poaching has extirpated two African subspecies over the last decade,” he said.
“Only 3,200 tigers remain in the wild, and of those, probably only 1,000 are breeding females. The recent decline has been fundamentally due to poaching for their body parts.”
“More than 25 million sharks are killed each year, more than one third are either endangered or threatened, and in the case of hammerhead sharks their population has declined more than 90 percent since 1970,” Samper said. “All of these species are declining because they are hunted for the international wildlife trade.”​
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2012. All rights reserved.​

Environment News Service (http://s.tt/1sNWB)​


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Untangling the Net: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Efforts to Target Internet Wildlife Trafficking*

Wildlife law enforcement authorities worldwide have been battling Internet-based wildlife trafficking for over a decade. In the late 1990s, special agents with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, first started spotting online sale postings for items that ranged from live tortoises and waterfowl mounts to seal oil pills and frozen tiger cubs.​Ever expanding public access to the Web gives almost anyone anywhere the opportunity to be a 'player' in the illegal wildlife trade. The Internet clearly offers many advantages as a vehicle for international commerce and crime. Benefits to 'e-marketers' include speed of transaction and communication, options for anonymity and a customer base that encompasses virtually every corner of the globe. The features that make the Internet a valuable trading tool for wildlife traffickers are also, of course, some of the very features that make it difficult to police and a new and unique challenge for the Service and other wildlife law enforcement agencies around the world.
The Service is committed to protecting U.S. and global wildlife and plant resources from unlawful exploitation regardless of the means used to commit such crimes. As a law enforcement priority, the Service investigates all trafficking in protected species – including trade conducted via the Internet.
The agency’s law enforcement programme has responded to the increase in wildlife cybercrime by using Internet technologies in its intelligence gathering and investigations. Service efforts also include capacity building (so that enforcement officers are better equipped and better prepared to address 'e-crime') as well as partnerships – with other agencies, other countries, and even with 'e-business' itself.
Intelligence and investigations
The Service and other wildlife law enforcement agencies were quick to recognize both the impossibility and the limited pay-offs of attempting to investigate every Web posting that offers some potentially prohibited wildlife item for sale or trying to police the Internet 24/7. The volume of trade is too large, the turnaround too rapid, the scope of the Web too extensive, the global array of laws too varied and complex, and the enforcement resources needed too massive for such an undertaking.
As part of a 'smart response' strategy, however, Service intelligence analysts use an Internet targeting plan and 'triage' procedures to locate ads and other online sales activity, assess the species and possible violations, and dispatch that information to 'end users' that not only include Service officers in the field and international partners, but also members of the Internet community, such as the eBay Fraud Investigations team (with whom Service intelligence analysts and special agents have established a good working relationship). As a result of this strategy, the Service has seized numerous wildlife items being unlawfully sold via the Internet.
The Service also processes 'leads' regarding wildlife for sale on the Internet that are received from the public, non-profit organizations and other groups. Efforts also include monitoring Web sites and collecting and analysing data to identify the scope and scale of the trade, and to provide intelligence for use in channelling and coordinating Service investigations.
These efforts support both Service and global wildlife-crime investigations. For example, analyses of Web sales of Asian arowanas (which cannot be legally imported or sold in interstate commerce in the United States) allowed national coordination of casework across the country. As a result, investigators were able to avoid duplication of effort and better utilize their time and resources in addressing this trafficking. Last fall, information about sales solicitations for a primate skull was passed on to Cameroon, resulting in the arrest of an Internet scammer in that country.
Service special agents routinely investigate Internet wildlife trafficking, focusing on commerce in high-priority wildlife species such as those listed on CITES Appendix I or protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In fact, use of the Internet by officers working 'undercover' has often proved key to cracking cases involving Web-based wildlife sales.
In a recent joint U.S.-Thai investigation, for example, investigators monitored and documented sales of elephant ivory on eBay and PayPal, including sales arranged by undercover officers to substantiate key subjects’ involvement in the smuggling network. In the United States, this effort resulted in Service seizure of dozens of raw ivory pieces and ivory products and the January 2010 felony indictments of a U.S. businessman and Thai national. The Thai defendant, in this case (which traced raw ivory being funnelled from Africa to Thailand for carving and sale to Thai and global customers), had already been charged in Thailand along with another individual for wildlife smuggling in November 2009. Continued work on the case led to a January 2010 raid on ivory shops in Nakhon Sawan Province, Thailand; the arrest of two ivory dealers; and the seizure of six whole, raw African elephant tusks weighing 32 kilograms and valued at more than USD 30,000.
In another recent ivory trafficking case involving undercover Internet buys, the Service worked with Her Majesty's Royal Customs in the United Kingdom to secure evidence needed to bring charges against a man in that country using e-Bay to sell elephant tusks, whale teeth and ivory products. A Service agent also went undercover on the Web to deal with and document the smuggling activities of a Japanese butterfly collector, whose 'wares' included rare specimens of CITES-protected species. 
U.S. capacity building
Over the past decade, the Service has worked to improve its ability to detect, document and disrupt Internet-based wildlife trafficking. The agency’s Intelligence Unit itself was created and expanded during this time. Both Service investigators and intelligence analysts have completed training on cybercrime techniques, open source information gathering, officer safety on the Internet, collecting Web-based evidence, and related topics.
The Service added computer forensics staff at its wildlife forensics laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, and trained select officers across the country in the seizure and analysis of computers and electronic media to bolster investigative capacity in the field. In 2009, the law enforcement programme established a new support unit staffed by special agents with both computer forensic and high-tech investigative skills to further improve the Service’s ability to identify, retrieve, analyse and utilize 'e-evidence' of wildlife crimes. 
Partnership
From the beginning, partnership has played an important role for the Service in combating wildlife cybercrime. Service outreach to eBay, PayPal and other auction site owners, for example, has raised corporate awareness about wildlife conservation and secured the development of better guidance for site users, the removal of hundreds of postings and assistance in wildlife crime investigations. In fact, the recent U.S.-Thai ivory investigation described above benefited from corporate cooperation: a PayPal representative travelled to Los Angeles at company expense to provide testimony to a Royal Thai Police investigator who had come to the United States as part of the cooperative work on the case.
The Service has worked with the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, Cameroon and other countries to share information and pursue investigations. In 2009, the Service launched a joint Internet intelligence gathering project with Canada to identify CITES species for sale on the web, emerging trends, possible violations and major players. Service law enforcement staff work closely with the U.S. National Central Bureau-Interpol and the Interpol Wildlife Working Group. Agency intelligence analysts and special agents coordinate their efforts with other U.S. Federal agencies that deal with cybercrime. 
Partnership is also critical to improving enforcement capacity at the national, regional and global levels. As a member of the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group, the Service helped plan and participate in a video-conference on Internet investigative techniques in 2006, and Service law enforcement managers and field agents met last November with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts to better coordinate investigative efforts. Service law enforcement staff have provided training on cybercrime investigations and Internet wildlife trafficking to officers with State wildlife agencies and U.S. prosecutors.
Last February, Service law enforcement and international affairs staff represented the United States at the CITES Secretariat’s cybercrime workshop in Vancouver, Canada. In November, the Service hosted a meeting of the CITES Law Enforcement Experts Group at its forensics laboratory, where Internet wildlife trafficking and the Secretariat’s findings and recommendations were among the topics discussed. 
The Secretariat’s commitment to facilitating efforts to combat Internet wildlife trafficking is clearly a call for increased global cooperation. Expanded country-to-country communication, intelligence sharing, and investigative coordination represent one trend that is bound to continue – and bound to benefit wildlife worldwide. 
Sandra Cleva 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Office of Law Enforcement
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 3000
Arlington, VA 22203, United States
Tel.: 1 703 358 1949
Email: [email protected] 
Christina Thornblom Kish
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Office of Law Enforcement
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 3000
Arlington, VA 22203, United States
Tel.: 1 703 358 1949
Email: [email protected]


----------



## easternversant (Sep 4, 2012)

Ed,

This article focuses primarily on megafuana, especially species which often involve armed crime. What do you think the impact of these efforts will be on the illegal trade of other species (especially frogs, lets be honest all of us here are interested in that)?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The announcements were made for the general public.. and that is why the megacharismatic animals were used as the primary examples in the USA....however iit is clear from the wording in both announcements that frogs are also on the list. Keep in mind that there is a lot of interest on frogs due to bioprospecting and the fact that there is a lot of demand for them on this end (and the prison terms tend to be much less than for those involving drugs). 

You can always e-mail the USF&W officer at the above e-mail and ask them if they are going to target people smuggling frogs in from other countries.... 

People should keep in mind that a frog that was illegally aquired (whether by theft, or smuggling) is not only illegal under the Lacy Act but all of the offspring are illegal as well).. and that the statute of limitation is 5 years, but if the frog is sold or used in any form of commerce, the clock starts ticking all over again..... 



Some comments,

Ed


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Ed said:


> The announcements were made for the general public.. and that is why the megacharismatic animals were used as the primary examples in the USA....however iit is clear from the wording in both announcements that frogs are also on the list. Keep in mind that there is a lot of interest on frogs due to bioprospecting and the fact that there is a lot of demand for them on this end (and the prison terms tend to be much less than for those involving drugs).
> 
> You can always e-mail the USF&W officer at the above e-mail and ask them if they are going to target people smuggling frogs in from other countries....
> 
> ...



Ed, can you elaborate on the frog aspect of this press release.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Ed, if you don't mind me posting this... 
A relatively new method in the battle to end poaching in Africa. It seems to be helping, I wonder if all the political talk will result in financing more "hands-on" methods such as this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17256894


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

billschwinn said:


> Ed, can you elaborate on the frog aspect of this press release.


If I understand what your asking correctly, they are not proposing or enacting any new rules or laws... they are simply going to take a more active role in looking for and prosecuting violations for animal smuggling... The budget after 9/11 for USFWS was partially reallocated towards bioterrorism prevention and this sounds more like the agency is getting back on track. In addition, sounds like they are going to take reports of smuggling violations by various groups more seriously... 

That does follow the tone from what I got from several of the speakers at the recent Wildlife regulation conference down in Florida. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

But is that going to do anything in regards to the huge Asian and European market?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jacobi said:


> But is that going to do anything in regards to the huge Asian and European market?


The discussion sounds to be more global probably with coordination through CITES, however this may not affect things that get laundered through non-CITES signatories like Lebanon... But if they get the country on ground to step up protections, then it could change those pictures. 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

I hope so... The "$23 million dollar" figure seems like a nice chunk of change, until it's compared to "$5-6 billion".


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Keep in mind that for a long time, you didn't see international organized crime groups working in wildlife trafficking (see this discussion on the scale in the fishing industry http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Issue_Paper_-_TOC_in_the_Fishing_Industry.pdf) and this one Organized crime is wiping out wildlife, report finds 

An example of this was the wholesale collection and export of Lygodactylus williamsi the majority of it's territory (if not all of it) was within the Kimboza Forest Preserve (which is part of a larger preserve system). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Ed said:


> If I understand what your asking correctly, they are not proposing or enacting any new rules or laws... they are simply going to take a more active role in looking for and prosecuting violations for animal smuggling... The budget after 9/11 for USFWS was partially reallocated towards bioterrorism prevention and this sounds more like the agency is getting back on track. In addition, sounds like they are going to take reports of smuggling violations by various groups more seriously...
> 
> That does follow the tone from what I got from several of the speakers at the recent Wildlife regulation conference down in Florida.
> 
> ...


You did understand correctly. Could you explain your last sentence, I must have missed this conference.


----------



## Reef_Haven (Jan 19, 2011)

I wonder if the timing of this story is a coincidence. 
Central Florida poaching suspects charged with illegally... | www.wftv.com


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

billschwinn said:


> You did understand correctly. Could you explain your last sentence, I must have missed this conference.


Sorry my fault, I thought it was in Florida, but it was in Houston.. See 2012 Law Symposium audio now available for FREE download - National Reptile & Amphibian Advisory Council Law News Blog 

Ed


----------



## JRoe (Jan 24, 2012)

Dang.


Shoulda voted for Romney.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

And what is wrong with going after smuggling? People in the dart frog community really need to change their unethical, illegal, and selfish mindset.




JRoe said:


> Dang.
> 
> 
> Shoulda voted for Romney.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

I really wish USFWS would go after people illegally brining in williamsi. The species can not support continued collection. In the wild only about on pair per a palm tree is seem. They are illegally exported as yellow headed geckos on Tanzania's trophy permits. 




Ed said:


> Keep in mind that for a long time, you didn't see international organized crime groups working in wildlife trafficking (see this discussion on the scale in the fishing industry http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Issue_Paper_-_TOC_in_the_Fishing_Industry.pdf) and this one Organized crime is wiping out wildlife, report finds
> 
> An example of this was the wholesale collection and export of Lygodactylus williamsi the majority of it's territory (if not all of it) was within the Kimboza Forest Preserve (which is part of a larger preserve system).
> 
> ...


----------



## savethefrogs (Feb 21, 2009)

Thanks to Blue Pumilio for hitting it dead on: What's wrong with going after smuggling? The Dendroboard community does wholeheartedly agree that removing frogs from the wild for use as pets (against their will, and without their consent) is unethical and should be deterred...right? If you find the poaching of the megafauna in the article disgusting, I'm sure that you all agree that stealing frogs from their families and their homeland is every bit as bad. 

I'm sure no Dendroboard user would want to be stuck in a container with a bunch of sick frogs crawling all over you and possibly dying en route from problems with your new diet as a captive or possibly overheating or freezing in the cargo bin of that third world country's public transportation system. Or maybe you'd arrive in the USA alive and get sold to a pet store on the corner where you'd sit in a place nowhere as nice as the rainforest stream you came from and then a nice mom would buy you for a few bucks for little Johnnie who really loves frogs but forgets to feed you or turn off the heat lamp and then you die. "It was just a frog though", Dad may say as he throws your carcass out in the backyard. And the chytrid fungus living in your keratinized skin seeps out in the next rain and down to the local stream. And the chytrid fungus infects the native frogs, which have no evolved defenses against chytridiomycosis (the worst disease in recorded history, having caused nearly 100 amphibian species extinctions), and when kids ask you why they never hear frogs calling down at the stream anymore, what will you tell them? Will you say you did your part? 
Chytrid Fungus
Pet Frogs
Kerry Kriger, Ph.D.
SAVE THE FROGS! Founder, Executive Director, Ecologist, Frog Lover


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

savethefrogs said:


> Thanks to Blue Pumilio for hitting it dead on: What's wrong with going after smuggling? The Dendroboard community does wholeheartedly agree that removing frogs from the wild for use as pets (against their will, and without their consent) is unethical and should be deterred...right? If you find the poaching of the megafauna in the article disgusting, I'm sure that you all agree that stealing frogs from their families and their homeland is every bit as bad.
> 
> I'm sure no Dendroboard user would want to be stuck in a container with a bunch of sick frogs crawling all over you and possibly dying en route from problems with your new diet as a captive or possibly overheating or freezing in the cargo bin of that third world country's public transportation system. Or maybe you'd arrive in the USA alive and get sold to a pet store on the corner where you'd sit in a place nowhere as nice as the rainforest stream you came from and then a nice mom would buy you for a few bucks for little Johnnie who really loves frogs but forgets to feed you or turn off the heat lamp and then you die. "It was just a frog though", Dad may say as he throws your carcass out in the backyard. And the chytrid fungus living in your keratinized skin seeps out in the next rain and down to the local stream. And the chytrid fungus infects the native frogs, which have no evolved defenses against chytridiomycosis (the worst disease in recorded history, having caused nearly 100 amphibian species extinctions), and when kids ask you why they never hear frogs calling down at the stream anymore, what will you tell them? Will you say you did your part?
> Chytrid Fungus
> ...


First of all, "frog families"? You can't be serious with that...

And second, yes I will say I did my part. I only buy from sustainable frog importers, which will hopefully be the future of this hobby.

I agree that the amount of wild caught frogs that come into the pet trade is way to high, and that they aren't treated the way they should. But there are a lot of really great people in the hobby who are really helping get us on track. If I were you, I would be going after other forums/hobbies. 

Keeping people from being able to enjoy these animals is a horrible idea. Helping to make sure they can enjoy them in a sustainable manner is a great idea...


----------



## Ulisesfrb (Dec 8, 2008)

savethefrogs said:


> Thanks to Blue Pumilio for hitting it dead on: What's wrong with going after smuggling? The Dendroboard community does wholeheartedly agree that removing frogs from the wild for use as pets (against their will, and without their consent) is unethical and should be deterred...right? If you find the poaching of the megafauna in the article disgusting, I'm sure that you all agree that stealing frogs from their families and their homeland is every bit as bad.
> 
> I'm sure no Dendroboard user would want to be stuck in a container with a bunch of sick frogs crawling all over you and possibly dying en route from problems with your new diet as a captive or possibly overheating or freezing in the cargo bin of that third world country's public transportation system. Or maybe you'd arrive in the USA alive and get sold to a pet store on the corner where you'd sit in a place nowhere as nice as the rainforest stream you came from and then a nice mom would buy you for a few bucks for little Johnnie who really loves frogs but forgets to feed you or turn off the heat lamp and then you die. "It was just a frog though", Dad may say as he throws your carcass out in the backyard. And the chytrid fungus living in your keratinized skin seeps out in the next rain and down to the local stream. And the chytrid fungus infects the native frogs, which have no evolved defenses against chytridiomycosis (the worst disease in recorded history, having caused nearly 100 amphibian species extinctions), and when kids ask you why they never hear frogs calling down at the stream anymore, what will you tell them? Will you say you did your part?
> Chytrid Fungus
> ...


 This topic is has plenty of gray areas which need to be addressed. While part of the decline in amphibians is indeed to over collection for the pet trade, there are also responsable, sustainable frog importers who contribute to the habitat of these frogs and keep them from dissapearing. Governments indeed need to be more strict with importation and with smugglers, but they should also be aware that everything is not black or white. Deforestation and development are responsable for a big chunk of the damage done to frogs. I have seen it with my own eyes. I lived in Mexico City as a child and would often go visit an aunt in one of the suburbs. Right where she lived, there was a small river and green area, small, but enough for treefrogs (very similar to the pacifictree frog) to live there. I remember I would often go and catch a few and take them back home with me. Sure, I was not educated enough to be able to breed them and keep them alive for a long time. However, more than a decade passed and that green area no longer exists. Just like that, the whole population of tree frogs gone forever from their habitat. Wouldn't you agree that it would have been nice to have someone work with them and keep them alive in captivity at least?
Maybe little Jhonny should have educated himself better, and contribute in some way to stop the illegal pet trade and habitat loss of these frogs. Instead of feeling guilty about killing his pet frog from starvation, than going on a rampage to save the frogs without looking at the whole picture.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

savethefrogs said:


> What's wrong with going after smuggling? The Dendroboard community does wholeheartedly agree that removing frogs from the wild for use as pets (against their will, and without their consent) is unethical and should be deterred...right? If you find the poaching of the megafauna in the article disgusting, I'm sure that you all agree that stealing frogs from their families and their homeland is every bit as bad.


Well right off the bat, your commiting a sweeping generalization in that smuggling is equatable to sustainable harvest or even to how harvesting is done in some regions without proof it is sustainable.. 
In addition, your making unsupported claims of sentience, as well as stable kinship bonding which on the face of it are supposed to hold through extended kinship... An odd claim for a frog.... 



savethefrogs said:


> I'm sure no Dendroboard user would want to be stuck in a container with a bunch of sick frogs crawling all over you and possibly dying en route from problems with your new diet as a captive or possibly overheating or freezing in the cargo bin of that third world country's public transportation system.


Again, you are making unsupported claims based on a change in diet being a negative, I have yet to see any peer reviewed information that supports that claim. The rest of that paragraph is a simple appeal to emotion to support the generalization that smuggling is the same as sustainable harvest... etc.... 




savethefrogs said:


> maybe you'd arrive in the USA alive and get sold to a pet store on the corner where you'd sit in a place nowhere as nice as the rainforest stream you came from and then a nice mom would buy you for a few bucks for little Johnnie who really loves frogs but forgets to feed you or turn off the heat lamp and then you die. "It was just a frog though", Dad may say as he throws your carcass out in the backyard. And the chytrid fungus living in your keratinized skin seeps out in the next rain and down to the local stream. And the chytrid fungus infects the native frogs, which have no evolved defenses against chytridiomycosis (the worst disease in recorded history, having caused nearly 100 amphibian species extinctions), and when kids ask you why they never hear frogs calling down at the stream anymore, what will you tell them? Will you say you did your part?


Again sweeping emotional appeals, and ignoring of facts... For someone who was trained as a scientist, you have rapidly abandoned the use of actual facts to defend a point.. For example, your claims on chytrid risk actually totally ignores the fact that chytrid has been endemic in North America since at least the 1960s (1961 in Lithobates clamitans), and is already widespread at the time of this post... And oddly enough on this forum, there are multiple discussions on how to prevent the release of novel strains into the enviroment.. bleaching of waste water and double bagging of all waste materials and discarding into the proper waste stream for proper disposal.... 

It is interesting that I see you are still claiming that your organization is more than it really is.... Funny that you should claim you are the


> world's leading amphibian conservation organization


 totally ignoring the impact of say Amphibian Ark and I see you are still claiming to be the


> is America's first and only public charity dedicated exclusively to amphibian conservation


 which is also a total lie since TWI was incorporated as a public charity dedicated exclusively to amphibian conservation a whole year before you started your program or should I say charade?? 

Have you improved your ratio of salary to programs or are you still sucking approximately 1/3 of the donations off as a salary for yourself? 

For those who want to read about his program I suggest reviewing http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/lounge/77502-save-frogs-day.html#post686205 and http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/62089-revealing-truth-about-save-frogs.html 

I would also suggest contacting your friends if you are on a social media site and suggest to not support him or his agenda... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio (Feb 22, 2009)

I should make sure my statements are clear. I FULLY support the legal, sustainable, and ethical collection of WC frogs for the industry. I do not support it if the above three conditions are not met. 



savethefrogs said:


> Thanks to Blue Pumilio for hitting it dead on: What's wrong with going after smuggling? The Dendroboard community does wholeheartedly agree that removing frogs from the wild for use as pets (against their will, and without their consent) is unethical and should be deterred...right?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

savethefrogs said:


> Thanks to Blue Pumilio for hitting it dead on: What's wrong with going after smuggling? The Dendroboard community does wholeheartedly agree that removing frogs from the wild for use as pets (against their will, and without their consent) is unethical and should be deterred...right? If you find the poaching of the megafauna in the article disgusting, I'm sure that you all agree that stealing frogs from their families and their homeland is every bit as bad.
> 
> I'm sure no Dendroboard user would want to be stuck in a container with a bunch of sick frogs crawling all over you and possibly dying en route from problems with your new diet as a captive or possibly overheating or freezing in the cargo bin of that third world country's public transportation system. Or maybe you'd arrive in the USA alive and get sold to a pet store on the corner where you'd sit in a place nowhere as nice as the rainforest stream you came from and then a nice mom would buy you for a few bucks for little Johnnie who really loves frogs but forgets to feed you or turn off the heat lamp and then you die. "It was just a frog though", Dad may say as he throws your carcass out in the backyard. And the chytrid fungus living in your keratinized skin seeps out in the next rain and down to the local stream. And the chytrid fungus infects the native frogs, which have no evolved defenses against chytridiomycosis (the worst disease in recorded history, having caused nearly 100 amphibian species extinctions), and when kids ask you why they never hear frogs calling down at the stream anymore, what will you tell them? Will you say you did your part?
> Chytrid Fungus
> ...


Kerry, I find it amazing and disappointing that your scientific training has led you to such an unscientific mentality. It's a bit of an embarrassment for the field, in my opinion.

You seem to think that smuggling and legal, sustainable importation are the same. They are not. Legal importation is based in science and often extensive research. Research that seeks to understand impacts of collection and how viable collected populations are. Smuggling is free from this research, and as a consequence, populations can be overexploited. Sustainable harvest is possible because of one of Darwin's central tenets about populations and evolution: all species will produce more offspring than the environment can handle. As a result, less fit individuals would be selected against, whether it is from predation, starvation, or other forms of death. In the case of importing of individuals, humans essentially act as predators, and the legal end will ensure that the predators do not reduce the population to irrecoverable levels, as can happen with non-human predators (and human predators).

It is the same rationale used to set creel limits and bag limits for hunters. In some cases, such is actually necessary to keep prey species from going out of control because the natural predator has been eradicated (i.e., deer). It is a well establish and scientifically viable method of harvest. You are advocating for unscientific views.

Now, let's play hypothetical. It is well established the diseases, not simply chytrid, that wild animals must contend with. Further, endo- and exoparasites are also quite problematic and can lead to deteriorated health in wild frogs. Even the most healthy wild frogs will likely carry parasite loads at some level. Parasites, as we learn in basic ecology, have a negative relationship with their prey. You have always had a very negative view towards keepers, when it is well established that they do a very good job of keeping their frogs healthy and parasite free. So here is the thousand dollar question, you're walking around and you find a frog. On closer examination, you notice that this frog is emaciated and further, has a lot of ticks on it. It is quite apparent that the frog is not long for the world. Do you, against its will and consent as you say, take it in to care for it to bring it back to health, or do you leave it to die and deem it not worth saving? Quite the question indeed.

Now, I have often advocated that you are quite misguided (and brainwashing people) about keeping amphibians. I propose you create a poll with a couple of questions. First question: Are you interested or participating in amphibian conservation? Second question: How did you gain interest in amphibian conservation? And final question: Has your keeping amphibians positively impacted your views on amphibian conservation? I would be willing to bet that your misconceptions would be laid bare.

Do you know why zoos are successful at animal conservation? They get quite a bit of money from the public. They get this money, in part, because people can have a more personal experience with the animals kept at the zoo. They can watch a chimpanzee problem solve or get into mischief. They can feed a dolphin. They can do direct observation of the amazing animals kept at the zoos. It is through that connection that they develop an interest in conserving those animals. Now, imagine if were no zoos or captive animals, as you seem to want. Tigers are still going to be in trouble due to encroachment and hunting. Do you think tiger conservation would be as successful if no one had any interaction with them and only saw pictures? I can absolutely, 100% guarantee that it wouldn't.

Similarly, keeping amphibians offers the same interaction and interest in conservation. In your poll, you can also ask this question. Have you observed these animals in the wild? Again, I would be willing to bet that the majority of people here have not seen dart frogs in the wild, but are interested in amphibian conservation. It is because of that personal interaction people have with their pet frogs that they want to conserve them in the wild.

I don't expect you to reply to this. You've shown time and time again that you're little more than a troll here, and really accentuates your true goals and why STF should not be supported by anyone who is serious about amphibian conservation, because what you are doing is decidedly not amphibian conservation.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

For those that think frogs have families and extended families, you will be happy to know several pairs of tinctorious returned this past week from a vacation with their family over the holidays, they said they had a wonderful visit. Now that they are home here again they are anxious to be reproducing against there will.


----------



## Splash&Dash (Oct 16, 2012)

> Now, I have often advocated that you are quite misguided (and brainwashing people) about keeping amphibians. I propose you create a poll with a couple of questions. First question: Are you interested or participating in amphibian conservation? Second question: How did you gain interest in amphibian conservation? And final question: Has your keeping amphibians positively impacted your views on amphibian conservation? I would be willing to bet that your misconceptions would be laid bare.


-While I share your assumptions here (and often make the same arguments when people start attacking zoos), I think you would also find though the majority expressed public interest in these subjects, that their actions would often go against these ideals

-No comment on the swiss family froggersons aspect of the argument


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Splash&Dash said:


> -While I share your assumptions here (and often make the same arguments when people start attacking zoos), I think you would also find though the majority expressed public interest in these subjects, that their actions would often go against these ideals
> 
> -No comment on the swiss family froggersons aspect of the argument


That's why the questions are stated as they are. I am only interested in those people who are interested in amphibian conservation. My questions sought to find out why they have an interest in it and what motivated it. There would be plenty of people who would say they like amphibian conservation because they like hearing frogs outside, or whatever, but further questions elaborating on it (i.e., why conserve dart frogs? You're not going to hear them in your backyard), I would still bet a great number would be motivated by their experiences in the hobby. You could ask "how does keeping frogs as pets affect your views towards amphibian conservation (positive, negative, no effect)?" I would say most would say positive (of those who said they're interested in amphibian conservation to begin with).


----------



## Splash&Dash (Oct 16, 2012)

MonarchzMan said:


> That's why the questions are stated as they are. I am only interested in those people who are interested in amphibian conservation. My questions sought to find out why they have an interest in it and what motivated it. There would be plenty of people who would say they like amphibian conservation because they like hearing frogs outside, or whatever, but further questions elaborating on it (i.e., why conserve dart frogs? You're not going to hear them in your backyard), I would still bet a great number would be motivated by their experiences in the hobby. You could ask "how does keeping frogs as pets affect your views towards amphibian conservation (positive, negative, no effect)?" I would say most would say positive (of those who said they're interested in amphibian conservation to begin with).


I'm in full agreement with you that interaction develops interest and concern I was just pointing out gained interest doesn't always translate into real world behaviors


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

True. But then again, I would bet that the vast majority of STF supporters don't do a thing for amphibian conservation, either. Even those on this board who are for amphibian conservation likely do not do much for it.


----------



## Splash&Dash (Oct 16, 2012)

MonarchzMan said:


> True. But then again, I would bet that the vast majority of STF supporters don't do a thing for amphibian conservation, either. Even those on this board who are for amphibian conservation likely do not do much for it.


I wasn't attempting to single out the frog hobby, just pointing out ideals don't always translate into responsible behavior. Though I imagine people keeping frogs in captivity have a more direct impact on the situation than those belonging to STF. After all, the later isn't involved in purchasing and keeping the frogs under potential threat


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Splash&Dash said:


> I wasn't attempting to single out the frog hobby, just pointing out ideals don't always translate into responsible behavior. Though I imagine people keeping frogs in captivity have a more direct impact on the situation than those belonging to STF. After all, the later isn't involved in purchasing and keeping the frogs under potential threat


Actually purchase of animals or animal products that are from a sustainable program actually enhances conservation value and functions as a much more efficient program than outright prohibition.. Full on bans/prohibition tend to be wildly unpopular at the source and very difficult to manage/enforce as they not only often don't have support of the locals but local political entities are often against them. For a good review of this I suggest Sanderson, Steven, 2001; Getting biology right in a political sort of way; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York

Where people often have a significant disjunct is that purchasing sustainably produced frogs isn't the only way that sustainable products can support conservation. Any of the products that are sustainable produced can be a significant contributor to ecosystem preservation (an example of this are Brazil nuts).. so you don't just need to support WIKIRI or UnderCanopy Enterprises... there are multiple actions you can take (even purchasing sustianably pasture raised and finished meat and eggs can contribute.....). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------

